A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings Noah Webster 1726 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Collection of Essays and
Fugitiv Writings
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings

Author: Noah Webster

Release date: December 13, 2013 [eBook #44416]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44416

Credits: E-text prepared by Charlene Taylor and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images
generously made available by Internet Archive/American
Libraries (https://archive.org/details/americana)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A COLLECTION
OF ESSAYS AND FUGITIV WRITINGS ***

The Project Gutenberg eBook, A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings,
by Noah Webster

Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet
Archive/American Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/collectionofessa00webs

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
The headings in the table of contents do not always match the headings in
the text. The subsections do not have their own heading, but refer to the
page where the discussion of this topic starts.
The mistakes mentioned in the erratum list on page viii have all been
incorporated in the text and are underlined with a grey line. Other
corrections are underlined with a dotted line. The original text appears when
the cursor is hovered over the marked text. A list of corrections to the text
can be found at the end of the document.

A
COLLECTION of ESSAYS
AND
FUGITIV WRITINGS.
ON
MORAL, HISTORICAL, POLITICAL and LITERARY
SUBJECTS.

BY NOAH WEBSTER, JUN.
ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Heureuses les villes qui, comme les individus, n'ont point encore pris leur
pli! Elles feules peuvent aspirer à des loix unanimes, profondes et sages.
TABLEAU DE PARIS.

PRINTED AT BOSTON, FOR THE AUTHOR,
BY I. THOMAS AND E. T. ANDREWS,
At Faust's Statue, No. 45, Newbury Street.
MDCCXC.

SUBSCRIBERS
The honorable John Adams, Esq. Vice President of the
United States, 2 copies.
The hon. Pierce Butler, Esq.
The hon. Charles Carrol, Esq.
The hon. Oliver Ellsworth, Esq.
The hon. William Few, Esq.
The hon. Benjamin Hawkins,
Esq.
The hon. John Henry, Esq.
— Senators in Congress.
The hon. Ralph Izard, Esq.
The hon. William Samuel
Johnson, Esq.
The hon. Samuel Johnston, Esq.
The hon. Rufus King, Esq.
The hon. Robert Morris, Esq.
The hon. George Read, Esq.
Hon. Jonathan Trumbull, Esq. — Representativs in
Jeremiah Wadsworth, Esq. Congress.

A.
Nathaniel W. Appleton, Physician, Boston.
John Allen, Esq. Attorney at Law, Litchfield.

B.
Isaac Baldwin, Esq. Clerk of Court, Litchfield.
Isaac Baldwin, jun. Esq. Attorney, do.
Mrs. Ruthy Barlow, Greenfield.
Mr. Jesse Benedict, Fairfield.
Mr. Isaac Bronson, Hartford.
Mr. Caleb Bull, do.
Mr. James Burr, do.
Jonathan Brace, Esq. Attorney, Glanstenbury.

David Burr, Esq. Attorney, Fairfield.
Barna Bidwell, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.
John Bird, Esq. Attorney, Salisbury.

C.
Peter Colt, Esq. Treasurer of Connecticut, Hartford.
Mr. John M'Curdy, Merchant, do.
Richard M'Curdy, Esq. Attorney, Lyme.
John Caldwell, Esq. Alderman of the City of Hartford.
Mr. John Chenevard, jun. Hartford.
Hon. John Chester, Esq. Judge of the County Court,
Wethersfield.
Thomas Chester, Esq. Attorney, Wethersfield.
Edward Carrington, Physician, Milford.
Reverend Henry Channing, New London.
Joshua Coit, Esq. Attorney, do.
Mr. Lynde M'Curdy, Merchant, Norwich.
Messieurs Coit and Lathrop, Merchants, do.
Mason F. Cogswell, Physician and Surgeon, Hartford.
Reverend John Clarke, Boston.

D.
Samuel W. Dana, Esq. Attorney, Middleton.
David Daggett, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.
Mr. Benadam Dennison, Norwich.

E.
Pierpont Edwards, Esq. Attorney for Connecticut District,
New Haven.

F.
Mr. Thomas Fanning, Norwich.

G.

William Greenleaf, Esq. Boston.
Chauncey Goodrich, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.
Elizur Goodrich, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.
Gideon Granger, jun. Esq. Attorney, Suffield.
Gaylord Griswold, Esq. Attorney, Windsor.

H.
His Excellency Samuel Huntington, Esq. Governor of
Connecticut.
Lemuel Hopkins, Physician, Hartford.
Mr. Asa Hopkins, Druggist, do.
Uriel Holmes, Esq. Attorney, New Hartford.
Colonel Ebenezer Huntington, Merchant, Norwich.
Mr. Joseph Howland, do.
Mr. Andrew Huntington, Merchant, do.
Mr. Levi Huntington, do.
David Hull, Physician, Fairfield.
William Hillhouse, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.
Captain Pliny Hillyer, Granby.
Samuel Henshaw, Esq. Northampton.

I.
Jonathan Ingersoll, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

J.
William Judd, Esq. Attorney, Farmington, 2 copies.
John Coffin Jones, Esq. Boston.

K.
Mr. Isaac Kibby, Merchant, Enfield.
Ephraim Kirby, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.
Mr. Joshua King, Ridgefield.

L.

Lynde Lord, Esq. Sheriff of Litchfield County, Litchfield.

M.
Reverend Jedidiah Morse, Charlestown.
William Moseley, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.
Samuel Marsh, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.
Mr. John Morgan, Merchant, Hartford.
Mr. William Marsh, do.
Eneas Munson, jun. Physician, New Haven.
Ashur Miller, Esq. Attorney, Middleton.
George R. Minot, Esq. Attorney, Boston.

N.
Hon. Roger Newberry, Esq. Judge of the County Court,
Windsor.

O.
Mr. Jacob Ogden, Merchant, Hartford.
Harrison Gray Otis, Esq. Attorney, Boston.

P.
Ralph Pomeroy, Esq. Controller of the Treasury, Hartford.
Enoch Perkins, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.
Mr. Nathaniel Patten, Merchant, Hartford, 3 copies.
Colonel Joshua Porter, Judge of the County Court,
Salisbury.
Jonas Prentice, jun. Esq. New Haven.
Colonel Noah Phelps, Symsbury.
Giles Pettibone, Esq. Norfolk.

R.
Hon. Jesse Root, Esq. Judge of the Superior Court,
Hartford.
Nathaniel Rosseter, Esq. Guilford.

Ephraim Root, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.
Tapping Reeve, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.

S.
Reverend Nathan Strong, Hartford.
Thomas Y. Seymour, Esq. Attorney, do.
Mr. Isaac Sanford, Goldsmith, do.
Reuben Smith, Esq. Litchfield.
Daniel Sherman, Esq. Chief Judge of County Court,
Woodbury.
General Heman Swift, Cornwall.
Lewis B. Sturgis, Esq. Attorney, Fairfield.
Mr. James Smedley, do.
Zephaniah Swift, Esq. Windham.

T.
John Trumbull, Esq. State Attorney for Hartford County.
Uriah Tracy, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.
Nathaniel Terry, jun. Esq. Attorney, Enfield.
Mr. Thomas Tisdale, Merchant, Hartford.

W.
The Hon. Oliver Walcott, Esq. Lieutenant Governor of
Connecticut, Litchfield.
John Williams, Esq. Attorney, Wethersfield.
William Williston, Esq. Attorney, Symsbury.
Mr. Joseph Williams, Norwich.
Mr. Ashbel Wells, Merchant, Hartford.
Alexander Wolcott, Esq. Attorney, Windsor.
Mr. Thomas Walley, Merchant, Boston.
Thomas Welsh, Physician, Boston.

TO

The P R E S I D E N T,
The V I C E P R E S I D E N T,
The S E N AT O R S, and
The R E P R E S E N T AT I V S
OF THE

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
The following PUBLICATION,
Designed to

Aid the Principles of the Revolution,
TO

Suppress Political Discord,
AND TO

Diffuse a Spirit of Enquiry,
Favorable to Morals, to Science, and Truth,
Is most humbly inscribed,
As a Tribute of Respect for their Karacters,
Of Gratitude for their Public Services,
And a Pledge of Attachment
TO THE

Present CONSTITUTION
OF THE

AMERICAN REPUBLIC,
BY THEIR MOST OBEDIENT,
AND MOST HUMBLE SERVANT,
The Author.
Hartford, June, 1790.

As the author was absent from the press, and the copy, in some places,
obscure or not correct, some errors have unavoidably escaped the notice of
the printers. The following are the most material.
Page
line 7, after corporate add body.
47,
49, line 4 from bottom, for cognized reed organized.
54, line 6 of note, for would reed could.
58, line 7, for contrary reed contracting.
146, last line, for thousand reed hundred.
line 2 from bottom, for jurisdiction reed
151,
usurpation.
263, line 13, for do reed did.
275, line 5, for Archorites reed Archontes.
line 14, for leriquæ reed linguæ, and for dacodeni
283,
duodeni.
323, last line of text, for godfather reed grandfather.
327, line 7 from bottom, for change reed chance.
332, line 7 from bottom, for masks reed marks.
334, line 22, place the full point after equity.
349, line 1, for district reed distinct.
350, line 2, for mass reed map.
355, line 5, for ilans reed clans.
365, line 9, for the manners reed this manner.
375, line 3 and 4 from bottom, for ilans reed ilands.
377, line 4, for Koman reed Roman.
382, line 4 from bottom, for necessarily reed necessary.
401, line 28, for normous reed enormous.

PREFACE.
The following Collection consists of Essays and Fugitiv Peeces, ritten at
various times, and on different occasions, az wil appeer by their dates and
subjects. Many of them were dictated at the moment, by the impulse of
impressions made by important political events, and abound with a
correspondent warmth of expression. This freedom of language wil be
excused by the frends of the revolution and of good guvernment, who wil
recollect the sensations they hav experienced, amidst the anarky and
distraction which succeeded the cloze of the war. On such occasions a riter
wil naturally giv himself up to hiz feelings, and hiz manner of riting wil
flow from hiz manner of thinking.
Most of thoze peeces, which hav appeered before in periodical papers and
Magazeens, were published with fictitious signatures; for I very erly
discuvered, that altho the name of an old and respectable karacter givs
credit and consequence to hiz ritings, yet the name of a yung man iz often
prejudicial to hiz performances. By conceeling my name, the opinions of
men hav been prezerved from an undu bias arizing from personal
prejudices, the faults of the ritings hav been detected, and their merit in
public estimation ascertained.
The favorable reception given to a number of theze Essays by an indulgent
public, induced me to publish them in a volum, with such alterations and
emendations, az I had heerd suggested by frends or indifferent reeders,
together with some manuscripts, that my own wishes led me to hope might
be useful.
During the course of ten or twelv yeers, I hav been laboring to correct
popular errors, and to assist my yung brethren in the road to truth and
virtue; my publications for theze purposes hav been numerous; much time
haz been spent, which I do not regret, and much censure incurred, which
my hart tells me I do not dezerv. The influence of a yung writer cannot be
so powerful or extensiv az that of an established karacter; but I hav ever
thot a man's usefulness depends more on exertion than on talents. I am
attached to America by berth, education and habit; but abuv all, by a
philosophical view of her situation, and the superior advantages she enjoys,
for augmenting the sum of social happiness.

I should hav added another volum, had not recent experience convinced me,
that few large publications in this country wil pay a printer, much less an
author. Should the Essays here presented to the public, proov undezerving
of notice, I shal, with cheerfulness, resign my other papers to oblivion.
The reeder wil obzerv that the orthography of the volum iz not uniform. The
reezon iz, that many of the essays hav been published before, in the
common orthography, and it would hav been a laborious task to copy the
whole, for the sake of changing the spelling.
In the essays, ritten within the last year, a considerable change of spelling iz
introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by the writers
before the age of queen Elizabeth, and to this we are indeted for the
preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. The man
who admits that the change of housbonde, mynde, ygone, moneth into
husband, mind, gone, month, iz an improovment, must acknowlege also the
riting of helth, breth, rong, tung, munth, to be an improovment. There iz no
alternativ. Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for altering the
spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual reform should not
be made in our language, it wil proov that we are less under the influence of
reezon than our ancestors.
Hartford, June, 1790.

CONTENTS.
No. I.
On the Education of Youth in America.

Page
General Remarks. 1
Division of the Subject. Attention to the Dead
Languages. 3
Study of the English Language necessary. 7
Use of the Bible in Skools. 8
Study of Mathematics. 9
Diversity of Studies in the same Skool. 10
Local Situation of Colleges and Academies. 11
On classing Students. 13
Of good Instructors. 15
Fatal Effects of employing Men of low Karacters in
Skools. 18
What Books should be read in Skools. 23
On public Skools—their Importance in a free
Guvernment. 24
On the Education of Females. 27
On a foreign Education. 30
The Tour of America, a necessary Part of a liberal
Education. 35

No. II.
Principles of Guvernment and Commerce.

Origin of Guvernment. 38
Of Representation. ibid.
Of the Executiv and Judicial Powers. 39
Distinction between Laws and legislativ Grants and
Contracts. 40
Of collecting Debts by Law, and of Money. 42
Of Public Justice. 43

No. III.
On Bills or Declarations of Rights.

Necessity and Advantages of such Declarations in
England. 45
Bills of Rights not necessary in America. 46

No. IV.
On Guvernment.

Of the Distinction between a Convention and
Legislature. 49

No. V.

The Subject continued, with a Consideration of Mr.
Jefferson's Arguments in Favor of an unalterable
Constitution. 59

No. VI.

The Subject continued. That the Freemen of a State
hav no Right to bind their Representativs in
Legisture by their own Instructions. 72

No. VII.
Remarks on the Manners, Guvernment and Debt of the United States.

State of America after the War. 81
Causes of Public Unhappiness. 84
Pernicious Effects of Introducing foreign
Manners. 85
--------------------------------- False Taste. 94
Force of Habit in Guvernment. 97
Fatal Effects of a Sudden Influx and fluctuating
Value of Money. 105
Instability of Laws. 112

No. VIII.

On Paper Money. 119

No. IX.

On Redress of Grievances. 125

No. X.

The Influence of the Devil. 127

No. XI.

Desultory Thoughts on the Tranquillity of the
Guvernment of Connecticut, Emissions of Paper
Currency, Union of the States, and Popular
Complaints respecting Lawyers. 132

No. XII.

Advice to Connecticut Folks. 137

No. XIII.

An Address to the Dissenting Members of the late
Convention in Pensylvania. 142

No. XIV.

On Test Laws, Oaths of Allegiance, Abjuration and
partial Exclusions from Office. 151

No. XV.
Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Consequences of the late Revolution.

Ground of European Claims to North America. 154
Origin and Progress of the Controversies respecting
America. 155

Causes of the late War, between Great Britain and
America. 158
Massacre at Boston in 1770. 161
First Congress in 1774. 164
Battle of Lexington, and Progress of the War. 167
Appointment of General Washington to the
Command of the American Armies. 169
Letter from General Washington, explaining the
Circumstances which led to the Capture of Lord
Cornwallis. 180
Treaty of Peace. 182
Consequences of the War. Defects of the
Confederation. 183
Popular Tumults on Account of Half Pay to the
Officers of the Army. 184
---------------- on Account of the Cincinnati. 186
Failure of Public Credit. 187
Insurrection in Massachusetts. 189
Regulation of Prices. 192
History of Paper Money. 194
State of Commerce. 198
Origin of the Convention in 1786. 199
Convention and new Form of Federal
Guvernment. 200
Processions in Honor of the Constitution. 203
First Congress under the Constitution. ibid.

No. XVI.

Remarks on the Method of Burying the Dead among
the Nativs of this Country, compared with that
among the Ancient Britons. 205

No. XVII.

On the Regularity of the City of Philadelphia. 217

No. XVIII.

A Dissertation concerning the Influence of Language
on Opinions, and of Opinions on Language. 222

No. XIX.

Effect of Music on Society. 229

No. XX.

On the Morality of Savage Nations. 233

No. XXI.

A Letter from Constantia, with the Answer. 239

No. XXII.

Letter on the Education of a Young Man, with an
Answer. 245

No. XXIII.
An Enquiry into the Origin of the Words Domesday, Parish, Parliament,
Peer, Baron, with Remarks, new and interesting.

Etymology of Domesday. 250
Probable Etymology of Parish. 252
Etymology of Parliament. 258
--------- of Peer. 261
--------- of Baron. 268
Extract from Camden's Britannia. 291
------- from Sir William Temple's Works. 297
Postscript, with Remarks on Juries after the
Conquest. 299

No. XXIV.

The Injustice, Absurdity, and Bad Policy of Laws
against Usury. 304

No. XXV.

The Grounds and Extent of Allegiance, Natural and
Local. 317

No. XXVI.

Explanation of the Reezons, why Marriage iz
prohibited between Natural Relations, designed to
determin the Propriety of marrying a Wife's
Sister. 322

No. XXVII.
Miscellaneous Remarks on Divisions of Property, Guvernment, Education,
Religion, Agriculture, Slavery, Commerce, Climate and Diseezes in the
United States.

Connection between Property and Power. 326
Tenure of Lands in Europe. ibid.
--------------- in New England—its Effects. 328
Causes which may in Future change our
Governments. 332
Karacter of the First Settlers of New England—their
Institutions—Support of Clergymen, Skools,
Newspapers, Parish Libraries, &c. 332 to 339
Constitution of Connecticut—Origin—Excellencies
and Defects. 340, 347
Remarks on the State of New York. 347
----------------------- New Jersey—Territorial
Controversy between East and West Jersey. 348
Pensylvania-Territorial Controversy between that
State and Connecticut. 355
Maryland. 360
Virginia. 361
Carolinas and Georgia. 364
Agriculture—Influence of Slavery on this. 365
Climate of America. 368

Comparativ Temperature of the Wether in the
Northern and Suthern States. 372

No. XXVIII.

On a Discrimination between the Original and
Purchasing Creditors of the United States. 378

No. XXIX.

An Address to Yung Gentlemen. 387

No. XXX.

An Address to Yung Ladies. 406

A
COLLECTION OF ESSAYS.

No. I.
NEW YORK, 1788.

On the EDUCATION of YOUTH in AMERICA.
he Education of youth is, in all governments, an object
of the first consequence. The impressions received in
early life, usually form the characters of individuals; a
union of which forms the general character of a nation.
The mode of Education and the arts taught to youth,
have, in every nation, been adapted to its particular
stage of society or local circumstances.
In the martial ages of Greece, the principal study of its Legislators was, to
acquaint the young men with the use of arms, to inspire them with an
undaunted courage, and to form in the hearts of both sexes, an invincible
attachment to their country. Such was the effect of their regulations for
these purposes, that the very women of Sparta and Athens, would reproach
their own sons, for surviving their companions who fell in the field of
battle.
Among the warlike Scythians, every male was not only taught to use arms
for attack and defence; but was obliged to sleep in the field, to carry heavy
burthens, and to climb rocks and precipices, in order to habituate himself to
hardships, fatigue and danger.
In Persia, during the flourishing reign of the great Cyrus, the Education of
youth, according to Xenophon, formed a principal branch of the regulations
of the empire. The young men were divided into classes, each of which had
some particular duties to perform, for which they were qualified by
previous instructions and exercise.
While nations are in a barbarous state, they have few wants, and
consequently few arts. Their principal objects are, defence and subsistence;
the Education of a savage therefore extends little farther, than to enable him
to use, with dexterity, a bow and a tomahawk.

But in the progress of manners and of arts, war ceases to be the employment
of whole nations; it becomes the business of a few, who are paid for
defending their country. Artificial wants multiply the number of
occupations; and these require a great diversity in the mode of Education.
Every youth must be instructed in the business by which he is to procure
subsistence. Even the civilities of behavior, in polished society, become a
science; a bow and a curtesy are taught with as much care and precision, as
the elements of Mathematics. Education proceeds therefore, by gradual
advances, from simplicity to corruption. Its first object, among rude nations,
is safety; its next, utility; it afterwards extends to convenience; and among
the opulent part of civilized nations, it is directed principally to show and
amusement.
In despotic states, Education, like religion, is made subservient to
government. In some of the vast empires of Asia, children are always
instructed in the occupation of their parents; thus the same arts are always
continued in the same families. Such an institution cramps genius, and
limits the progress of national improvement; at the same time it is an almost
immoveable barrier against the introduction of vice, luxury, faction and
changes in government. This is one of the principal causes, which have
operated in combining numerous millions of the human race under one
form of government, and preserving national tranquillity for incredible
periods of time. The empire of China, whose government was founded on
the patriarchical discipline, has not suffered a revolution in laws, manners
or language, for many thousand years.
In the complicated systems of government which are established among the
civilized nations of Europe, Education has less influence in forming a
national character; but there is no state, in which it has not an inseparable
connection with morals, and a consequential influence upon the peace and
happiness of society.
Education is a subject which has been exhausted by the ablest writers, both
among the ancients and moderns. I am not vain enough to suppose I can
suggest any new ideas upon so trite a theme as Education in general; but
perhaps the manner of conducting the youth in America may be capable of
some improvement. Our constitutions of civil government are not yet firmly
established; our national character is not yet formed; and it is an object of
vast magnitude that systems of Education should be adopted and pursued,

which may not only diffuse a knowlege of the sciences, but may implant, in
the minds of the American youth, the principles of virtue and of liberty; and
inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government, and with an
inviolable attachment to their own country. It now becomes every American
to examin the modes of Education in Europe, to see how far they are
applicable in this country, and whether it is not possible to make some
valuable alterations, adapted to our local and political circumstances. Let us
examin the subject in two views. First, as it respects arts and sciences.
Secondly, as it is connected with morals and government. In each of these
articles, let us see what errors may be found, and what improvements
suggested, in our present practice.
The first error that I would mention, is, a too general attention to the dead
languages, with a neglect of our own.
This practice proceeds probably from the common use of the Greek and
Roman tongues, before the English was brought to perfection. There was a
long period of time, when these languages were almost the only repositories
of science in Europe. Men, who had a taste for learning, were under a
necessity of recurring to the sources, the Greek and Roman authors. These
will ever be held in the highest estimation both for stile and sentiment; but
the most valuable of them have English translations, which, if they do not
contain all the elegance, communicate all the ideas of the originals. The
English language, perhaps, at this moment, is the repository of as much
learning, as one half the languages of Europe. In copiousness it exceeds all
modern tongues; and though inferior to the Greek and French in softness
and harmony, yet it exceeds the French in variety; it almost equals the
Greek and Roman in energy, and falls very little short of any language in
the regularity of its construction.[1]
In deliberating upon any plan of instruction, we should be attentive to its
future influence and probable advantages. What advantage does a merchant,
a mechanic, a farmer, derive from an acquaintance with the Greek and
Roman tongues? It is true, the etymology of words cannot be well
understood, without a knowlege of the original languages of which ours is
composed. But a very accurate knowlege of the meaning of words and of
the true construction of sentences, may be obtained by the help of
Dictionaries and good English writers; and this is all that is necessary in the
common occupations of life. But suppose there is some advantage to be

derived from an acquaintance with the dead languages, will this compensate
for the loss of five or perhaps seven years of valuable time? Life is short,
and every hour should be employed to good purposes. If there are no
studies of more consequence to boys, than those of Latin and Greek, let
these languages employ their time; for idleness is the bane of youth. But
when we have an elegant and copious language of our own, with
innumerable writers upon ethics, geography, history, commerce and
government; subjects immediately interesting to every man; how can a
parent be justified in keeping his son several years over rules of Syntax,
which he forgets when he shuts his book; or which, if remembered, can be
of little or no use in any branch of business? This absurdity is the subject of
common complaint; men see and feel the impropriety of the usual practice;
and yet no arguments that have hitherto been used, have been sufficient to
change the system; or to place an English school on a footing with a Latin
one, in point of reputation.
It is not my wish to discountenance totally the study of the dead languages.
On the other hand I should urge a more close attention to them, among
young men who are designed for the learned professions. The poets, the
orators, the philosophers and the historians of Greece and Rome, furnish the
most excellent models of Stile, and the richest treasures of Science. The
slight attention given to a few of these authors, in our usual course of
Education, is rather calculated to make pedants than scholars; and the time
employed in gaining superficial knowlege is really wasted.[2]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."

But my meaning is, that the dead languages are not necessary for men of
business, merchants, mechanics, planters, &c. nor of utility sufficient to
indemnify them for the expense of time and money which is requisite to
acquire a tolerable acquaintance with the Greek and Roman authors.
Merchants often have occasion for a knowlege of some foreign living
language, as, the French, the Italian, the Spanish, or the German; but men,
whose business is wholly domestic, have little or no use for any language
but their own; much less, for languages known only in books.

There is one very necessary use of the Latin language, which will always
prevent it from falling into neglect; which is, that it serves as a common
interpreter among the learned of all nations and ages. Epitaphs, inscriptions
on monuments and medals, treaties, &c. designed for perpetuity, are written
in Latin, which is every where understood by the learned, and being a dead
language is liable to no change.
But the high estimation in which the learned languages have been held, has
discouraged a due attention to our own. People find themselves able
without much study to write and speak the English intelligibly, and thus
have been led to think rules of no utility. This opinion has produced various
and arbitrary practices, in the use of the language, even among men of the
most information and accuracy; and this diversity has produced another
opinion, both false and injurious to the language, that there are no rules or
principles on which the pronunciation and construction can be settled.
This neglect is so general, that there is scarcely an institution to be found in
the country, where the English tongue is taught regularly, from its elements
to its true and elegant construction, in prose and verse. Perhaps in most
schools, boys are taught the definition of the parts of speech, and a few hard
names which they do not understand, and which the teacher seldom
attempts to explain; this is called learning grammar. This practice of
learning questions and answers without acquiring any ideas, has given rise
to a common remark, that grammar is a dry study; and so is every other
study which is prosecuted without improving the head or the heart. The
study of geography is equally dry, when the subject is not understood. But
when grammar is taught by the help of visible objects; when children
perceive that differences of words arise from differences in things, which
they may learn at a very early period of life, the study becomes entertaining,
as well as improving. In general, when a study of any kind is tiresome to a
person, it is a presumptive evidence that he does not make any proficiency
in knowlege, and this is almost always the fault of the instructor.
In a few instances perhaps the study of English is thought an object of
consequence; but here also there is a great error in the common practice; for
the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and
Greek. Nay, there are men, who contend that the best way to become
acquainted with English, is to learn Latin first. Common sense may justly
smile at such an opinion; but experience proves it to be false.

If language is to be taught mechanically, or by rote, it is a matter of little
consequence whether the rules are in English, Latin or Greek: But if
children are to acquire ideas, it is certainly easier to obtain them in a
language which they understand, than in a foreign tongue. The distinctions
between the principal parts of speech are founded in nature, and are within
the capacity of a school boy. These distinctions should be explained in
English, and when well understood, will facilitate the acquisition of other
languages. Without some preparation of this kind, boys will often find a
foreign language extremely difficult, and sometimes be discouraged. We
often see young persons of both sexes, puzzling their heads with French,
when they can hardly write two sentences of good English. They plod on
for some months with much fatigue, little improvement, and less pleasure,
and then relinquish the attempt.
The principles of any science afford pleasure to the student who
comprehends them. In order to render the study of language agreeable, the
distinctions between words should be illustrated by the differences in
visible objects. Examples should be presented to the senses, which are the
inlets of all our knowlege. That nouns are the names of things, and that
adjectives express their qualities, are abstract definitions, which a boy may
repeat five years without comprehending the meaning. But that table is the
name of an article, and hard or square is its property, is a distinction
obvious to the senses, and consequently within a child's capacity.
There is one general practice in schools, which I censure with diffidence;
not because I doubt the propriety of the censure, but because it is opposed
to deep rooted prejudices: This practice is the use of the Bible as a school
book. There are two reasons why this practice has so generally prevailed:
The first is, that families in the country are not generally supplied with any
other book: The second, an opinion that the reading of the scriptures will
impress, upon the minds of youth, the important truths of religion and
morality. The first may be easily removed; and the purpose of the last is
counteracted by the practice itself.
If people design the doctrines of the Bible as a system of religion, ought
they to appropriate the book to purposes foreign to this design? Will not a
familiarity, contracted by a careless disrespectful reading of the sacred
volume, weaken the influence of its precepts upon the heart?

Let us attend to the effect of familiarity in other things.
The rigid Puritans, who first settled the New England States, often chose
their burying ground in the center of their settlements. Convenience might
have been a motive for the choice; but it is probable that a stronger reason
was, the influence which they supposed the frequent burials and constant
sight of the tombs would have upon the lives of men. The choice, however,
for the latter purpose, was extremely injudicious; for it may be laid down as
a general rule, that those who live in a constant view of death, will become
hardened to its terrors.
No person has less sensibility than the Surgeon, who has been accustomed
to the amputation of limbs. No person thinks less of death, than the Soldier,
who has frequently walked over the carcasses of his slain comrades; or the
Sexton, who lives among the tombs.
Objects that affect the mind strongly, whether the sensations they excite are
painful or pleasureable, always lose their effect by a frequent repetition of
their impressions.[3] Those parts of the scripture, therefore, which are
calculated to strike terror to the mind, lose their influence by being too
frequently brought into view. The same objection will not apply to the
history and morality of the Bible; select passages of which may be read in
schools to great advantage. In some countries, the common people are not
permitted to read the Bible at all: In ours, it is as common as a newspaper,
and in schools, is read with nearly the same degree of respect. Both these
practices appear to be extremes. My wish is not to see the Bible excluded
from schools, but to see it used as a system of religion and morality.
These remarks suggest another error which is often committed in our
inferior schools: I mean that of putting boys into difficult sciences, while
they are too young to exercise their reason upon abstract subjects. For
example; boys are often put to the study of mathematics, at the age of eight
or ten years; and before they can either read or write. In order to show the
impropriety of such a practice, it is necessary to repeat what was just now
observed, that our senses are the avenues of knowlege. This fact proves that
the most natural course of Education is that which employs, first the senses
or powers of the body, or those faculties of the mind which first acquire
strength; and then proceeds to those studies which depend on the power of
comparing and combining ideas. The art of writing is mechanical and

imitative; this may therefore employ boys, as soon as their fingers have
strength sufficient to command a pen. A knowledge of letters requires the
exercise of a mental power, memory; but this is coeval almost with the first
operations of the human mind; and with respect to objects of sense, is
almost perfect even in childhood. Children may therefore be taught reading,
as soon as their organs of speech have acquired strength sufficient to
articulate the sounds of words.[4]
But those sciences, a knowlege of which is acquired principally by the
reasoning faculties, should be postponed to a more advanced period of life.
In the course of an English Education, mathematics should be perhaps the
last study of youth in schools. Years of valuable time are sometimes thrown
away, in a fruitless application to sciences, the principles of which are
above the comprehension of the students.
There is no particular age, at which every boy is qualified to enter upon
mathematics to advantage. The proper time can be best determined by the
instructors, who are acquainted with the different capacities of their pupils.
Another error, which is frequent in America, is that a master undertakes to
teach many different branches in the same school. In new settlements,
where people are poor, and live in scattered situations, the practice is often
unavoidable: But in populous towns, it must be considered as a defective
plan of Education. For suppose the teacher to be equally master of all the
branches which he attempts to teach, which seldom happens, yet his
attention must be distracted with a multiplicity of objects, and consequently
painful to himself and not useful to the pupils. Add to this the continual
interruptions which the students of one branch suffer from those of another,
which must retard the progress of the whole school. It is a much more
eligible plan to appropriate an apartment to each branch of Education, with
a teacher who makes that branch his sole employment. The principal
academies in Europe and America are on this plan, which both reason and
experience prove to be the most useful.
With respect to literary institutions of the first rank, it appears to me that
their local situations are an object of importance. It is a subject of
controversy, whether a large city or a country village is the most eligible
situation for a college or university. But the arguments in favor of the latter,
appear to me decisive. Large cities are always scenes of dissipation and

amusement, which have a tendency to corrupt the hearts of youth and divert
their minds from their literary pursuits. Reason teaches this doctrine, and
experience has uniformly confirmed the truth of it.
Strict discipline is essential to the prosperity of a public seminary of
science; and this is established with more facility, and supported with more
uniformity, in a small village, where there are no great objects of curiosity
to interrupt the studies of youth or to call their attention from the orders of
the society.
That the morals of young men, as well as their application to science,
depend much on retirement, will be generally acknowleged; but it will be
said also, that the company in large towns will improve their manners. The
question then is, which shall be sacrificed; the advantage of an uncorrupted
heart and an improved head; or of polished manners. But this question
supposes that the virtues of the heart and the polish of the gentleman are
incompatible with each other; which is by no means true. The gentleman
and the scholar are often united in the same person. But both are not formed
by the same means. The improvement of the head requires close application
to books; the refinement of manners rather attends some degree of
dissipation, or at least a relaxation of the mind. To preserve the purity of the
heart, it is sometimes necessary, and always useful, to place a youth beyond
the reach of bad examples; whereas a general knowlege of the world, of all
kinds of company, is requisite to teach a universal propriety of behavior.
But youth is the time to form both the head and the heart. The
understanding is indeed ever enlarging; but the seeds of knowlege should be
planted in the mind, while it is young and susceptible; and if the mind is not
kept untainted in youth, there is little probability that the moral character of
the man will be unblemished. A genteel address, on the other hand, may be
acquired at any time of life, and must be acquired, if ever, by mingling with
good company. But were the cultivation of the understanding and of the
heart, inconsistent with genteel manners, still no rational person could
hesitate which to prefer. The goodness of a heart is of infinitely more
consequence to society, than an elegance of manners; nor will any
superficial accomplishments repair the want of principle in the mind. It is
always better to be vulgarly right, than politely wrong.

But if the amusements, dissipation and vicious examples in populous cities
render them improper places for seats of learning; the monkish mode of
sequestering boys from other society, and confining them to the apartments
of a college, appears to me another fault. The human mind is like a rich
field, which, without constant care, will ever be covered with a luxuriant
growth of weeds. It is extremely dangerous to suffer young men to pass the
most critical period of life, when the passions are strong, the judgement
weak, and the heart susceptible and unsuspecting, in a situation where there
is not the least restraint upon their inclinations. My own observations lead
me to draw the veil of silence over the ill effects of this practice. But it is to
be wished that youth might always be kept under the inspection of age and
superior wisdom; that literary institutions might be so situated, that the
students might live in decent families, be subject, in some measure, to their
discipline, and ever under the control of those whom they respect.
Perhaps it may also be numbered among the errors in our systems of
Education, that, in all our universities and colleges, the students are all
restricted to the same course of study, and by being classed, limited to the
same progress. Classing is necessary, but whether students should not be
removeable from the lower to the higher classes, as a reward for their
superior industry and improvements, is submitted to those who know the
effect of emulation upon the human mind.
But young gentlemen are not all designed for the same line of business, and
why should they pursue the same studies? Why should a merchant trouble
himself with the rules of Greek and Roman syntax, or a planter puzzle his
head with conic sections? Life is too short to acquire, and the mind of man
too feeble to contain, the whole circle of sciences. The greatest genius on
earth, not even a Bacon, can be a perfect master of every branch; but any
moderate genius may, by suitable application, be perfect in any one branch.
By attempting therefore to teach young gentlemen every thing, we make the
most of them mere smatterers in science. In order to qualify persons to
figure in any profession, it is necessary that they should attend closely to
those branches of learning which lead to it.
There are some arts and sciences which are necessary for every man. Every
man should be able to speak and write his native tongue with correctness;
and have some knowlege of mathematics. The rules of arithmetic are
indispensably requisite. But besides the learning which is of common

utility, lads should be directed to pursue those branches which are
connected more immediately with the business for which they are destined.
It would be very useful for the farming part of the community, to furnish
country schools with some easy system of practical husbandry. By
repeatedly reading some book of this kind, the mind would be stored with
ideas, which might not indeed be understood in youth, but which would be
called into practice in some subsequent period of life. This would lead the
mind to the subject of agriculture, and pave the way for improvements.
Young gentlemen, designed for the mercantile line, after having learned to
write and speak English correctly, might attend to French, Italian, or such
other living language, as they will probably want in the course of business.
These languages should be learned early in youth, while the organs are yet
pliable; otherwise the pronunciation will probably be imperfect. These
studies might be succeeded by some attention to chronology, and a regular
application to geography, mathematics, history, the general regulations of
commercial nations, principles of advance in trade, of insurance, and to the
general principles of government.
It appears to me that such a course of Education, which might be completed
by the age of fifteen or sixteen, would have a tendency to make better
merchants than the usual practice which confines boys to Lucian, Ovid and
Tully, till they are fourteen, and then turns them into a store, without an idea
of their business, or one article of Education necessary for them, except
perhaps a knowlege of writing and figures.
Such a system of English Education is also much preferable to a university
Education, even with the usual honors; for it might be finished so early as to
leave young persons time to serve a regular apprenticeship, without which
no person should enter upon business. But by the time a university
Education is completed, young men commonly commence gentlemen; their
age and their pride will not suffer them to go thro the drudgery of a
compting house, and they enter upon business without the requisite
accomplishments. Indeed it appears to me that what is now called a liberal
Education, disqualifies a man for business. Habits are formed in youth and
by practice; and as business is, in some measure, mechanical, every person
should be exercised in his employment, in an early period of life, that his
habits may be formed by the time his apprenticeship expires. An Education

in a university interferes with the forming of these habits; and perhaps
forms opposite habits; the mind may contract a fondness for ease, for
pleasure or for books, which no efforts can overcome. An academic
Education, which should furnish the youth with some ideas of men and
things, and leave time for an apprenticeship, before the age of twenty one
years, would in my opinion, be the most eligible for young men who are
designed for activ employments.
The method pursued in our colleges is better calculated to fit youth for the
learned professions than for business. But perhaps the period of study,
required as the condition of receiving the usual degrees, is too short. Four
years, with the most assiduous application, are a short time to furnish the
mind with the necessary knowlege of the languages and of the several
sciences. It might perhaps have been a period sufficiently long for an infant
settlement, as America was, at the time when most of our colleges were
founded. But as the country becomes populous, wealthy and respectable, it
may be worthy of consideration, whether the period of academic life should
not be extended to six or seven years.
But the principal defect in our plan of Education in America, is, the want of
good teachers in the academies and common schools. By good teachers I
mean, men of unblemished reputation, and possessed of abilities, competent
to their stations. That a man should be master of what he undertakes to
teach, is a point that will not be disputed; and yet it is certain that abilities
are often dispensed with, either thro inattention or fear of expense.
To those who employ ignorant men to instruct their children, permit me to
suggest one important idea: That it is better for youth to have no Education,
than to have a bad one; for it is more difficult to eradicate habits, than to
impress new ideas. The tender shrub is easily bent to any figure; but the
tree, which has acquired its full growth, resists all impressions.
Yet abilities are not the sole requisites. The instructors of youth ought, of all
men, to be the most prudent, accomplished, agreeable and respectable.
What avail a man's parts, if, while he is the "wisest and brightest," he is the
"meanest of mankind?" The pernicious effects of bad example on the minds
of youth will probably be acknowleged; but with a view to improvement, it
is indispensably necessary that the teachers should possess good breeding
and agreeable manners. In order to give full effect to instructions, it is

requisite that they should proceed from a man who is loved and respected.
But a low bred clown, or morose tyrant, can command neither love nor
respect; and that pupil who has no motive for application to books, but the
fear of a rod, will not make a scholar.
The rod is often necessary in school; especially after the children have been
accustomed to disobedience and a licentious behavior at home. All
government originates in families, and if neglected there, it will hardly exist
in society; but the want of it must be supplied by the rod in school, the
penal laws of the state, and the terrors of divine wrath from the pulpit. The
government both of families and schools should be absolute. There should,
in families, be no appeal from one parent to another, with the prospect of
pardon for offences. The one should always vindicate, at least apparently,
the conduct of the other. In schools the master should be absolute in
command; for it is utterly impossible for any man to support order and
discipline among children, who are indulged with an appeal to their parents.
A proper subordination in families would generally supersede the necessity
of severity in schools; and a strict discipline in both is the best foundation
of good order in political society.
If parents should say, "we cannot give the instructors of our children
unlimited authority over them, for it may be abused and our children
injured;" I would answer, they must not place them under the direction of
any man, in whose temper, judgement and abilities, they do not repose
perfect confidence. The teacher should be, if such can be found, as
judicious and reasonable a man as the parent.
There can be little improvement in schools, without strict subordination;
there can be no subordination, without principles of esteem and respect in
the pupils; and the pupils cannot esteem and respect a man who is not in
himself respectable, and who is not treated with respect by their parents. It
may be laid down as an invariable maxim, that a person is not fit to
superintend the Education of children, who has not the qualifications which
will command the esteem and respect of his pupils. This maxim is founded
on a truth which every person may have observed; that children always love
an amiable man, and always esteem a respectable one. Men and women
have their passions, which often rule their judgement and their conduct.
They have their caprices, their interests and their prejudices, which at times
incline them to treat the most meritorious characters with disrespect. But

children, artless and unsuspecting, resign their hearts to any person whose
manners are agreeable, and whose conduct is respectable. Whenever,
therefore, pupils cease to respect their teacher, he should be instantly
dismissed.
Respect for an instructor will often supply the place of a rod of correction.
The pupil's attachment will lead him to close attention to his studies; he
fears not the rod so much as the displeasure of his teacher; he waits for a
smile, or dreads a frown; he receives his instructions and copies his
manners. This generous principle, the fear of offending, will prompt youth
to exertions; and instead of severity on the one hand, and of slavish fear,
with reluctant obedience on the other, mutual esteem, respect and
confidence strew flowers in the road to knowlege.
With respect to morals and civil society, the other view in which I proposed
to treat this subject, the effects of Education are so certain and extensiv, that
it behooves every parent and guardian to be particularly attentiv to the
characters of the men, whose province it is to form the minds of youth.
From a strange inversion of the order of nature, the cause of which it is not
necessary to unfold, the most important business in civil society, is, in many
parts of America, committed to the most worthless characters. The
Education of youth, an employment of more consequence than making laws
and preaching the gospel, because it lays the foundation on which both law
and gospel rest for success; this Education is sunk to a level with the most
menial services. In most instances we find the higher seminaries of learning
intrusted to men of good characters, and possessed of the moral virtues and
social affections. But many of our inferior schools, which, so far as the
heart is concerned, are as important as colleges, are kept by men of no
breeding, and many of them, by men infamous for the most detestable
vices.[5] Will this be denied? will it be denied, that before the war, it was a
frequent practice for gentlemen to purchase convicts, who had been
transported for their crimes, and employ them as private tutors in their
families?
Gracious Heavens! Must the wretches, who have forfeited their lives, and
been pronounced unworthy to be inhabitants of a foreign country, be
entrusted with the Education, the morals, the character of American youth?

Will it be denied that many of the instructors of youth, whose examples and
precepts should form their minds for good men and useful citizens, are
often found to sleep away, in school, the fumes of a debauch, and to stun
the ears of their pupils with frequent blasphemy? It is idle to suppress such
truths; nay more, it is wicked. The practice of employing low and vicious
characters to direct the studies of youth, is, in a high degree, criminal; it is
destructive of the order and peace of society; it is treason against morals,
and of course, against government; it ought to be arraigned before the
tribunal of reason, and condemned by all intelligent beings. The practice is
so exceedingly absurd, that it is surprising it could ever have prevailed
among rational people. Parents wish their children to be well bred, yet place
them under the care of clowns. They wish to secure their hearts from vicious
principles and habits, yet commit them to the care of men of the most
profligate lives. They wish to have their children taught obedience and
respect for superiors, yet give them a master that both parents and children
despise. A practice so glaringly absurd and irrational has no name in any
language! Parents themselves will not associate with the men, whose
company they oblige their children to keep, even in that most important
period, when habits are forming for life.[6]
Are parents and guardians ignorant, that children always imitate those with
whom they live or associate? That a boy, bred in the woods, will be a
savage? That another, bred in the army, will have the manners of a soldier?
That a third, bred in a kitchen, will speak the language, and possess the
ideas, of servants? And that a fourth, bred in genteel company, will have the
manners of a gentleman? We cannot believe that many people are ignorant
of these truths. Their conduct therefore can be ascribed to nothing but
inattention or fear of expense. It is perhaps literally true, that a wild life
among savages is preferable to an Education in a kitchen, or under a
drunken tutor; for savages would leave the mind uncorrupted with the vices,
which reign among slaves and the depraved part of civilized nations. It is
therefore a point of infinite importance to society, that youth should not
associate with persons whose manners they ought not to imitate; much less
should they be doomed to pass the most susceptable period of life, with
clowns, profligates and slaves.
There are people so ignorant of the constitution of our natures, as to declare,
that young people should see vices and their consequences, that they may

learn to detest and shun them. Such reasoning is like that of the novel
writers, who attempt to defend their delineations of abandoned characters;
and that of stage players, who would vindicate the obscene exhibitions of a
theater; but the reasoning is totally false.[7] Vice always spreads by being
published; young people are taught many vices by fiction, books or public
exhibitions; vices, which they never would have known, had they never
read such books or attended such public places. Crimes of all kinds, vices,
judicial trials necessarily obscene, and infamous punishments, should, if
possible, be concealed from the young. An examination in a court of justice
may teach the tricks of a knave, the arts of a thief, and the evasions of
hackneyed offenders, to a dozen young culprits, and even tempt those who
have never committed a crime, to make a trial of their skill. A newspaper
may spread crimes; by communicating to a nation the knowlege of an
ingenious trick of villainy, which, had it been suppressed, might have died
with its first inventor. It is not true that the effects of vice and crimes deter
others from the practice; except when rarely seen. On the other hand,
frequent exhibitions either cease to make any impressions on the minds of
spectators, or else reconcile them to a course of life, which at first was
disagreeable.

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

For these reasons, children should keep the best of company, that they
might have before them the best manners, the best breeding, and the best
conversation. Their minds should be kept untainted, till their reasoning
faculties have acquired strength, and the good principles which may be
planted in their minds, have taken deep root. They will then be able to make
a firm and probably a successful resistance, against the attacks of secret
corruption and brazen libertinism.
Our legislators frame laws for the suppression of vice and immorality; our
divines thunder, from the pulpit, the terrors of infinite wrath, against the
vices that stain the characters of men. And do laws and preaching effect a
reformation of manners? Experience would not give a very favorable
answer to this inquiry. The reason is obvious; the attempts are directed to

the wrong objects. Laws can only check the public effects of vicious
principles; but can never reach the principles themselves; and preaching is
not very intelligible to people, till they arrive at an age when their principles
are rooted, or their habits firmly established. An attempt to eradicate old
habits, is as absurd, as to lop off the branches of a huge oak, in order to root
it out of a rich soil. The most that such clipping will effect, is to prevent a
further growth.
The only practicable method to reform mankind, is to begin with children;
to banish, if possible, from their company, every low bred, drunken,
immoral character. Virtue and vice will not grow together in a great degree,
but they will grow where they are planted, and when one has taken root, it
is not easily supplanted by the other. The great art of correcting mankind
therefore, consists in prepossessing the mind with good principles.
For this reason society requires that the Education of youth should be
watched with the most scrupulous attention. Education, in a great measure,
forms the moral characters of men, and morals are the basis of government.
[8] Education should therefore be the first care of a Legislature; not merely
the institution of schools, but the furnishing of them with the best men for
teachers. A good system of Education should be the first article in the code
of political regulations; for it is much easier to introduce and establish an
effectual system for preserving morals, than to correct, by penal statutes, the
ill effects of a bad system. I am so fully persuaded of this, that I shall almost
adore that great man, who shall change our practice and opinions, and make
it respectable for the first and best men to superintend the Education of
youth.
Another defect in our schools, which, since the revolution, is become
inexcuseable, is the want of proper books. The collections which are now
used consist of essays that respect foreign and ancient nations. The minds of
youth are perpetually led to the history of Greece and Rome or to Great
Britain; boys are constantly repeating the declamations of Demosthenes and
Cicero, or debates upon some political question in the British Parliment.
These are excellent specimens of good sense, polished stile and perfect
oratory; but they are not interesting to children. They cannot be very useful,
except to young gentlemen who want them as models of reasoning and
eloquence, in the pulpit or at the bar.

But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He
should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in
life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the
history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those
illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her
favor.
A selection of essays, respecting the settlement and geography of America;
the history of the late revolution and of the most remarkable characters and
events that distinguished it, and a compendium of the principles of the
federal and provincial governments, should be the principal school book in
the United States. These are interesting objects to every man; they call
home the minds of youth and fix them upon the interests of their own
country, and they assist in forming attachments to it, as well as in enlarging
the understanding.
"It is observed by the great Montesquieu, that the laws of education ought
to be relative to the principles of the government."[9]
In despotic governments, the people should have little or no education,
except what tends to inspire them with a servile fear. Information is fatal to
despotism.
In monarchies, education should be partial, and adapted to the rank of each
class of citizens. But "in a republican government," says the same writer,
"the whole power of education is required." Here every class of people
should know and love the laws. This knowlege should be diffused by means
of schools and newspapers; and an attachment to the laws may be formed
by early impressions upon the mind.
Two regulations are essential to the continuance of republican governments:
1. Such a distribution of lands and such principles of descent and alienation,
as shall give every citizen a power of acquiring what his industry merits.[10]
2. Such a system of education as gives every citizen an opportunity of
acquiring knowlege and fitting himself for places of trust. These are
fundamental articles; the sine qua non of the existence of the American
republics.
Hence the absurdity of our copying the manners and adopting the
institutions of Monarchies.

In several States, we find laws passed, establishing provision for colleges
and academies, where people of property may educate their sons; but no
provision is made for instructing the poorer rank of people, even in reading
and writing. Yet in these same States, every citizen who is worth a few
shillings annually, is entitled to vote for legislators.[11] This appears to me a
most glaring solecism in government. The constitutions are republican, and
the laws of education are monarchical. The former extend civil rights to
every honest industrious man; the latter deprive a large proportion of the
citizens of a most valuable privilege.
In our American republics, where government is in the hands of the people,
knowlege should be universally diffused by means of public schools. Of
such consequence is it to society, that the people who make laws, should be
well informed, that I conceive no Legislature can be justified in neglecting
proper establishments for this purpose.
When I speak of a diffusion of knowlege, I do not mean merely a knowlege
of spelling books, and the New Testament. An acquaintance with ethics, and
with the general principles of law, commerce, money and government, is
necessary for the yeomanry of a republican state. This acquaintance they
might obtain by means of books calculated for schools, and read by the
children, during the winter months, and by the circulation of public papers.
"In Rome it was the common exercise of boys at school, to learn the laws of
the twelve tables by heart, as they did their poets and classic authors."[12]
What an excellent practice this in a free government!
It is said, indeed by many, that our common people are already too well
informed. Strange paradox! The truth is, they have too much knowlege and
spirit to resign their share in government, and are not sufficiently informed
to govern themselves in all cases of difficulty.
There are some acts of the American legislatures which astonish men of
information; and blunders in legislation are frequently ascribed to bad
intentions. But if we examin the men who compose these legislatures, we
shall find that wrong measures generally proceed from ignorance either in
the men themselves, or in their constituents. They often mistake their own
interest, because they do not foresee the remote consequences of a measure.

It may be true that all men cannot be legislators; but the more generally
knowlege is diffused among the substantial yeomanry, the more perfect will
be the laws of a republican state.
Every small district should be furnished with a school, at least four months
in a year; when boys are not otherwise employed. This school should be
kept by the most reputable and well informed man in the district. Here
children should be taught the usual branches of learning: submission to
superiors and to laws; the moral or social duties; the history and
transactions of their own country; the principles of liberty and government.
Here the rough manners of the wilderness should be softened, and the
principles of virtue and good behaviour inculcated. The virtues of men are
of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the
heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.
Such a general system of education is neither impracticable nor difficult;
and excepting the formation of a federal government that shall be efficient
and permanent, it demands the first attention of American patriots. Until
such a system shall be adopted and pursued; until the Statesman and Divine
shall unite their efforts in forming the human mind, rather than in loping its
excressences, after it has been neglected; until Legislators discover that the
only way to make good citizens and subjects, is to nourish them from
infancy; and until parents shall be convinced that the worst of men are not
the proper teachers to make the best; mankind cannot know to what a
degree of perfection society and government may be carried. America
affords the fairest opportunities for making the experiment, and opens the
most encouraging prospect of success.[13]
In a system of education, that should embrace every part of the community,
the female sex claim no inconsiderable share of our attention.
The women in America (to their honor it is mentioned) are not generally
above the care of educating their own children. Their own education should
therefore enable them to implant in the tender mind, such sentiments of
virtue, propriety and dignity, as are suited to the freedom of our
governments. Children should be treated as children, but as children that
are, in a future time, to be men and women. By treating them as if they were
always to remain children, we very often see their childishness adhere to
them, even in middle life. The silly language called baby talk, in which

most persons are initiated in infancy, often breaks out in discourse, at the
age of forty, and makes a man appear very ridiculous.[14] In the same
manner, vulgar, obscene and illiberal ideas, imbibed in a nursery or a
kitchen, often give a tincture to the conduct through life. In order to prevent
every evil bias, the ladies, whose province it is to direct the inclinations of
children on their first appearance, and to choose their nurses, should be
possessed, not only of amiable manners, but of just sentiments and enlarged
understandings.
But the influence of women in forming the dispositions of youth, is not the
sole reason why their education should be particularly guarded; their
influence in controling the manners of a nation, is another powerful reason.
Women, once abandoned, may be instrumental in corrupting society; but
such is the delicacy of the sex, and such the restraints which custom
imposes upon them, that they are generally the last to be corrupted. There
are innumerable instances of men, who have been restrained from a vicious
life, and even of very abandoned men, who have been reclaimed, by their
attachment to ladies of virtue. A fondness for the company and conversation
of ladies of character, may be considered as a young man's best security
against the attractives of a dissipated life. A man who is attached to good
company, seldom frequents that which is bad. For this reason, society
requires that females should be well educated, and extend their influence as
far as possible over the other sex.
But a distinction is to be made between a good education, and a showy one;
for an education, merely superficial, is a proof of corruption of taste, and
has a mischievous influence on manners. The education of females, like that
of males, should be adapted to the principles of the government, and
correspond with the stage of society. Education in Paris differs from that in
Petersburg, and the education of females in London or Paris should not be a
model for the Americans to copy.
In all nations a good education, is that which renders the ladies correct in
their manners, respectable in their families, and agreeable in society. That
education is always wrong, which raises a woman above the duties of her
station.
In America, female education should have for its object what is useful.
Young ladies should be taught to speak and write their own language with

purity and elegance; an article in which they are often deficient. The French
language is not necessary for ladies. In some cases it is convenient, but, in
general, it may be considered as an article of luxury. As an accomplishment,
it may be studied by those whose attention is not employed about more
important concerns.
Some knowlege of arithmetic is necessary for every lady. Geography should
never be neglected. Belles Letters learning seems to correspond with the
dispositions of most females. A taste for Poetry and fine writing should be
cultivated; for we expect the most delicate sentiments from the pens of that
sex, which is possessed of the finest feelings.
A course of reading can hardly be prescribed for all ladies. But it should be
remarked, that this sex cannot be too well acquainted with the writers upon
human life and manners. The Spectator should fill the first place in every
lady's library. Other volumes of periodical papers, tho inferior to the
Spectator, should be read; and some of the best histories.
With respect to novels, so much admired by the young, and so generally
condemned by the old, what shall I say? Perhaps it may be said with truth,
that some of them are useful, many of them pernicious, and most of them
trifling. A hundred volumes of modern novels may be read, without
acquiring a new idea. Some of them contain entertaining stories, and where
the descriptions are drawn from nature, and from characters and events in
themselves innocent, the perusal of them may be harmless.
Were novels written with a view to exhibit only one side of human nature,
to paint the social virtues, the world would condemn them as defective: But
I should think them more perfect. Young people, especially females, should
not see the vicious part of mankind. At best novels may be considered as the
toys of youth; the rattle boxes of sixteen. The mechanic gets his pence for
his toys, and the novel writer, for his books; and it would be happy for
society, if the latter were in all cases as innocent play things as the former.
In the large towns in America, music, drawing and dancing, constitute a part
of female education. They, however, hold a subordinate rank; for my fair
friends will pardon me, when I declare, that no man ever marries a woman
for her performance on a harpsichord, or her figure in a minuet. However
ambitious a woman may be to command admiration abroad, her real merit
is known only at home. Admiration is useless, when it is not supported by

domestic worth. But real honor and permanent esteem, are always secured
by those who preside over their own families with dignity.[15]
Before I quit this subject, I beg leave to make some remarks on a practice
which appears to be attended with important consequences; I mean that of
sending boys to Europe for an education, or sending to Europe for teachers.
This was right before the revolution; at least so far as national attachments
where concerned; but the propriety of it ceased with our political relation to
Great Britain.
In the first place, our honor as an independent nation is concerned in the
establishment of literary institutions, adequate to all our own purposes;
without sending our youth abroad, or depending on other nations for books
and instructors. It is very little to the reputation of America to have it said
abroad, that after the heroic atchievements of the late war, these
independent people are obliged to send to Europe for men and books to
teach their children A B C.
But in another point of view, a foreign education is directly opposite to our
political interests, and ought to be discountenanced, if not prohibited.
Every person of common observation will grant, that most men prefer the
manners and the government of that country where they are educated. Let
ten American youths be sent, each to a different European kingdom, and
live there from the age of twelve to twenty, and each will give the
preference to the country where he has resided.
The period from twelve to twenty is the most important in life. The
impressions made before that period are commonly effaced; those that are
made during that period always remain for many years; and generally thro
life.
Ninety nine persons of a hundred who pass that period in England or
France, will prefer the people, their manners, their laws, and their
government, to those of their nativ country. Such attachments are injurious,
both to the happiness of the men, and to the political interests of their own
country. As to private happiness, it is universally known how much pain a
man suffers by a change of habits in living. The customs of Europe are and
ought to be different from ours; but when a man has been bred in one
country, his attachments to its manners make them, in a great measure,

necessary to his happiness. On changing his residence, he must therefore
break his former habits, which is always a painful sacrifice; or the
discordance between the manners of his own country, and his habits, must
give him incessant uneasiness; or he must introduce, into a circle of his
friends, the manners in which he was educated. These consequences may
follow, and the last, which is inevitable, is a public injury. The refinement
of manners in every country should keep pace exactly with the increase of
its wealth; and perhaps the greatest evil America now feels is, an
improvement of taste and manners which its wealth cannot support.
A foreign education is the very source of this evil; it gives young gentlemen
of fortune a relish for manners and amusements which are not suited to this
country; which however, when introduced by this class of people, will
always become fashionable.
But a corruption of manners is not the sole objection to a foreign education:
An attachment to a foreign government, or rather a want of attachment to
our own, is the natural effect of a residence abroad, during the period of
youth. It is recorded of one of the Greek cities, that in a treaty with their
conquerors, it was required that they should give a certain number of male
children as hostages for the fulfilment of their engagements. The Greeks
absolutely refused, on the principle that these children would imbibe the
ideas and embrace the manners of foreigners, or lose their love for their
own country: But they offered the same number of old men, without
hesitation. This anecdote is full of good sense. A man should always form
his habits and attachments in the country where he is to reside for life.
When these habits are formed, young men may travel without danger of
losing their patriotism. A boy who lives in England from twelve to twenty,
will be an Englishman in his manners and his feelings; but let him remain at
home till he is twenty, and form his attachments, he may then be several
years abroad, and still be an American.[16] There may be exceptions to this
observation; but living examples may be mentioned to prove the truth of the
general principle here advanced, respecting the influence of habit.
It may be said that foreign universities furnish much better opportunities of
improvement in the sciences than the American. This may be true, and yet
will not justify the practice of sending young lads from their own country.
There are some branches of science which may be studied to much greater
advantage in Europe than in America, particularly chymistry. When these

are to be acquired, young gentlemen ought to spare no pains to attend the
best professors. It may, therefore, be useful, in some cases, for students to
cross the atlantic to complete a course of studies; but it is not necessary for
them to go early in life, nor to continue a long time. Such instances need not
be frequent even now; and the necessity for them will diminish in
proportion to the future advancement of literature in America.
It is, however, much questioned, whether, in the ordinary course of study, a
young man can enjoy greater advantages in Europe than in America.
Experience inclines me to raise a doubt, whether the danger to which a
youth must be exposed among the sons of dissipation abroad, will not turn
the scale in favor of our American colleges. Certain it is, that four fifths of
the great literary characters in America never crossed the atlantic.
But if our universities and schools are not so good as the English or Scotch,
it is the business of our rulers to improve them, not to endow them merely;
for endowments alone will never make a flourishing seminary; but to
furnish them with professors of the first abilities and most assiduous
application, and with a complete apparatus for establishing theories by
experiments. Nature has been profuse to the Americans, in genius, and in
the advantages of climate and soil. If this country, therefore, should long be
indebted to Europe for opportunities of acquiring any branch of science in
perfection, it must be by means of a criminal neglect of its inhabitants.
The difference in the nature of the American and European governments, is
another objection to a foreign education. Men form modes of reasoning, or
habits of thinking on political subjects, in the country where they are bred;
these modes of reasoning may be founded on fact in all countries; but the
same principles will not apply in all governments, because of the infinite
variety of national opinions and habits. Before a man can be a good
Legislator, he must be intimately acquainted with the temper of the people
to be governed. No man can be thus acquainted with a people, without
residing amongst them and mingling with all companies. For want of this
acquaintance, a Turgot and a Price may reason most absurdly upon the
Constitutions of the American states; and when any person has been long
accustomed to believe in the propriety or impropriety of certain maxims or
regulations of government, it is very difficult to change his opinions, or to
persuade him to adapt his reasoning to new and different circumstances.

One half the European Protestants will now contend that the Roman
Catholic religion is subversive of civil government. Tradition, books,
education, have concurred to fix this belief in their minds; and they will not
resign their opinions, even in America, where some of the highest civil
offices are in the hands of Roman Catholics.
It is therefore of infinite importance that those who direct the councils of a
nation, should be educated in that nation. Not that they should restrict their
personal acquaintance to their own country, but their first ideas, attachments
and habits should be acquired in the country which they are to govern and
defend. When a knowlege of their own country is obtained, and an
attachment to its laws and interests deeply fixed in their hearts, then young
gentlemen may travel with infinite advantage and perfect safety. I wish not
therefore to discourage travelling, but, if possible, to render it more useful
to individuals and to the community. My meaning is, that men should travel,
and not boys.
It is time for the Americans to change their usual route, and travel thro a
country which they never think of, or think beneeth their notice: I mean the
United States.
While these States were a part of the British Empire, our interest, our
feelings, were those of Englishmen; our dependence led us to respect and
imitate their manners, and to look up to them for our opinions. We little
thought of any national interest in America; and while our commerce and
governments were in the hands of our parent country, and we had no
common interest, we little thought of improving our acquaintance with each
other, or of removing prejudices, and reconciling the discordant feelings of
the inhabitants of different Provinces. But independence and union render it
necessary that the citizens of different States should know each others
characters and circumstances; that all jealousies should be removed; that
mutual respect and confidence should succeed, and a harmony of views and
interests be cultivated by a friendly intercourse.
A tour thro the United States ought now to be considered as a necessary part
of a liberal education. Instead of sending young gentlemen to Europe to
view curiosities and learn vices and follies, let them spend twelve or
eighteen months in examining the local situation of the different States; the
rivers, the soil, the population, the improvements and commercial

advantages of the whole; with an attention to the spirit and manners of the
inhabitants, their laws, local customs and institutions. Such a tour should at
least precede a tour to Europe; for nothing can be more ridiculous than a
man travelling in a foreign country for information, when he can give no
account of his own. When, therefore, young gentlemen have finished an
academic education, let them travel thro America, and afterwards to Europe,
if their time and fortunes will permit. But if they cannot make a tour thro
both, that in America is certainly to be preferred; for the people of America,
with all their information, are yet extremely ignorant of the geography,
policy and manners of their neighbouring States. Except a few gentlemen
whose public employments in the army and in Congress, have extended
their knowlege of America, the people in this country, even of the higher
classes, have not so correct information respecting the United States, as
they have respecting England or France. Such ignorance is not only
disgraceful, but is materially prejudicial to our political friendship and
federal operations.
Americans, unshackle your minds, and act like independent beings. You
have been children long enough, subject to the control, and subservient to
the interest of a haughty parent. You have now an interest of your own to
augment and defend: You have an empire to raise and support by your
exertions, and a national character to establish and extend by your wisdom
and virtues. To effect these great objects, it is necessary to frame a liberal
plan of policy, and build it on a broad system of education. Before this
system can be formed and embraced, the Americans must believe, and act
from the belief, that it is dishonorable to waste life in mimicking the follies
of other nations and basking in the sunshine of foreign glory.

No. II
NEW YORK, 1788.

PRINCIPLES of GOVERNMENT and COMMERCE.
All mankind are, by nature, free, and have a right to enjoy life, liberty and
property.
One person has no right to take from another his life, health, peace, or good
name; to take away or lessen his freedom of thinking and acting, or to injure
his estate in the smallest degree.
A collection of individuals forms a society; and every society must have
government, to prevent one man from hurting another, and to punish such as
commit crimes. Every person's safety requires that he should submit to be
governed; for if one man may do harm without suffering punishment, every
man has the same right, and no person can be safe.
It is necessary therefore that there should be laws to control every man.
Laws should be made by consent or concurrence of the greatest part of the
society.
The whole body of people in society is the sovereign power or state; which
is called, the body politic. Every man forms a part of this state, and so has a
share in the sovereignty; at the same time, as an individual, he is a subject
of the state.
When a society is large, the whole state cannot meet together for the
purpose of making laws; the people therefore agree to appoint deputies, or
representativs, to act for them. When these agents are chosen and met
together, they represent the whole state, and act as the sovereign power. The
people resign their own authority to their representativs; the acts of these
deputies are in effect the acts of the people; and the people have no right to
refuse obedience.
It is as wrong to refuse obedience to the laws made by our representativs, as
it would be to break laws made by ourselves. If a law is bad and produces
general harm, the people may appoint new deputies to repeal it; but while it

is a law, it is the act and will of the sovereign power, and ought to be
obeyed.
The people in free governments, make their own laws by agents or
representativs, and appoint the executiv officers. An executiv officer is
armed with the authority of the whole state and cannot be resisted. He
cannot do wrong, unless he goes beyond the bounds of the laws.
An executiv officer can hardly be too arbitrary; for if the laws are good,
they should be strictly executed and religiously obeyed: If they are bad, the
people can alter or repeal them; or if the officer goes beyond his powers, he
is accountable to those who appoint him. A neglect of good and wholesome
laws is the bane of society.
Judges and all executiv officers should be made as much as possible,
independent of the will of the people at large. They should be chosen by the
representativs of the people and answerable to them only: For if they are
elected by the people, they are apt to be swayed by fear and affection; they
may dispense with the laws, to favor their friends, or secure their office.
Besides, their election is apt to occasion party spirit, cabals, bribery and
public disorder. These are great evils in a state, and defeat the purposes of
government.
The people have a right to advise their representativs in certain cases, in
which they may be well informed. But this right cannot often be exercised
with propriety or safety: Nor should their instructions be binding on their
representativs: For the people, most of whom live remote from each other,
cannot always be acquainted with the general interest of the state; they
cannot know all the reasons and arguments which may be offered for, or
against a measure, by people in distant parts of the state; they cannot tell at
home, how they themselves would think and act, in a general assembly of
all the citizens.
In this situation, if the people of a certain district, bind their representativ to
vote in a particular manner, they may bind him to do wrong. They make up
their minds, upon a partial view of facts, and form a resolution, which they
themselves, on a fair state of all the facts, in the general assembly, might see
reasons to change. There have been instances, in which these binding,
positiv instructions, have obliged a representativ to give his vote, contrary

to the conviction of his own mind and what he thought the good of the state;
consequently his vote was a violation of his oath.
But the opinions of the people should, if possible, be collected; for the
general sense of a nation is commonly right. When people are well
informed, their general opinion is perhaps always right. But they may be
uninformed or misinformed and consequently their measures may be
repugnant to their own interest. This is often the case, with particular
districts of people; and hence the bad policy of giving binding instructions
to representativs. The sense of a nation is collected by the opinions of
people in particular districts; but as some of these opinions may be wrong, a
representativ should be left with discretionary powers to act for the good of
the state.
Representativs are chosen by the inhabitants of certain districts, because
this is most convenient: But when they act as lawgivers, they act for the
whole state. When a man is considering the propriety of a general measure,
he is not to be influenced by the interest of a single district or part of a state;
but by the collectiv interest of the whole state. A good lawgiver will not ask
solely what is my interest, or the interest of my town or constituents? but,
what will promote the interest of the community; 'what will produce the
greatest possible good, to the greatest number of people?'
When a legislativ body makes laws, it acts for itself only, and can alter or
repeal the laws when they become inconvenient. But when it makes grants
or contracts, it act as a party, and cannot take back its grant, or change the
nature of its contracts, without the consent of the other party. A state has no
more right to neglect or refuse to fulfil its engagements, than an individual.
There may be an exception in the case of a grant, for if a state has made a
grant, which, contrary to its expectations, clearly endangers the safety of the
community, it may resume that grant. The public safety is a consideration
superior to all others. But the danger must be great and obvious; it must be
generally seen and felt, before the state can be justified in recalling its grant.
To take back a gift, or break a contract, for small causes or slight
inconveniencies, is a most wanton abuse of power. Bargains, conveyances,
and voluntary grants, where two parties are concerned, are sacred things;
they are the supports of social confidence and security; they ought not to be
sported with, because one party is stronger than the other; they should be
religiously observed.

As the state has no right to break its own promises, so it has no right to alter
the promises of individuals. When one man has engaged to pay his debt in
wheat, and his creditor expects the promise to be fulfiled, the legislature has
no right to say, the debt shall be paid in flax or horses. Such an act saps all
the supports of good faith between man and man; it is the worst kind of
tyranny.
For this reason, all tender laws, which oblige a creditor to take, for his debt,
some article which he never intended nor engaged to take, are highly unjust
and tyrannical. The intention of the contracting parties should be strictly
regarded; the state may enforce that intention, but can never have a right to
interfere and defeat it. A legislature has no right to put a bargain on any
footing, but that on which the parties have placed it or are willing to place
it.
If a state is poor, and people owe more money than can be procured, a
legislature may perhaps go so far as to suspend the collection of debts; or to
ordain that a certain part only of the debts shall be recoverable immediately,
and the payment of the remainder suspended. This may ease the debtors;
but can be justified in extreme cases only, when the people are generally
and greatly involved.
A people should not generally be in debt: The consumers of goods should
not get credit. Heavy and numerous debts are great evils to a state. If the
people will giv and take extensiv credit, the state should check their
imprudence, by putting debts out of the protection of law. When it becomes
a practice to collect debts by law, it is a proof of corruption and degeneracy
among the people. Laws and courts are necessary to settle controverted
points between man and man; but a man should pay an acknowledged debt,
not because there is a law to oblige him, but because it is just and honest,
and because he has PROMISED to pay it.
Money, or a medium in trade, is necessary in all great states; but too much
is a greater evil than too little. When people can get money without labor,
they neglect business and become idle, prodigal and vicious; and when they
have nothing but money, they are poor indeed. Spain was ruined by its
mines of gold and silver in South America. That kingdom possessed all the
money in Europe, and yet was the poorest; it will never be rich and

flourishing, till its mines are exhausted. The discovery of rich mines in this
country, would be the greatest misfortune, that can befall the United States.
Money is a mere representativ of property; it is the change which facilitates
trade. But the wealth of a country is its produce; and its strength consists in
the number of its industrious inhabitants. A man cannot become rich, unless
he earns more than he spends. It is the same with a country. The labouring
men are the support of a nation.
The value of money depends on the quantity in circulation. A medium of
trade respects all commercial nations; and like water, it will find its level.
Money will go where it is wanted, if the people have any thing to purchase
it. If one state or country has more money than another, it is a proof that the
people are more industrious or saving. It would be happy for the world, if
no more money could be made: There is already too much. Silver is become
very burdensome, merely because there is too much in the world. If there
were but one quarter of the money which now circulates, one quarter of a
dollar would buy as much as a dollar will now.
Hence the mistaken policy of those people who attempt to increase the
medium of trade by coinage or by a paper currency. They can add to the
quantity, as much as they please; but not to the value. If America were shut
out from all intercourse with other nations, and ten millions of dollars were
circulating in the country, every article of life would have a certain price. If
in this case, wheat should be one dollar a bushel, let the money be instantly
doubled, the price of wheat would then be two dollars, and the price of
every article would rise in the same proportion. So that twenty millions of
dollars would be worth no more than ten, because they would buy no more
of the useful commodities: America would be no richer in the one case than
in the other.
But as there is a communication with other nations, a million of dollars,
added to the circulating specie, does not increase the permanent medium in
quantity; for just so much money as is added, will leave the country. If there
is too much money in a country, the price of labor will rise, and the produce
cannot find market abroad without a loss. This was the case with American
produce, at the close of the war. If money is scarce in a country, the price of
labor will be low, and consequently the produce of that country will be
cheap at home, and a great profit will be made on the exportation. This

profit will be returned, partly in goods and partly in money, and the country
is enriched.
But the great principle, which should constitute the corner stone of
government, is public justice. The fountain head should be pure, or the
streams will be foul indeed. That Legislatures, or bodies politic, should
make laws, annex penalties for disobedience, institute courts for deciding
controversies and trying offenders, and execute punishments on those that
are convicted; yet at the same time neglect to do justice themselves by
paying their own debts; this is of all absurdities the most glaring. To compel
individuals to perform contracts and yet break their own solemn promises;
to punish individuals for neglect, and yet set a general example of
delinquency, is to undermine the foundation of social confidence, and shake
every principle of commutativ justice.
These are general principles in government and trade, and ought to be
deeply impressed upon the minds of every American.

No. III.
NEW YORK, 1788.

BILLS of RIGHTS.
One of the principal objections to the new Federal Constitution, is, that it
contains no Bill of Rights. This objection, I presume to assert, is founded on
ideas of government that are totally false. Men seem determined to adhere
to old prejudices, and reason wrong, because our ancestors reasoned right.
A Bill of Rights against the encroachments of Kings and Barons, or against
any power independent of the people, is perfectly intelligible; but a Bill of
Rights against the encroachments of an electiv Legislature, that is, against
our own encroachments on ourselves, is a curiosity in government.
The English nation, from which we descended, have been gaining their
liberties, inch by inch, by forcing concessions from the crown and the
Barons, during the course of six centuries.[17] Magna Charta, which is
called the palladium of English liberty, was dated in 1215, and the people of
England were not represented in Parliament till the year 1265. Magna
Charta established the rights of the Barons and clergy against the
encroachments of royal perogativ; but the commons or people were hardly
noticed in that deed. There was but one clause in their favor, which
stipulated, that "no villain or rustic should, by any fine, be bereaved of his
carts, plows and instruments of husbandry." As for the rest, they were
considered as a part of the property belonging to an estate, and were
transferred, as other moveables, at the will of their owners. In the
succeeding reign, they were permitted to send Representativs to Parliament;
and from that time have been gradually assuming their proper degree of
consequence in the British Legislature. In such a nation, every law or
statute that defines the powers of the crown, and circumscribes them within
determinate limits, must be considered as a barrier to guard popular liberty.
Every acquisition of freedom must be established as a right, and solemnly
recognized by the supreme power of the nation; lest it should be again
resumed by the crown under pretence of ancient prerogativ: For this reason,
the habeas corpus act passed in the reign of Charles 2d, the statute of the 2d

of William and Mary, and many others which are declaratory of certain
privileges, are justly considered as the pillars of English freedom.
These statutes are however not esteemed because they are unalterable; for
the same power that enacted them, can at any moment repeal them; but they
are esteemed, because they are barriers erected by the Representativs of the
nation, against a power that exists independent of their own choice.
But the same reasons for such declaratory constitutions do not exist in
America, where the supreme power is the people in their Representativs.
The Bills of Rights, prefixed to several of the constitutions of the United
States, if considered as assigning the reasons of our separation from a
foreign government, or as solemn declarations of right against the
encroachments of a foreign jurisdiction, are perfectly rational, and were
doubtless necessary. But if they are considered as barriers against the
encroachments of our own Legislatures, or as constitutions unalterable by
posterity, I venture to pronounce them nugatory, and to the last degree,
absurd.
In our governments, there is no power of legislation, independent of the
people; no power that has an interest detached from that of the public;
consequently there is no power existing against which it is necessary to
guard. While our Legislatures therefore remain electiv, and the rulers have
the same interest in the laws, as the subjects have, the rights of the people
will be perfectly secure without any declaration in their favor.
But this is not the principal point. I undertake to prove that a standing Bill
of Rights is absurd, because no constitutions, in a free government, can be
unalterable. The present generation have indeed a right to declare what they
deem a privilege; but they have no right to say what the next generation
shall deem a privilege. A state is a supreme corporate body that never dies.
Its powers, when it acts for itself, are at all times equally extensiv; and it
has the same right to repeal a law this year, as it had to make it the last. If
therefore our posterity are bound by our constitutions, and can neither
amend nor annul them, they are to all intents and purposes our slaves.
But it will be enquired, have we then no right to say, that trial by jury, the
liberty of the press, the habeas corpus writ, and other invaluable privileges,
shall never be infringed nor destroyed? By no means. We have the same
right to say that lands shall descend in a particular mode to the heirs of the

deceased proprietor, and that such a mode shall never be altered by future
generations, as we have to pass a law that the trial by jury shall never be
abridged. The right of Jury trial, which we deem invaluable, may in future
cease to be a privilege; or other modes of trial more satisfactory to the
people, may be devised. Such an event is neither impossible nor
improbable. Have we then a right to say that our posterity shall not be
judges of their own circumstances? The very attempt to make perpetual
constitutions, is the assumption of a right to control the opinions of future
generations; and to legislate for those over whom we have as little authority
as we have over a nation in Asia. Nay we have as little right to say that trial
by jury shall be perpetual, as the English, in the reign of Edward the
Confessor, had, to bind their posterity forever to decide causes by fiery
Ordeal, or single combat. There are perhaps many laws and regulations,
which from their consonance to the eternal rules of justice, will always be
good and conformable to the sense of a nation. But most institutions in
society, by reason of an unceasing change of circumstances, either become
altogether improper, or require amendment; and every nation has at all
times, the right of judging of its circumstances and determining on the
propriety of changing its laws.
The English writers talk much of the omnipotence of Parliament; and yet
they seem to entertain some scruples about their right to change particular
parts of their constitution. I question much whether Parliament would not
hesitate to change, on any occasion, an article of Magna Charta. Mr. Pitt, a
few years ago, attempted to reform the mode of representation in
Parliament. Immediately an uproar was raised against the measure, as
unconstitutional. The representation of the kingdom, when first established,
was doubtless equal and wise; but by the increase of some cities and
boroughs, and the depopulation of others, it has become extremely unequal.
In some boroughs there is scarcely an elector left to enjoy its privileges. If
the nation feels no great inconvenience from this change of circumstances,
under the old mode of representation, a reform is unnecessary. But if such a
change has produced any national evils of magnitude enough to be felt, the
present form of electing the Representativs of the nation, however
constitutional, and venerable for its antiquity, may at any time be amended,
if it should be the sense of Parliament. The expediency of the alteration
must always be a matter of opinion; but all scruples as to the right of
making it are totally groundless.

Magna Charta may be considered as a contract between two parties, the
King and the Barons, and no contract can be altered but by the consent of
both parties. But whenever any article of that deed or contract shall become
inconvenient or oppressiv, the King, Lords and Commons may either
amend or annul it at pleasure.
The same reasoning applies to each of the United States, and to the Federal
Republic in general. But an important question will arise from the foregoing
remarks, which must be the subject of another paper.

No. IV.
NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT.
The important question I proposed to discuss in this number, is this:
"Whether, in a free State, there ought to be any distinction between the
powers of the people, or electors, and the powers of the Representativs in
the Legislature." Or in other words, "whether the legislativ body is not, or
ought not to be, a standing convention, invested with the whole power of
their constituents."
In supporting the affirmativ of this question, I must face the opinions and
prejudices of my countrymen; yet if we attend closely to the merits of the
question, stripped of all its specious covering, we shall perhaps find more
arguments in favor of the opinion, than we at first suspect.
In the first place, a Legislature must be the supreme power, whose decisions
are laws binding upon the whole State. Unless the Legislature is the
supreme power, and invested with all the authority of the State, its acts are
not laws, obligatory upon the whole State.[18] I am sensible that it is a
favorite idea in this country, bandied about from one demagogue to another,
that rulers are the servants of the people. So far as their business is
laborious and embarrassing, it implies a degree of servitude; but in any
other view, the opinion is totally false. The people ought at least to place
their rulers, who are generally men of the first abilities and integrity, on a
level with themselves; for that is an odd kind of government indeed, in
which, servants govern their masters. The truth is, a Representativ, as an
individual, is on a footing with other people; as a Representativ of a State,
he is invested with a share of the sovereign authority, and is so far a
governor of the people. In short, the collectiv body of the Representativs, is
the collectiv sense and authority of the people; and so far are the members
from being the servants of the people, that they are just as much masters,
rulers, governors, whatever appellation we give them, as the people would
be themselves in a convention of the whole State.

But in the second place, the public good or safety requires that the powers
of a Legislature should be coextensiv with those of the people. That a
Legislature should be competent to pass any law that the public safety and
interest may require, is a position that no man will controvert. If therefore it
can be proved that the reservation of any power in the hands of the people,
may at times interfere with the power of the Legislature to consult the
public interest, and prevent its exercise, it must be acknowleged, that such a
reservation is not only impolitic, but unjust. That a Legislature should have
unlimited power to do right, is unquestionable; but such a power they
cannot have, unless they have all the power of the State; which implies an
unlimited power to do wrong. For instance, suppose the constitution of any
state to declare, that no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace;
then the Legislature cannot raise and maintain a single soldier to guard our
frontiers, without violating the constitution. To say that new enlistments
every year will save the constitution, is idle; for if a body of troops raised
for thirty years is a standing army, then a body raised for twenty years, or
for six months, is a standing army; and the power to raise troops for a year,
is a power to raise them at any time and maintain them forever; but with the
addition of much trouble and a load of expense. Since therefore there never
was, and probably never will be a time, till the millenium shall arrive, when
troops will not be necessary to guard the frontiers of States, a clause in a
constitution, restricting a Legislature from maintaining troops in time of
peace, will unavoidably disable them from guarding the public interest.
That a power to raise and equip troops at pleasure, may be abused, is
certain; but that the public safety cannot be established without that power,
is equally certain. The liberty of a people does not rest on any reservation of
power in their hands paramount to their Legislature; it rests singly on this
principle, a union of interests between the governors and governed. While a
Legislator himself, his family and his property, are all liable to the
consequences of the laws which he makes for the State, the rights of the
people are as safe from the invasion of power, as they can be on this side
heaven. This union of interest depends partly on the laws of property; but
mostly on the freedom of election. The right of electing rulers is the people's
prerogativ; and while this remains unabridged, it is a sufficient barrier to
guard all their other rights. This prerogativ should be kept sacred; and if the
people ever suffer any abridgment of this privilege, it must be their own
folly and an irrecoverable loss.

Still further, I maintain that a people have no right to say, that any civil or
political regulation shall be perpetual, because they have no right to make
laws for those who are not in existence. This will be admitted; but still the
people contend that they have a right to prescribe rules for their Legislature,
rules which shall not be changed but by the people in a convention. But
what is a convention? Why a body of men chosen by the people in the
manner they choose the members of the Legislature, and commonly
composed of the same men; but at any rate they are neither wiser nor better.
The sense of the people is no better known in a convention, than in the
Legislature.[19]
But admit the right of establishing certain rules or principles which an
ordinary Legislature cannot change, and what is the consequence? It is this,
a change of circumstances must supersede the propriety of such rules, or
render alterations necessary to the safety or freedom of the State; yet there
is no power existing, but in the people at large, to make the necessary
alterations. A convention then must be called to transact a business, which
an ordinary Legislature can transact just as well; a convention differing
from the Legislature merely in name, and in a few formalities of their
proceedings. But when people have enjoyed a tolerable share of happiness
under a government, they will not readily step out of the common road of
proceeding; and evils insensibly increase to an enormous degree, before the
people can be persuaded to a change. The reservation therefore of certain
powers may, by an imperceptible change of circumstances, prove highly
pernicious to a State. For example: When the Commons of England were
first admitted to a share in the legislation of that kingdom, which was
probably in the reign of Henry III, in 1265,[20] the representation was
tolerably equal. But the changes in the population of different parts of the
kingdom have destroyed all equality. The mode of election therefore should
be reformed. But how shall it be done? If there is a constitution in that
kingdom, which settles the mode of election, and that constitution is an act
of the people, paramount to the power of the Parliament, and unchangeable
by them, a convention of the people must be called to make an alteration
which would be as well made in Parliament. This would occasion infinite
trouble and expense.
But the danger is, that as an evil of this kind increases, so will the lethargy
of the people, and their habits of vice and negligence. Thus the disease

acquires force, for want of an early remedy, and a dissolution ensues. But a
Legislature, which is always watching the public safety, will more early
discover the approaches of disorders, and more speedily apply a remedy.
This is not precisely the case with the British constitution; for it was not
committed at once to parchment and ratified by the people. It consists rather
of practice, or common law, with some statutes of Parliament. But the
English have been too jealous of changing their practice, even for the better.
All the writers on the English constitution agree, that any Parliament can
change or amend every part of it; yet in practice, the idea of an unalterable
constitution has had too much influence in preventing a reform in their
representation.
But we have an example nearer home directly in point. The charter of
Connecticut declares that each town shall have liberty to send one or two
deputies to the General Court; and the constant practice has been to send
two. While the towns were few, the number of Representativs was not
inconvenient; but since the complete settlement of the State, and the
multiplication of the towns, the number has swelled the Legislature to an
unwieldly and expensive size. The house of Representativs consists of
about 170 members: An attempt has been made, at several sessions, to
lessen the representation, by limiting each town to one Deputy. A question
arises, have the Assembly a right to lessen the representation? In most
States, it would be decided in the negativ. Yet in that State it is no question
at all; for there is a standing law expressly delegating the whole power of all
the freemen to the Legislature. But I bring this instance to prove the
possibility of changes in any system of government, which will require
material alterations in its fundamental principles; and the Legislature should
always be competent to make the necessary amendments, or they have not
an unlimited power to do right.[21]
The distinction between the Legislature and a Convention is, for the first
time, introduced into Connecticut, by the recommendation of the late
convention of States, in order to adopt the new constitution. The Legislature
of the State, without adverting to laws or practice, immediately
recommended a convention for that purpose. Yet a distinction between a
Convention and a Legislature is, in that State, a palpable absurdity, even by
their own laws; for there is no constitution in the State, except its laws,
which are always repealable by an ordinary Legislature; and the laws and

uniform practice, from the first organization of the government, declare that
the Legislature has all the power of all the people. A convention therefore
can have no more power, and differs no more from an ordinary Legislature,
than one Legislature does from another. Or rather it is no more than a
Legislature chosen for one particular purpose of supremacy; whereas an
ordinary Legislature is competent to all purposes of supremacy. But had the
Legislature of that State ratified or rejected the new constitution, without
consulting their constituents, their act would have been valid and binding.
This is the excellence of the constitution of Connecticut, that the
Legislature is considered as the body of the people; and the people have not
been taught to make a distinction which should never exist, and consider
themselves as masters of their rulers, and their power as paramount to the
laws. To this excellence in her frame of government, that State is indebted
for uniformity and stability in public measures, during a period of one
hundred and fifty years; a period of unparalleled tranquillity, never once
disturbed by a violent obstruction of justice, or any popular commotion or
rebellion. Wretched indeed would be the people of that State, should they
adopt the vulgar maxim, that their rulers are their servants. We then may
expect that the laws of those servants will be treated with the same
contempt, as they are in some other States.[22]
But from the manner in which government is constituted, it is evident that
there is no power residing in the State at large, which does not reside in the
legislature. I know it is said that government originates in compact; but I
am very confident, that if this is true, the compact is different from any
other kind of compact that is known among men. In all other compacts,
agreements or covenants, the assent of every person concerned, or who is to
be bound by the compact, is requisite to render it valid and obligatory upon
such person. But I very much question whether this ever takes place in any
constitution of government.
Perhaps so far there is an implied compact in government, that every man
consents to be bound by the opinion of a majority; but this is all a
supposition; for the consent of a hundredth part of a society is never
obtained.
The truth is, government originates in necessity and utility; and whether
there is an implied compact or not, the opinions of the few must be
overruled, and submit to the opinions of the many. But the opinions of a

majority cannot be known, but in an Assembly of the whole society; and no
part of the society has a right to decide upon a measure which equally
affects the whole, without a consultation with the whole, to hear their
arguments and objections. It is said that all power resides in the people; but
it must be remembered, that let the supreme power be where it will, it can
be exercised only in an Assembly of the whole State, or in an Assembly of
the Representativs of the whole State.
Suppose the power to reside in the people, yet they cannot, and they have
no right to exercise it in their scattered districts, and the reason is very
obvious; it is impossible that the propriety of a measure can be ascertained,
without the best general information, and a full knowlege of the opinions of
the men on whom it is to operate.
By opinions here I would not be understood to mean, the various opinions
formed on a view of a particular interest, for these opinions may be
obtained by sending to each district, and collecting instructions; but I mean
the opinions of the whole society, formed on the information and debates of
the whole society. These opinions can be formed no where but in a
Convention of the whole State, or of their Representativs. So far therefore
are the people from having a power paramount to that of their
Representativs in Convention, that they can exercise no act of supremacy or
legislation at all, but in a Convention of the whole State by Representativs.
[23] Unless therefore, it can be proved that a Convention, so called, which is
composed mostly of the same men as a Legislature, possesses some
wisdom, power or qualifications, which a Legislature does not and cannot,
then the distinction is useless and trifling. A Legislature is supposed to
consist of men whom the people judge best qualified to superintend their
interests; a convention cannot be composed of better men; and in fact we
find it generally composed of the same men. If therefore no act of
sovereignty can be exercised but in an Assembly of Representativs, of what
consequence is it, whether we call it a Convention or a Legislature? or why
is not the Assembly of Representativs of a people, at all times a Convention,
as well as a Legislature?
To me it appears that a distinction is made without a difference; but a
distinction that will often prevent good measures, perpetuate evils in
government, and by creating a pretended power paramount to the
Legislature, tend to bring laws into contempt.

POSTSCRIPT.—— This reasoning applies solely to the individual States,
and not to the United States, before they were formed into a federal body.
An important distinction must be observed between the Constitution of a
sovereign State, and of thirteen distinct sovereignties. In a sovereign State,
whatever they may suggest to the contrary, the voices of a majority are
binding upon the minority, even in framing the first plan of government. In
general, a majority of the votes of the Representativs in Legislature or
Convention have been admitted as obligatory upon every member of the
State, in forming and establishing a Constitution: But when the Constitution
has been submitted to the people, as it is called, in town meetings or other
small assemblies, the assent of every individual could not be expressly
obtained; and the dissent of any number, less than half the freemen present,
who might not be one half the whole number in the State, could not prevent
the establishment of the government, nor invalidate the obligation of every
man to submit peaceably to its operation. The members of a state or
community, cannot from necessity, be considered as parties to a contract,
where the assent of every man is necessary to bind him to a performance of
the engagement. But the several States, enter into a negociation like
contracting parties; they agree that the assent of every individual State,
shall be requisite to bind that State; and the frame of government, so agreed
upon, is considered as a compact between independent sovereignties, which
derives its binding force from the mutual and unanimous consent of the
parties, and not merely from a necessity that the major part of the people
should compel the rest to submission.
But in this very compact, the States have resigned their independent
sovereignty, and become a single body or state, as to certain purposes; for
they have solemnly contracted with each other, that three fourths of their
number may alter and amend the first compact. They are therefore no
longer separate individuals and contracting parties; but they form a single
State or body politic; and a majority of three fourths can exert every act of
sovereignty, except in two or three particulars, expressly reserved in the
compact.

No. V.
NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT.
The constitution of Virginia, like that of Connecticut, stands on the true
principles of a Republican Representativ Government. It is not shackled
with a Bill of Rights, and every part of it, is at any time, alterable by an
ordinary Legislature. When I say every part of the constitution is alterable, I
would except the right of elections, for the Representativs have not power
to prolong the period of their own delegation. This is not numbered among
the rights of legislation, and deserves a separate consideration. This right is
not vested in the Legislature; it is in the people at large; it cannot be
alienated without changing the form of government. Nay the right of
election is not only the basis, but the whole frame or essence of a republican
constitution; it is not merely one, but it is the only legislativ or
constitutional act, which the people at large can with propriety exercise.
The simple principle for which I contend is this, "That in a representativ
democracy, the delegates chosen for Legislators ought, at all times, to be
competent to every possible act of legislation under that form of
government; but not to change that form." Besides it is contrary to all our
ideas of deputation or agency for others, that the person acting should have
the power of extending the period of agency beyond the time specified in
his commission. The Representativ of a people is, as to his powers, in the
situation of an Attorney, whose letters commission him to do every thing
which his constituent would do, where he on the spot; but for a limited time
only. At the expiration of that time his powers cease; and a Representativ
has no more right to extend that period, than a plenipotentiary has to renew
his commission. The British Parliament, by prolonging the period of their
existence from one to three, and from three to seven years, committed an
unjust act; an act however which has been confirmed by the acquiescence
of the nation, and thus received the highest constitutional sanction. I am
sensible that the Americans are much concerned for the liberties of the
British nation; and the act for making Parliaments septennial is often

mentioned as an arbitrary, oppressiv act, destructiv of English liberty.[24]
The English are doubtless obliged to us for our tender concern for their
happiness; yet for myself I entertain no such ideas: The English have
generally understood and advocated their rights as well as any nation, and I
am confident that the nation enjoys as much happiness and freedom, and
much more tranquillity, under septennial Parliaments, than they would with
annual elections. Corruption to obtain offices will ever attend wealth; it is
generated with it, grows up with it, and will always fill a country with
violent factions and illegal practices. Such are the habits of the people, that
money will have a principal influence in carrying elections; and such vast
sums are necessary for the purpose, that if elections were annual, none but a
few of the wealthiest men could defray the expense; the landholders of
moderate estates would not offer themselves as candidates; and thus in fact
annual elections, with the present habits of the people, would actually
diminish the influence of the Commons, by throwing the advantage into the
hands of a corrupt ministry, and a few overgrown nabobs. Before annual
elections would be a blessing to the English, their habits must be changed;
but this cannot be effected by human force. I wish my countrymen would
believe that other nations understand and can guard their privileges, without
any lamentable outcries from this side of the Atlantic. Government will
always take its complexion from the habits of the people; habits are
continually changing from age to age; a body of Legislators taken from the
people, will generally represent these habits at the time when they are
chosen: Hence these two important conclusions, 1st, That a legislativ body
should be frequently renewed and always taken from the people: 2d, That a
government which is perpetual, or incapable of being accommodated to
every change of national habits, must in time become a bad government.
With this view of the subject, I cannot suppress my surprise at the reasoning
of Mr. Jefferson on this very point.[25] He considers it as a defect in the
constitution of Virginia, that it can be altered by an ordinary Legislature.
He observes that the Convention which framed the present constitution of
that State, "received no powers in their creation which were not given to
every Legislature before and since. So far and no farther authorised, they
organized the government by the ordinance entitled a Constitution or form
of government. It pretends to no higher authority than the other ordinances
of the same session; it does not say, that it shall be perpetual; that it shall be
unalterable by other Legislatures; that it shall be transcendant above the

powers of those, who they knew would have equal powers with
themselves."
But suppose the framers of this ordinance had said, that it should be
perpetual and unalterable; such a declaration would have been void. Nay,
altho the people themselves had individually and unanimously declared the
ordinance perpetual, the declaration would have been invalid. One
Assembly cannot pass an act, binding upon a subsequent Assembly of equal
authority;[26] and the people in 1776, had no authority, and consequently
could delegate none, to pass a single act which the people in 1777, could
not repeal and annul. And Mr. Jefferson himself, in the very next sentence,
assigns a reason, which is an unanswerable argument in favor of my
position, and a complete refutation of his own. These are his words. "Not
only the silence of the instrument is a proof they thought it would be
alterable, but their own practice also: For this very Convention, meeting as
a House of Delegates in General Assembly with the new Senate in the
autumn of that year, passed acts of Assembly in contradiction to their
ordinance of government; and every Assembly from that time to this, has
done the same."
Did Mr. Jefferson reflect upon the inference that would be justly drawn
from these facts? Did he not consider that he was furnishing his opponents
with the most effectual weapons against himself? The acts passed by every
subsequent Assembly in contradiction to the first ordinance, prove that all
the Assemblies were fallible men; and consequently not competent to make
perpetual Constitutions for future generations. To give Mr. Jefferson, and
the other advocates for unchangeable Constitutions, the fullest latitude in
their argument, I will suppose every freeman of Virginia, could have been
assembled to deliberate upon a form of government, and that the present
form, or even one more perfect, had been the result of their Councils; and
that they had declared it unalterable. What would have been the
consequence? Experience would probably have discovered, what is the fact;
and what forever will be the case; that Conventions are not possessed of
infinite wisdom; that the wisest men cannot devise a perfect system of
government. After all this solemn national transaction, and a formal
declaration that their proceedings should be unalterable, suppose a single
article of the Constitution should be found to interfere with some national
benefit, some material advantage; where would be the power to change or

reform that article? In the same general Assembly of all the people, and in
no other body. But must a State be put to this inconvenience, to find a
remedy for every defect of constitution?
Suppose, however, the Convention had been empowered to declare the form
of government unalterable: What would have been the consequence? Mr.
Jefferson himself has related the consequence. Every succeeding Assembly
has found errors or defects in that frame of government, and has happily
applied a remedy. But had not every Legislature had power to make these
alterations, Virginia must have gone thro the farce, and the trouble of
calling an extraordinary Legislature, to do that which an ordinary
Legislature could do just as well, in their annual session; or those errors
must have remained in the constitution, to the injury of the State.
The whole argument for Bills of Rights and unalterable Constitutions rests
on two suppositions, viz. that the Convention which frames the government,
is infallible; and that future Legislatures will be less honest, less wise, and
less attentiv to the interest of the State, than a present Convention: The first
supposition is always false, and the last is generally so. A declaration of
perpetuity, annexed to a form of government, implies a supposition of
perfect wisdom and probity in the framers; which is both arrogant and
impudent; and it implies a supposed power in them, to abridge the power of
a succeeding Convention, and of the future state or body of people. The last
supposition is, in every possible instance of legislation, false; and an
attempt to exercise such a power, a high handed act of tyranny. But setting
aside the argument, grounded on a want of power in one Assembly to
abridge the power of another, what occasion have we to be so jealous of
future Legislatures? Why should we be so anxious to guard the future rights
of a nation? Why should we not distrust the people and the Representativs
of the present age, as well as those of future ages, in whose acts we have
not the smallest interest? For my part, I believe that the peeple and their
Representativs, two or three centuries hence, will be as honest, as wise, as
faithful to themselves, and will understand their rights as well, and be as
able to defend them, as the people are at this period. The contrary
supposition is absurd.
I know it is said, that other nations have lost their liberties by the ambitious
designs of their rulers, and we may do the same. The experience of other
nations, furnishes the ground of all the arguments used in favor of an

unalterable constitution. The advocates seem determined that posterity shall
not lose their liberty, even if they should be willing and desirous to
surrender it. If a few declarations on parchment, will secure a single
blessing to posterity, which they would otherwise lose, I resign the
argument, and will receive a thousand declarations. Yet so thoroughly
convinced am I of the opposite tendency and effect of such unalterable
declarations, that, were it possible to render them valid, I should deem
every article an infringement of civil and political liberty. I should consider
every article as a restriction which might impose some duty which in time
might cease to be useful and necessary, while the obligation of performing
it might remain; or which in its operation might prove pernicious, by
producing effects which were not expected, and could not be foreseen.
There is no one single right, no privilege, which is commonly deemed
fundamental, which may not, by an unalterable establishment, preclude
some amendment, some improvement in future administration of
government. And unless the advocates for unalterable constitutions of
government, can prevent all changes in the wants, the inclinations, the
habits, and the circumstances of people, they will find it difficult, even with
all their declarations of unalterable rights, to prevent changes in
government. A paper declaration is a very feeble barrier against the force of
national habits, and inclinations.
The loss of liberty, as it is called, in the kingdoms of Europe, has, in several
instances, been a mere change of government, effected by a change of
habits, and in some instances this change has been favorable to liberty. The
government of Denmark, was changed from a mixed form, like that of
England, to an absolute monarchy, by a solemn deliberate act of the people
or States. Was this a loss of liberty? So far from it, that the change removed
the oppressions of faction, restored liberty to the subject and tranquillity to
the kingdom. The change was a blessing to the people. It indeed lodged a
power in the Prince to dispose of life and property; but at the same time it
lodged in him a power to defend both; a power which before was lodged no
where; and it is infinitely better that such a power should be vested in a
single hand, than that it should not exist at all. The monarchy of France has
grown out of a number of petty states and lordships; yet it is a fact, proved
by history and experience, that the subjects of that kingdom have acquired
liberty, peace and happiness, in proportion to the diminution of the powers
of the petty sovereignties, and the extension of the prerogativs of the

Monarch. It is said that Spain lost her liberties under the reign of Charles
Vth; but I question the truth of the assertion; it is probable that the subject
has gained as much by an abridgement of the powers of the nobility, as he
lost by an annihilation of the Cortez. The United Netherlands fought with
more bravery and perseverance to preserve their rights, than any other
people since the days of Leonidas; and yet no sooner established a
government, so jealously guarded as to defeat its own designs, and prevent
the good effects of government, than they neglected its principles; the
freemen resigned the privilege of election, and committed their liberties to a
rich aristocracy. There was no compulsion, no external force in producing
this revolution; but the form of government, which had been established on
paper, and solemnly ratified, was not suited to the genius of the subjects.
The burghers had the right of electing their rulers; but they neglected it
voluntarily; and a bill of rights, a perpetual constitution on parchment,
guaranteeing that right, was a useless form of words, because opposed to
the temper of the people. The government assumed a complexion, more
correspondent to their habits, and tho in theory no constitution is more
cautiously guarded against an infringement of popular privileges, yet in
practice it is a real aristocracy.
The progress of government in England has been the reverse: The people
have been gaining freedom by intrenching upon the powers of the nobles
and the royal prerogativs. These changes in government do not proceed
from bills of rights, unalterable forms and perpetual establishments; liberty
is never secured by such paper declarations, nor lost for want of them. The
truth is, Government originates in necessity, and takes its form and structure
from the genius and habits of the people; and if on paper a form is not
accommodated to those habits, it will assume a new form, in spite of all the
formal sanctions of the supreme authority of a State. Were the monarchy of
France to be dissolved, and the wisest system of republican government
ever invented, solemnly declared, by the King and his council, to be the
constitution of the kingdom; the people with their present habits, would
refuse to receive it; and resign their privileges to their beloved sovereign.
But so opposite are the habits of the Americans, that an attempt to erect a
monarchy or an aristocracy over the United States, would expose the
authors to the loss of their heads.[27] The truth is, the people of Europe,
since they have become civilized, have, in no kingdom, possessed all the
true principles of liberty. They could not therefore lose what they never

possessed. There have been, from time immemorial, some rights of
government, some prerogativs vested in some man or body of men,
independent of the suffrages of the body of the subjects. This circumstance
distinguishes the governments of Europe and of all the world, from those of
America. There has been in the free nations of Europe an incessant struggle
between freedom or national rights, and hereditary prerogativs. The contest
has ended variously in different kingdoms; but generally in depressing the
power of the nobility; ascertaining and limiting the prerogativs of the
crown, and extending the privileges of the people. The Americans have seen
the records of their struggles; and without considering that the objects of the
contest do not exist in this country; they are laboring to guard rights which
there is no party to attack. They are as jealous of their rights, as if there
existed here a King's prerogativs, or the powers of nobles, independent of
their own will and choice, and ever eager to swallow up their liberties. But
there is no man in America, who claims any rights but what are common to
every man; there is no man who has an interest in invading popular
privileges, because his attempt to curtail another's rights, would expose his
own to the same abridgement. The jealousy of people in this country has no
proper object against which it can rationally arm them; it is therefore
directed against themselves, or against an invasion which they imagine may
happen in future ages. The contest for perpetual bills of rights against a
future tyranny, resembles Don Quixote's fighting windmills; and I never can
reflect on the declamation about an unalterable constitution to guard certain
rights, without wishing to add another article, as necessary as those that are
generally mentioned, viz. "that no future Convention or Legislature shall
cut their own throats, or those of their constituents." While the habits of the
Americans remain as they are, the people will choose their Legislature from
their own body; that Legislature will have an interest inseparable from that
of the people, and therefore an act to restrain their power in any article of
legislation, is as unnecessary as an act to prevent them from committing
suicide.
Mr. Jefferson, in answer to those who maintain that the form of government
in Virginia is unalterable, because it is called a constitution, which, ex vi
termini, means an act above the power of the ordinary Legislature, asserts
that constitution, statute, law and ordinance, are synonymous terms, and
convertible as they are used by writers on government. Constitutio dicitur
jus quod a principe conditur. Constitutum, quod ab imperatoribus

rescriptum statutumve est. Statutum, idem quod lex.[28] Here the words
constitution, statute and law, are defined by each other; they were used as
convertible terms by all former writers, whether Roman or British; and
before the terms of the civil law were introduced, our Saxon ancestors used
the correspondent English words, bid and set.[29] From hence he concludes
that no inference can be drawn from the meaning of the word, that a
constitution has a higher authority than a law or statute. This conclusion of
Mr. Jefferson is just.
He quotes Lord Coke also to prove that any parliament can abridge,
suspend or qualify the acts of a preceding Parliament. It is a maxim in their
laws, that "Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant." After having
fully proved that constitution, statute, law and ordinance, are words of
similar import, and that the constitution of Virginia is at any time alterable
by the ordinary Legislature, he proceeds to prove the danger to which the
rights of the people are exposed, for want of an unalterable form of
government. The first proof of this danger he mentions, is, the power which
the Assembly exercises of determining its own quorum. The British
Parliament fixes its own quorum: The former Assemblies of Virginia did the
same. During the war the Legislature determined that forty members should
be a quorum to proceed to business, altho not a fourth part of the whole
house. The danger of delay, it was judged, would warrant the measure. This
precedent, our writer supposes, is subversive of the principles of the
government, and dangerous to liberty.
It is a dictate of natural law that a majority should govern; and the principle
is universally received and established in all societies, where no other mode
has been arbitrarily fixed. This natural right cannot be alienated in
perpetuum; for altho a Legislature, or even the body of the people, may
resign the powers of government to forty, or to four men, when they please,
yet they may likewise resume them at pleasure.
The people may, if they please, create a dictator on an emergency in war,
but his creation would not destroy, but merely suspend the natural right of
the Lex majoris partis. Thus forty members, a minority of the Legislature of
Virginia, were empowered during a dangerous invasion, to legislate for the
State; but any subsequent Assembly might have divested them of that
power. During the operation of the law, vesting them with this power, their
acts were binding upon the State; because their power was derived from the

general sense of the State; it was actually derived from a legal majority. But
that majority could, at any moment, resume the power and practice on their
natural right.
It is a standing law of Connecticut, that forty men shall be a quorum of the
House of Representativs, which consists of about 170 members. This law, I
am confident, never excited a murmur, or a suspicion that the liberties of the
people were in danger; yet this law creates an oligarchy; it is an
infringement of natural right; it subjects the State to the possibility, and
even the probability of being governed at times by a minority. The
acquiescence of the State, in the existence of the law, gives validity, and
even the sanction of a majority, to the acts of that minority; but the majority
may at any time resume their natural right, and make the assent of more
than half of the members, necessary to give validity to their determinations.
The danger therefore arising from a power in the Assembly to determine
their own quorum, is merely ideal, for no law can be perpetual; the
authority of a majority of the people, or of their Representativs, is always
competent to repeal any act that is found unjust or inconvenient. The
acquiescence however of the people of the States mentioned, and that in one
of them for a long course of years, under an oligarchy; or their submission
to the power of a minority, is an incontestible proof of what I have before
observed, that theories and forms of government are empty things; that the
spirit of a government springs immediately from the temper of the people,
and the exercise of it will generally take its tone from their feelings. It
proves likewise that a union of interests between the rulers and the people,
which union will always coexist with free elections, is not only the best, but
the only security for their liberties which they can wish for and demand.
The Government of Connecticut is a solid proof of these truths. The
Assembly of that State, have always had power to abolish trial by jury, to
restrain the liberty of the press, to suspend the habeas corpus act, to
maintain a standing army, in short to command every engine of despotism;
yet by some means or other, it happens that the rights of the people are not
invaded, and the subjects have generally been better satisfied with the laws,
than the people of any other State. The reason is, the Legislature is a part of
the people, and has the same interest. If a law should prove bad, the
Legislature can repeal it; but in the unalterable bills of rights in some of the
States, if an article should prove wrong and oppressiv, an ordinary

Legislature cannot repeal or amend it; and the State will hardly think of
calling a special Convention for so trifling a purpose. There are some
articles, in several of the State Constitutions, which are glaring infractions
of the first rights of freemen; yet they affect not a majority of the
community; and centuries may elapse before the evil can be redressed, and
a respectable class of men restored to the enjoyment of their rights.[30]
To prove the want of an unalterable Constitution in Virginia, Mr. Jefferson
informs us that in 1776, during the distressed circumstances of the State, a
proposition was made in the House of Delegates to create a Dictator,
invested with every power, legislativ, executiv and judicial, civil and
military. In June, 1781, under a great calamity, the proposition was
repeated, and was near being passed. By the warmth he discovers in
reprobating this proposal, one must suppose that the creation of a Dictator
even for a few months, would have buried every remain of freedom. Yet he
seems to allow that the step would have been justified, had there existed an
irresistible necessity.
Altho it is possible that a case may happen, in which the creation of a
Dictator might be the only resort to save life, liberty, property and the State,
as it happened in Rome more than once; yet I should dread his power as
much as any man, were I not convinced that the same men that appointed
him, could, in a moment, strip him of his tremendous authority. A Dictator,
with an army superior to the strength of the State, would be a despot; but
Mr. Jefferson's fears seem grounded on the authority derived from the
Legislature. A concession of power from the Legislature, or the people, is a
voluntary suspension of a natural unalienable right; and is resumeable at the
expiration of the period specified, or the moment it is abused. A State can
never alienate a natural right; for it cannot legislate for those who are not in
existence. It may consent to suspend that right for great and temporary
purposes; but were every freeman in Virginia to assent to the creation of a
perpetual Dictator, the act in itself would be void. The expedient of
creating a Dictator is dangerous, and no free people would willingly resort
to it; but there may be times when this expedient is necessary to save a State
from ruin, and when every man in a State would cheerfully give his suffrage
for adopting it. At the same time, a temporary investiture of unlimited
powers in one man, may be abused; it may be an influential precedent; and
the continuance of it, may furnish the Dictator with the means of

perpetuating his office. The distress of a people must be extreme, before a
serious thought of a Dictator can be justifiable. But the people who create,
can annihilate a Dictator; their right to govern themselves cannot be
resigned by any act whatever, altho extreme cases may vindicate them in
suspending the exercise of it. Even prescription cannot exist against this
right; and every nation in Europe has a natural right to depose its King, and
take the government into its own hands; altho it may forever be inexpedient
for any of them to exercise the right.

No. VI.
NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT.
I have said,[31] "that the people ought not to give binding instructions to
Representativs." "That they cannot exercise any act of supremacy or
legislation at all but in a Convention of the whole State, or of the
Representativs of the whole State." And "That the right of election is the
only constitutional right which they can with propriety exercise." That these
positions, however repugnant to the received opinions of the present age,
are capable of political demonstration, is to me unquestionable. They all
convey nearly the same idea, and if true, they contravene, in some measure,
a fundamental maxim of American politics, which is, that "the sovereign
power resides in the people."
I am not desirous of subverting this favorite maxim; but I am very desirous
it should be properly qualified and understood; for the abuse of it is capable
of shaking any government; and I have no doubt that the mistakes which
this maxim has introduced, have been the principal sources of rebellion,
tumult and disorder in several of the American States.
It is doubtless true, that the individuals who compose a political society or
State, have a sovereign right to establish what form of government they
please in their own territories. But in order to deliberate upon the subject,
they must all convene together, as in Rome and Athens; or must send
deputies, vested with powers to act for them, as is the practice in England
and America. If they adopt the first method, then the Supreme Legislativ
power resides, to all intents and purposes, in the whole body of the people.
If, from the local circumstances of the people, the whole body cannot meet
for deliberation, then the Legislativ powers do not reside in the people at
large, but in an assembly of men delegated by the whole body.
To prove this last position, it is necessary to enquire, what is the object of
law, and on what principles ought it to be founded? A law, if I understand
the term, is an act of the whole State, operating upon the whole State, either

by command or prohibition: It is thus distinguished from a resolve which
more properly respects an individual or a part of the State.[32] The object of
a law is to prevent positiv evil or produce positiv good to the whole State;
not merely to a particular part. The principle therefore on which all laws
should be founded, is, a regard to the greatest good which can be produced
to the greatest number of individuals in the State. The principle is so
obvious, that I presume it will not be controverted. Permit me then to
enquire, whether the people of any district, county or town, in their local
meetings, are competent to judge of this general good? A law, which is, in
its operation general, must be founded on the best general information: The
people themselves have no right to consent to a law, without this general
information: They have no right to consent to a law, on a view of a local
interest; nor without hearing the objections and arguments, and examining
the amendments, suggested by every part of the community, which is to be
affected by that law. To maintain the contrary is to defend the most glaring
contradictions. But can the inhabitants, in detached associations, be
acquainted with these objections and arguments? Can they know the minds
of their brethren at the distance of three or five hundred miles? If they
cannot, they do not possess the right of legislation. Little will it avail to say,
that the people acquire the necessary information by newspapers, or other
periodical publications: There are not more than two States in the thirteen,
where one half the freemen read the public papers. But if every freeman
read the papers, this would not give him the information necessary to
qualify him for a Legislator; for but a small part of the intelligence they
contain is official, which alone can be the ground of law; nor can the
collectiv sense of a nation or state be gathered from newspapers. The whole
body of people, or Representativs of the whole body, are the only vehicles
of information which can be trusted, in forming a judgement of the true
interest of the whole State.
If the collectiv sense of a State is the basis of law, and that sense can be
known officially no where but in an Assembly of all the people or of their
Representativs; or in other words, if there can be no such thing as a
collection of sentiments made in any other manner, than by a Convention of
the whole people or their Delegates, where is the right of instructing
Representativs? The sense of the people, taken in small meetings, without a
general knowlege of the objections, and reasonings of the whole State,
ought not to be considered as the true sense of the State; for not being

possessed of the best general information, the people often form wrong
opinions of their own interest. Had I the journals of the several Legislatures
in America, I would prove to every man's satisfaction, that most of the
schemes for paper money, tender laws, suspension of laws for the recovery
of debts, and most of the destructiv measures which have been pursued by
the States, have originated in towns and counties, and been carried by
positiv instructions from constituents to Representativs. The freemen, in
these cases, have wrong ideas of their own interest; their error, in the first
instance, is ascribeable merely to ignorance, or a want of that just
information, which they themselves would obtain in a General Assembly.
[33] The right therefore of prescribing rules to govern the votes of
Representativs, which is so often assumed, frequently amounts to a right of
doing infinite mischief, with the best intentions. There is perhaps no case in
which the people at large are so capable of knowing and pursuing their own
interest, as their Delegates are when assembled for consultation and debate.
But the practice of giving binding instructions to Representativs, if it has
any foundation, is built on this maxim, that the constituents, on a view of
their local interests, and either with none, or very imperfect information, are
better judges of the propriety of a law, and of the general good, than the
most judicious men are (for such generally are the Representativs) after
attending to the best official information from every quarter, and after a full
discussion of the subject in an Assembly, where clashing interests conspire
to detect error, and suggest improvements. This maxim is obviously false;
and a practice built on it, cannot fail to produce laws, inaccurate,
contradictory, capricious and subversive of the first rights of men. Perhaps
no country, except America, ever experienced the fatal effects of this
practice, and I blush to remark, what candor itself must avow, that few
arbitrary governments, have in so short a period, exhibited so many legal
infractions of sacred right; so many public invasions of private property; so
many wanton abuses of legislativ powers! Yet the people are generally
honest; and as well informed as the people of any country. Their errors
proceed from ignorance; from false maxims of governments. The people
attempt to legislate without the necessary qualifications for lawgivers; yes,
they legislate at home! and while this practice subsists, our public measures
will be often weak, imperfect, and changeable; and sometimes extremely
iniquitous. From these considerations, it appears that the powers of a
Representativ should be wholly discretionary when he acts as a Legislator;

but as an agent for a town or small society, he may have positiv
instructions. His constituents, in the last case, are competent to instruct him,
because they are the whole body concerned; but in the first instance, they
are but a part of the State, and not competent to judge fully of the interest of
the whole.
To place the matter in the strongest point of light, let us suppose a small
State, in which the whole body of people meet for the purpose of making
laws. Suppose in this democracy, the people of a town or other district
should desire a particular act, for instance, a tender law. Would the
inhabitants of this town, have a right to meet a few weeks before the
General Assembly, where they all would expect to be present, to debate and
vote; and in this town meeting take an oath, or otherwise bind themselves to
vote for the act? Would they have a right to shut their ears against
argument; to lay a restraint upon their own minds; to exclude the possibility
of conviction, and solemnly swear to vote in a certain manner, whether right
or wrong! If in this case, the people of a district have no right to lay a
restraint upon themselves before they enter the General Assembly, neither
have they a right, in representativ democracies, to lay such a restraint upon
their Delegates. The very reason why they are incompetent to direct their
Deputies, is that they cannot determine how to act themselves, till they
come into the Assembly. The very doctrine of representation in government
excludes the right of giving binding instructions to Deputies. The design of
choosing Representativs is to collect the wisdom of the State; the Deputies
are to unite their Councils; to meet and consult for the public safety: But
positiv instructions prevent this effect; they are dictated by local interests,
or opinions formed on an imperfect view of facts and arguments; in short
they totally counteract the good effects of public deliberations, and prevent
those salutary measures which may result from united Councils. They make
the opinions of a small part of the State a rule for the whole; they imply a
decision of a question, before it is heard; they reduce a Representativ to a
mere machine, by restraining the exercise of his reason; they subvert the
very principles of republican government.
But let us attend to the inconsistency of the practice. The oath required of a
Representativ, before he takes his seat, binds him to vote or act from a
regard to the public good, according to his judgement and the best of his
abilities. Some of the Constitutions contain an oath that binds a

Representativ, not to assent to, or vote for, any act that he shall deem
injurious to the people. But what opinion, what judgement can a man
exercise, who is under the restraint of positiv instructions? Suppose a man
so instructed should in conscience believe that a bill, if enacted, would be
prejudicial to his constituents, yet his orders bind him to vote for it; how
would he act between his oath and his instructions? In his oath he has sworn
to act according to his judgment, and for the good of the people; his
instructions forbid him to use his judgment, and bind him to vote for a law
which he is convinced will injure his constituents. He must then either
abandon his orders or his oath; perjury or disobedience is his only
alternativ.
This is no imaginary situation; I presume that many men have experienced
it. One very worthy member of the Legislature in this State[34] a few years
since, was in that very predicament; and I heard him express great anxiety
upon the occasion.
How noble was the conduct of that gentleman in Sandwich (Mass.) who,
being chosen to represent the town in the late Convention, and instructed to
vote against the Constitution, at all events; notwithstanding any thing that
might be said in favor of it; rather than submit to be fettered in this manner,
resigned his appointment. The name of this gentleman, Thomas Bourn, Esq.
ought to be held in veneration by every true friend to his country, and his
address to the electors on that occasion, ought to be written in letters of
gold. It is recorded in these words: "Fellow Townsmen—The line of
conduct which has appeared to me right, I have ever wished to pursue. In
the decline of life, when a few revolving suns at most will bring me to the
bar of impartial justice, I am unwilling to adopt a different, and less honest
mode of acting. It is true, my sentiments at present are not in favor of the
Constitution; open however to conviction, they may be very different, when
the subject is fairly discussed by able and upright men. To place myself in a
situation, where conviction could be followed only by a bigotted persistence
in error, would be extremely disagreeable to me. Under the restrictions with
which your Delegates are fettered, the greatest ideot may answer your
purpose as well as the greatest man. The suffrages of our fellow men, when
they neither repose confidence in our integrity, nor pay a tribute of respect
to our abilities, can never be agreeable. I am therefore induced positivly to
decline accepting a seat in Convention, whilst I sincerely wish you,

gentlemen, and my countrymen, every blessing which a wise and virtuous
administration of a free government can secure."
Such a bold and honest independence of mind are the marks of a good
Legislator. With such men as Mr. Bourn, in the legislativ department, our
lives, liberties and properties are safe. Such a genius, rising amidst the
obscurity of errors and false maxims, like a star emerging from chaos,
spreads the rays of truth and illuminates the surrounding hemisphere.
Considering the circumstances in which this gentleman was then placed, I
had rather be the author of that short address, than of all the labored
dissertations which have been written upon the proposed constitution.
Another error, which is connected with the practice of instructing
Representativs, and may perhaps be one cause of it, is the opinion that a
Deputy chosen by a certain number of freemen, is their Representativ only
or particularly: It seems to be believed that a Representativ is bound to
attend to the particular interest of the men who elect him, rather than to the
general interest. If this were true, it would obviate, in some measure, the
objections against instructions. But with respect to every general act, the
opinion is clearly false. The reason why men are chosen by small societies
of freemen, and not by the whole body, is, that the whole body cannot be
well acquainted with the most able men in the different parts of the State. It
is the best expedient to correct the defects of government, or rather, it is the
best practicable mode of election. To render the mode perfect, the whole
body of freemen should be at liberty to choose their Delegates from the
whole body. This would destroy, in a great measure, the local views and
attachments which now embarrass government; every Representativ would
be chosen by the whole body; and the interest of the whole number of
constituents would be his object.
This mode is either impracticable or hazardous; notwithstanding this, when
a Delegate is elected by a part of the State, he is really the Representativ of
the whole, as much as if he were elected by the whole. The constituents of
every Representativ are not solely those who voted for him, but the whole
State, and the man that acts from a local interest, and attends merely to the
wishes of those men who elected him, violates his oath, and abuses his
trust. Hence the absurdity of instructions, which are generally dictated by a
partial interest, and can perhaps in no case be the sole rule of a Legislator's
conduct. When therefore a Representativ says, such is the wish of my

constituents; such are their directions; his declaration is but partially true;
for his instructions are the wishes of a part only of his constituents. His
constituents, whom he actually represents, and whose greatest interest is the
sole rule of his conduct, are the whole body of freemen. This is an important
truth, and I must repeat it; the man who is deputed to make laws for a State,
and suffers a local interest to influence his conduct, abuses a sacred trust;
and the Representativ who obeys his instructions, in opposition to the
conviction of his own mind, arising from a general view of public good, is
guilty of a species of perjury.
Such are the opinions, which after long deliberation, I have formed
respecting the principles of a republican government. I feel a diffidence in
publishing sentiments so repugnant to the principles received by my
countrymen and recognized by some of the State Constitutions. But a strong
persuasion of the truth of these opinions, acquired by reasoning, and
confirmed by several years observations, forbids me to suppress them.
A summary of the truths, deduced from the foregoing reasoning, is this:
That the power of a State is at all times equal; that neither the people
themselves, nor a Convention of their Delegates, have either the power or
the right to make an unalterable Constitution; that the power of creating a
legislativ body, or the sovereign right of election, is solely in the people; but
the sovereign power of making laws is solely in an Assembly of their
Representativs; that the people have no right to give binding instructions to
their Representativs; consequently a distinction between a Convention and a
Legislature, can be merely a difference of forms; that Representativs have
no right to prolong the period of their delegation; that being taken from the
mass of the people, and having a common interest with them, they will be
influenced, even by private interest, to promote the public good; and that
such a government, which is a novelty on earth, is perhaps the best that can
be framed, and the only form which will always have for its object, the
general good.

No. VII.
PHILADELPHIA, 1787.

REMARKS on the MANNERS, GOVERNMENT, and DEBT of
the United States.
Since the declaration and establishment of a general peace, and since this
country has had an opportunity to experience the effects of her
independence, events have taken place, which were little expected by the
friends of the revolution. It was expected, that on the ratification of peace,
by the belligerent powers, America would enjoy perfect political
tranquillity. The statesman in his closet, and the divine in his addresses to
heaven, predicted and anticipated the happy period, when every man would
rest, unmolested, under his own vine and his own fig tree. The merchant
foresaw, in vision, the ports of all nations open to his ships, and the returns
of a favorable commerce pouring wealth into his coffers. The honest
laborer, in the shop and the field, was told that independence and peace
would forever remove the fears of oppression, would lighten his burthen,
and give him legal security for the uninterrupted possession of his rights.
This flattering prospect inspired an irresistible enthusiasm in war. The
contention for freedom was long and arduous; the prize was obtained; the
delusion vanished, and America is surprized at the disappointment.
Instead of general tranquillity, one State has been involved in a civil war,
and most of them are torn with factions, which weaken or destroy the
energy of government. Instead of a free commerce with all the world, our
trade is every where fettered with restraints and impositions, dictated by
foreign interest; and instead of pouring wealth into our country, its present
tendency is, to impoverish both the merchant and the public. Instead of
legal security of rights under governments of our own choice, and under our
own control, we find property at least unsafe, even in our best toned
government. Our charters may be wrested from us without a fault, our
contracts may be changed or set aside without our consent, by the breath of
a popular Legislature. Instead of a dimunition of taxes, our public charges
are multiplied; and to the weight of accumulating debts, we are perpetually

making accessions by expensiv follies. Instead of a union of States and
measures, essential to the welfare of a great nation, each State is jealous of
its neighbor, and struggling for the superiority in wealth and importance, at
the hazard even of our federal existence.
This is the dark side of our public affairs; but such are the facts. The public
and private embarrassments, which are both seen and felt, are the topics of
incessant declamation. The rhapsodies of orators, and the publications in
gazettes, from the northern to the southern extremity of the United States,
concur in deprecating the present state of this country, and communicate the
intelligence of our distresses to the whole civilized world. Nor are
newspapers the only heralds of our calamities. The contempt of government
among one class of men, the silent murmurs of poverty in the peaceful
cottage, and numerous bankrupts in every quarter, are irresistible evidence
to a thinking mind, that something is wrong.
But declamation is idle, and murmurs fruitless. Time has been when the
minds of people were alarmed at the approaches of despotism: Then
harangues roused attention; then mobs raised the temple of freedom, and
declared themselves ready to be sacrificed upon her altar. But violent
passions in the public as well as in the human body, are always transitory.
That enthusiasm which was called public spirit, heroic virtue, and love of
country, has long ago subsided, and is absorbed in the general steady
principle, private interest. That enthusiasm is not to be rekindled. The
expostulations of our rulers and patriotic writers, have no more effect in
reviving public spirit, than the attraction of a meteor in raising a tide.
Men, who embraced revolution principles, because independence might
save a few shillings in taxes, or extend the imaginary sphere of freedom;
who expected that peace would place them in a paradise of blessings, where
they might riot without the fatigue of exertion; such men had narrow views
of the consequence of detaching America from a transatlantic jurisdiction.
They viewed but a small part of the great event: They are, they ought to be
disappointed. Such men expect effects without causes, and are ready to
despond, or commence enemies to a glorious event, because miracles are
not wrought to verify their ill founded predictions.
In this view, this insect view of things, the revolution ought to be
considered as extremely unfortunate; for to the present generation, it must

certainly prove so.
But on the general scale of human happiness, every man of reflection must
rejoice at the illustrious event. Even the propriety of the independence of
these States, is so obviously dictated by their local situation, that a generous
European ought to have consented to the measure on this single principle.
But taking into consideration the vast field which is here opened for
improvements in science, in government, in religion, and in morals; the
philosopher will felicitate himself with the prospect of discoveries favorable
to arts and happiness; the statesman will rejoice that there is a retreat from
the vassalage of Europe; the divine will bless God that a place has been
reserved for an uncorrupted church; and the philanthropist, who compares
the yeomanry of America with the peasantry of Europe, will congratulate
himself on an event which has removed millions of people from the
ambition of princes, and from a participation of the vices, which mark the
decline of nations.
The revolution of America, whatever may be the present effects, must, on
the universal scale of policy, prove fortunate, not only for the parties, but
for mankind in general. The period, however, when this country will realize
the happy consequences of her separation, must be remote; probably
beyond the lives of the present generation.
It is worth our curiosity to inquire into the causes of our present political
evils; not the more obvious causes, which every man sees and laments, but
those radical causes which lie hid from common observation; whose
operations are imperceptible, but whose effects are visible, even to a vulgar
eye.
A fundamental mistake of the Americans has been, that they considered the
revolution as completed, when it was but just begun. Having raised the
pillars of the building, they ceased to exert themselves, and seemed to
forget that the whole superstructure was then to be erected. This country is
independent in government; but totally dependent in manners, which are the
basis of government. Men seem not to attend to the difference between
Europe and America, in point of age and improvement; and are disposed to
rush, with heedless emulation, into an imitation of manners, for which we
are not prepared.

Every person tolerably well versed in history, knows that nations are often
compared to individuals and to vegetables, in their progress from their
origin to maturity and decay. The resemblance is striking and just. This
progress is as certain in nations as in vegetables; it is as obvious, and its
causes more easily understood; in proportion as the secret springs of action
in government are more easily explained, than the mechanical principles of
vegetation.
This progress therefore being assumed as a conceded fact, suggests a
forcible argument against the introduction of European manners into
America. The business of men in society is, first, to secure their persons and
estates by arms and wholesome laws; then to procure the conveniences of
life by arts and labor; but it is in the last stages only of national
improvement, when luxury and amusements become public benefits, by
dissipating accumulations of wealth, and furnishing employment and food
for the poor. And luxury then is not beneficial, except when the wealth of a
nation is wasted within itself. It is perhaps always true, that an old civilized
nation cannot, with propriety, be the model for an infant nation, either in
morals, in manners or fashions, in literature or in government.
The present ambition of Americans is, to introduce as fast as possible, the
fashionable amusements of the European courts. Considering the former
dependence of America on England, her descent, her connexion and present
intercourse, this ambition cannot surprise us. But it must check this
ambition to reflect on the consequences. It will not be denied, that there are
vices predominant in the most polite cities in Europe, which are not only
unknown, but are seldom mentioned in America; and vices that are
infamous beyond conception. I presume it will not be denied that there must
be an amazing depravation of mind in a nation, where a farce is a
publication of more consequence than Milton's Poem; and where an opera
dancer, or an Italian singer, receives a salary equal to that of an
Ambassador. The facts being known and acknowleged, I presume the
consequence will not be denied. Not that this charge is good against every
individual; even in the worst times, there will be found many exceptions to
the general character of a nation.
If these vices and the depravation of mind do actually exist, it is a proof of a
gradual corruption; for there was a time when they did not exist. There was
a time when decency was a virtue, even at Venice. The progress is also

slow, unless hastened by some external circumstances. It was more than two
thousand years from the building of Rome to the pontificate of Alexander
the VIth whose naked revelings filled the measure of public vice, and strike
the human mind with horror.
A constant increase of wealth is ever followed by a multiplication of vices:
This seems to be the destiny of human affairs; wisdom, therefore, directs us
to retard, if possible, and not to accelerate the progress of corruption. But an
introduction of the fashionable diversions of Europe into America, is an
acceleration of the growth of vices which are yet in their infancy, and an
introduction of new ones too infamous to be mentioned. A dancing school
among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a masquerade in
America. A theater, under the best regulations, is not essential to our public
and private happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but it is at
the expense of private taste and public morals. The great misfortune of all
exhibitions of this kind is this; that they reduce all taste to a level. Not only
the vices of all classes of people are brought into view, but of all ages and
nations. The intrigues of a nobleman, and the scurrility of shoe blacks, are
presented to the view of both sexes, of all ages; the vices of the age of
Elizabeth and of Charles IId are recorded by the masterly pens of a
Shakespeare and a Congreve, and by repeated representation, they are
"hung on high," as the poet expresses it, "to poison half mankind." The fact
is, that all characters must be presented upon a theater, because all
characters are spectators; and a nobleman and a sailor, a dutchess and a
washer woman, that attend constantly on the exhibitions of vice, become
equally depraved; their tastes will be nearly alike as to vice; the one is as
prepared for a crime as the other. It is for this reason, that many of the
amusements of nations more depraved than ourselves, are highly pernicious
in this country. They carry us forward by hasty strides, to the last stages of
corruption; a period that every benevolent man will deprecate and endeavor
to retard. This circumstance, the difference in the stages of our political
existence, should make us shun the vices which may be politic and even
necessary in older states; and endeavor to preserve our manners by being
our own standards. By attaching ourselves to foreign manners, we
counteract the good effects of the revolution, or rather render them
incomplete. A revolution in the form of government, is but a revolution in
name; unless attended with a change of principles and manners, which are
the springs of government.

This leads me to treat more particularly of the influence of fashions on the
interests of these States; an article in which the ladies are deeply interested.
Fashion in itself is a matter of indifference, as affecting neither morals nor
politeness. It is of no consequence whether a lady is clad with a gown or a
frock; or whether a gentleman appears in public with a cap or a wig. But
there may be times and situations in which the most trifling things become
important. The practice of imitating foreign modes of dress, cannot cost
America less than 100,000l. a year. I speak not of the necessary articles of
dress; but merely of changes of fashions.
To understand this fact, it is necessary to advert to the different
circumstances of this country, and of the European kingdoms, which we
take as our models.
Two circumstances distinguish most of the commercial countries of Europe
from America; a feudal division of real property, and manufactures. Where
vast estates are hereditary and unalienable, a great part of the people are
dependent on the rich, and if the rich do not employ them, they must starve.
Thus in England and France, a great landholder possesses a hundred times
the property that is necessary for the subsistence of a family; and each
landlord has perhaps a hundred families dependent on him for subsistence.
On this statement, if the landlord should live penuriously, and supply his
own family only with necessaries, all his dependents must starve. In order
to subsist the ninety nine families, he must create wants, which their
employment must supply; for the natural wants of a few rich people will not
furnish employment for great multitudes of poor. Hence the good policy, the
necessity of luxury in most European kingdoms. Hence originate all the
changes and varieties of fashion. A gentleman or lady in London must not
appear in public twice in the same suit. This is a regulation of custom, but it
is highly political; for were the nobility and rich gentry to wear out all their
clothes, one half the people must be beggars. The fashions of England and
France are not merely matter of fancy: Fancy may dictate new and odd
figures in dress; but the general design of frequent and continual changes of
fashion, is wise systematic policy, at the courts of London and Paris.
But let us see with how little discretion and policy we adopt foreign
luxuries. America is a young country, with small inequalities of property,
and without manufactures. Few people are here dependent on the rich, for

every man has an opportunity of becoming rich himself. Consequently few
people are supported by the luxuries of the wealthy; and even these few are
mostly foreigners.
But we have no body of manufacturers to support by dissipation. All our
superfluities are imported, and the consumption of them in this country
enriches the merchants and supports the poor of Europe. We are generous
indeed! generous to a fault. This is the pernicious, the fatal effect of our
dependence on foreign nations for our manners. We labor day and night, we
sacrifice our peace and reputation, we defraud our public creditors, involve
ourselves in debts, impoverish our country: Nay, many are willing to
become bankrupts and take lodgings in a prison, for the sake of being as
foolish as those nations which subsist their poor and grow rich and
respectable by their follies.
No objection can be made to rich and elegant dresses among people of
affluent circumstances. But perhaps we may safely calculate that one third
of the expenses incurred by dress in this country, add nothing either to
convenience or elegance.
A new dress is invented in London or Paris, not for the sake of superior
elegance, because it frequently happens that a new dress is less rich and
elegant than an old one; but for the sake of giving food to manufacturers.
That new fashion is sent across the Atlantic; let it be ever so troublesome
and uncouth, we admire its novelty; we adopt it because it is fashionable;
and merely for a change, that may be made in half an hour by a tailor or a
milliner, 20, 30, or 50,000 pounds are drawn from the capital stocks of
property in America, to enrich nations which command our commerce and
smile at our folly.
But it is not only the wealth of this country that is sacrificed by our servile
imitation of other nations; our complaisance often requires us to dispense
with good taste.
It will probably be admitted that amidst the infinite variety of dresses which
are fashionable, during a course of ten or fifteen years, some of them must
be more convenient and elegant than others. True taste in dress consists in
setting off the person to the best advantage. That dress which unites the
articles of convenience, simplicity and neatness, in the greatest perfection,
must be considered as the most elegant. But true taste goes farther; it has

reference to age, to shape, to complexion, and to the season of the year. The
same dress which adorns a miss of fifteen, will be frightful on a venerable
lady of seventy. The same dress will embellish one lady and disfigure
another. But the passive disposition of Americans in receiving every mode
that is offered them, sometimes reduces all ages, shapes and complexions to
a level.
I will not undertake to say that people ought not, in the article of dress, to
sacrifice taste to national interest. A sacrifice of that kind, in a
manufacturing country, may be laudable; it will at least be pardonable. But
in a reverse of situation, in America, where a waste of property and a group
of political evils accompany a bad taste, the sacrifice admits of no apology.
It is not unfrequent to hear ladies complain severely of the inconvenience of
fashion. Their good sense disapproves and their taste revolts at
incumbrances. And yet where is the lady who would not sooner submit to
any fatigue, rather than be ridiculous. I speak of ladies particularly; in point
of expense, the gentlemens' dresses are exceptionable as well as the ladies;
in point of convenience, the ladies are the greatest sufferers by fashion, as
their dress admits of the greatest variety of incumbrances.
Perhaps the trouble of conforming entirely to the fashions of Europe is as
great a tax upon the ladies, as the expense is to their husbands and parents.
One society of people, the Friends, are happily released from the tyranny
and inconveniencies of fashion. However disagreeable the restraints of their
religion may appear in other respects, it must be acknowledged that, in
point of dress, the rules of their society conform to purity of taste.
Perhaps we may safely estimate, that the ladies of that society dress with
two thirds of the expense which other ladies incur, even when the articles of
their dress are equally rich and expensiv; the difference is saved by
neglecting superfluous finery. And are not their taste in dress, their
simplicity and neatness, universally admired? Does it not set off their
persons to the best advantage? Do not gentlemen almost universally give
the preference to the taste of Quaker ladies? Nay, I would ask, whether
other ladies themselves, under a strong bias in favor of a tawdry dress, are
not frequently lavishing encomiums on the superior elegance and
convenience of the Friends' dresses? And how often do they sigh beneath

the trouble of their own dress, and wish that particular articles would go out
of fashion.
If there is any thing on earth, which can make a rational mind disgusted
with society, it is that cruel necessity, which obliges a person to sacrifice
both his interest and his taste, or run the hazard of being laughed at for his
singularity.
In some Asiatic countries, people never change their modes of dress. This
uniformity, which continues for ages, proceeds from the same principles as
the monthly changes in England and France; both proceed from necessity
and policy. Both arise from good causes which operate in the several
governments; that is, the manners of each government are subservient to its
particular interest. The reverse is true of this country. Our manners are
wholly subservient to the interest of foreign nations. Where do we find, in
dress or equipage, the least reference to the circumstances of this country!
Is it not the sole ambition of the Americans to be just like other nations,
without the means of supporting the resemblance? We ought not to harbor
any spleen or prejudice against foreign kingdoms. This would be illiberal.
They are wise, they are respectable. We should despise the man that piques
himself on his own country, and treats all others with indiscriminate
contempt. I wish to see much less jealousy and ill nature subsisting between
the Americans and English. But in avoiding party spirit and resentment on
the one hand, we should be very careful of servility on the other. There is a
manly pride in true independence, which is equally remote from insolence
and meanness; a pride that is characteristic of great minds. Have Americans
discovered this pride since the declaration of peace? We boast of
independence, and with propriety. But will not the same men, who glory in
this great event, even in the midst of a gasconade, turn to a foreigner and
ask him, "what is the latest fashion in Europe!" He has worn an elegant suit
of clothes for six weeks; he might wear it a few weeks longer, but it has not
so many buttons as the last suit of my lord ——: He throws it aside, and
gets one that has. The suit costs him a sum of money; but it keeps him in the
fashion, and feeds the poor of Great Britain or France. It is a singular
phenomenon, and to posterity it will appear incredible, that a nation of
heroes, who have conquered armies, and raised an empire, should not have
the spirit to say—we will wear our clothes as we please.

Let it not be thought that this is a trifling subject; a matter of no
consequence. Mankind are governed by opinion; and while we flatter
ourselves that we enjoy independence, because no foreign power can
impose laws upon us, we are groaning beneath the tyranny of opinion; a
tyranny more severe than the laws of monarchs; a dominion voluntary
indeed, but for that reason, more effectual; an authority of manners which
commands our services, and sweeps away the fruits of our labor.
I repeat the sentiment with which I began; the revolution of America is yet
incomplete. We are now in a situation to answer all the purposes of the
European nations; independent in government, and dependent in manners.
They give us their fashions, they direct our taste to make a market for their
commodities; they engross the profits of our industry, without the hazard of
defending us, or the expense of supporting our civil government. A situation
more favorable to their interest, or more repugnant to our own, they could
not have chosen for us, nor we embraced.
If such is the state of facts, and if the influence of foreign manners does
actually defeat the purposes of the revolution; if our implicit submission to
the prevailing taste of European courts, involves individuals and the public
in unnecessary expenses, it is in the power of a few influential characters in
each of our commercial cities to remedy the whole evil. And in a
reformation of this kind, the ladies would have no inconsiderable share.
It is really a matter of astonishment, that the pride of the Americans has so
long submitted tamely to a foreign yoke. Aside of all regard to interest, we
should expect that the idea of being a nation of apes would mortify minds
accustomed to freedom of thought, and would prompt them to spurn their
chains.
Have the ladies in America no ingenuity, no taste? Do they not understand
what dresses are most convenient and elegant? What modes are best
adapted to the climate, or other circumstances of this country? They most
certainly do. Foreigners acknowlege that the nativ beauty and
understanding of the American ladies are not excelled in any country, and
equalled in very few. And one would imagin that the modes of embellishing
so many personal charms ought not, in all cases, to be prescribed by the
milliners and manteau makers on the other side of the Atlantic. A noble

pride should forbid that ladies of birth and breeding should be wholly
indebted to the taste of others, for the decorations of their beauty.
When the gentlemen in America shall exercise spirit enough to be their own
judges of taste in dress: When they have wisdom to consult the
circumstances of this country, and fortitude enough to retain a fashion as
long as their own interest requires, instead of changing it when other
nations direct: When the ladies shall exercise the rights of their sex, and
say, we will give the laws of fashion to our own nation, instead of receiving
them from another, we will perform our part of the revolution: When both
sexes shall take more pride and pleasure in being their own standards, than
in being the humble imitators of those who riot on the profits of our
commerce; we shall realize a new species of independence; an
independence flattering to generous minds, and more productive of wealth
than all the laws of power, or the little arts of national policy. And in this
revolution of manners, there needs not any sacrifice of real dress. I will
venture to estimate, that the retrenching of superfluous articles; articles
which constitute no part of dress, and serve but to disfigure an elegant
person; articles that are made and sent to us to support the sixpenny day
laborers of Europe; I say, a retrenching of these trifling articles only, would
be an annual saving to America sufficient to pay one half of the interest of
our federal debt. We can throw no blame on foreign nations; they are wise,
and profit by our want of spirit and taste.
On the footing that all mankind are brethren, perhaps it is generous in us to
assist foreigners, who are a part of the Great Family.
It is to be wished, however, that we might first discharge our honest debts:
That the soldier, whose labor and blood have purchased our empire, and
whose services have been repaid with a shadow of reward, might be
indemnified by the justice of his country: That the widow and orphan might
at least receive the stipulated satisfaction for losses which money cannot
repair. Yes, let us first be just, and then generous. When we have no better
use for our superfluous property, then let us bestow it upon our wretched
brethren of the human race. They will repay our charity with gratitude, and
bless God that he has peopled one half the world with a race of freemen, to
enrich the tyrants, and support the vassals of the other.

In another particular, our dependence on nations farther advanced in society
than ourselves, has a very unhappy effect.
I assume it as a fact, conceded by all philosophers and historians, that there
has been, in every civilized nation, a particular period of time, peculiarly
favorable to literary researches; and that in this period, language and taste
arrive to purity; the best authors flourish, and genius is exerted to benefit
mankind.
This period in Greece was the age of Themistocles, immediately after the
invasion of Xerxes. In Rome, it was the reign of Augustus Cæsar, when a
revolution had left the empire in a state of tranquillity. In France, the reign
of Louis the XIVth was distinguished for the number and eminence of its
authors, and the correctness of taste. The corresponding period of taste in
England, commenced about the middle of the sixteenth century, and ended
with the reign of George the IId. Scotland was later in improvement; but
perhaps has now seen its meridian splendor.
There seems to be a certain point of improvement beyond which every step
in refinement is corruption; moral sentiment is postponed to wit, and sense
is sacrificed to sound. This has been the case in all nations, and is now true
of England. The candid among the nation acknowlege and lament the
decline of true taste and science. Very few valuable writings appear in the
present age; plays, novels, farces, and compilations fill the catalogue of new
publications; and the library of a man of fashion consists of Chesterfield's
Letters, Tristram Shandy, and a few comedies.
A gentleman in high office in London, in a letter to an eminent literary
character in America, which I had the honor to read, informs, "that so low is
the taste of the nation, that were Milton's Poem to be now first published, it
would not find purchasers: Music and painting are the only arts that have
royal encouragement." He says further, "that there is a national combination
to oppose the fame of every American art, production and character." I
would hope that this account is an exaggeration of the truth; but we have
the best testimony to convince us that every thing is sacrificed to
amusement and pleasure.
We ought not therefore to form our taste after such models: In order to
write, think and act with propriety, we should go back half a century, to the

style and morality of Addison and his cotemporaries; there we may find the
most perfect models.
By making the present taste of Europe our standards, we not only debase
our own, but we check the attempts of genius in this country.
Eminence is sometimes apt to impose errors upon people, whose respect for
the character may silence all scruple, and prevent them from examining into
the grounds of his opinion. Such is the implicit confidence reposed in the
opinions of certain celebrated writers, that when an American ventures to
call in question a received principle or opinion of theirs, his countrymen
charge him with arrogance, and exclaim, how should this man be as good a
judge of the subject as a foreigner! Such false notions of the perfection of
particular character, fetter the mind, and in concert with credulity and
idleness, prepare it for the reception of any errors, however enormous.
This same veneration for eminent foreigners, and the bewitching charms of
fashion, have led the Americans to adopt the modern corruptions of our
language. Very seldom have men examined the structure of the language, to
find reasons for their practice. The pronunciation and use of words have
been subject to the same arbitrary or accidental changes, as the shape of
their garments. My lord wears a hat of a certain size and shape; he
pronounces a word in a certain manner; and both must be right, for he is a
fashionable man. In Europe this is right in dress; and men who have not an
opportunity of learning the just rules of our language, are in some degree
excuseable for imitating those whom they consider as superiors. But in men
of science, this imitation can hardly be excused.
Our language was spoken in purity about eighty years ago; since which
time, great numbers of faults have crept into practice about the theater and
court of London. An affected erroneous pronunciation has in many
instances taken place of the true; and new words or modes of speech have
succeeded the ancient correct English phrases.
Thus we have, in the modern English pronunciation, their natshures,
conjunctshures, constitshutions, and tshumultshuous legislatshures; and a
long catalogue of fashionable improprieties. These are a direct violation of
the rules of analogy and harmony; they offend the ear, and embarrass the
language. Time was, when these errors were unknown; they were little
known in America before the revolution. I presume we may safely say, that

our language has suffered more injurious changes in America, since the
British army landed on our shores, than it had suffered before, in the period
of three centuries. The bucks and bloods tell us that there is no proper
standard in language; that it is all arbitrary. The assertion, however, serves
but to show their ignorance. There are, in the language itself, decisive
reasons for preferring one pronunciation to another; and men of science
should be acquainted with these reasons. But if there were none, and every
thing rested on practice, we should never change a general practice without
substantial reasons: No change should be introduced, which is not an
obvious improvement.
But our leading characters seem to pay no regard to rules, or their former
practice. To know and embrace every change made in Great Britain,
whether right or wrong, is the extent of their inquiries, and the height of
their ambition. It is to this deference we may ascribe the long catalogue of
errors in pronunciation and of false idioms which disfigure the language of
our mighty fine speakers. And should this imitation continue, we shall be
hurried down the stream of corruption, with older nations, and our
language, with theirs, be lost in an ocean of perpetual changes. The only
hope we can entertain is, that America, driven by the shock of a revolution,
from the rapidity of the current, may glide along near the margin with a
gentler stream, and sometimes be wafted back by an eddy.
The foregoing remarks suggest some of the causes which operate to defeat
the true end of the revolution. Every man sees and feels our political
embarrassments; the foes of the revolution ascribe them all to that event,
and the friends charge them upon the enmity and resentment of our parent
country. Both are wrong. The revolution is, and will ultimately prove, a
happy event for us and for the world. The English, as a nation, are wise and
respectable: As citizens of the world, we should esteem them: As a
commercial people, we should cultivate a friendly intercourse with them;
but as a foreign nation, whose political circumstances are very different
from ours, we should not make them, in all cases, our standard. I repeat the
declaration I before made: The independence of this country is incomplete:
There has been a total change in government, with little or no change in the
principles which give energy to the operations of government.
In the preceding remarks, I have endeavored to shew in what respect the
revolution of America is yet incomplete, and that an independence of

manners and opinion is necessary to give full effect to an independence of
government. I propose now to make some remarks on government, to state
the effects of the revolution on the morals of people, and the influence of
money on mens' sense of justice and moral obligation.
It is perhaps a fundamental principle of government, that men are
influenced more by habit, than by any abstract ideas of right and wrong.
Few people examin into the propriety of particular usages or laws; or if they
examin, few indeed are capable of comprehending their propriety. But every
man knows what is a law or general practice, and he conforms to it, not
because it is right or best, but because it has been the practice. It is for this
reason that habits of obedience should not be disturbed. There are perhaps
in every government, some laws and customs, which, when examined on
theoretical principles, will be found unjust and even impolitic. But if the
people acquiesce in those laws and customs, if they are attached to them by
habit, it is wrong in the Legislature to attempt an innovation which shall
alarm their apprehensions. There are multitudes of absurdities practised in
society, in which people are evidently happy. Arraign those absurdities
before the tribunal of examination; people may be convinced of their
impropriety; they may even be convinced that better schemes may be
projected; and yet it might be impossible to unite their opinions so as to
establish different maxims. On the other hand, there are many good
institutions, in which, however, there may be theoretical faults, which, if
called into public view, and artfully represented, might shake the best
government on earth.
Speculativ philosophers and historians have often described, and sometimes
ridiculed the warmth with which nations have defended errors in religion
and government. With the most profound deference for wise and
respectable men, I must think they are guilty of a mistake; and that the
errors which nations fight to defend, exist only in the heads of these
theorists. Whatever speculation may tell us, experience and the peace of
society, require us to consider every thing as right, which a nation believes
to be so. Every institution, every custom, may be deemed just and proper,
which does not produce inconveniencies that the bulk of mankind may see
and feel. The tranquillity of society therefore should never be disturbed for
a philosophical distinction.

It will perhaps be objected, that these doctrines, if practised, would prevent
all improvements, in science, religion and government. By no means; but
they point out the method in which all improvements should be made, when
opinion and fixed habits are to be overthrown, or changed. They show that
all reformation should be left to the natural progress of society, or to the
conviction of the mind. They show the hazard and impracticability of
making changes, before the minds of the body of the people are prepared
for the innovation. I speak not of despotic governments, where the will of
the prince is enforced by an army; and yet even absolute tyrants have been
assassinated for not attending to the spirit and habits of their subjects.
In vain do rulers oppose the general opinion of the people. By such
opposition, Philip IId, of Spain, kept one part of his subjects, for half a
century, butchering the other, and in the end, lost one third of his
dominions. By not regarding the change of habits in the nation, Charles Ist,
of England, lost his head. By carrying his changes too far, Cromwell began
to oppose the spirit of the nation, and had he lived to prosecute his system,
that spirit would, in a few years, have brought his neck to the block. The
general spirit of the nation restored to the throne, the son of the prince,
whom that spirit had but a few years before arraigned and condemned. By
opposing that spirit, James was obliged to leave his kingdom, and the sense
of the nation still excludes the family which, by their own law of
succession, has the best title to the throne. But there is no prescription
against general opinion; no right that can enter the list against the sense of a
nation; that sense, which after all our reasoning, will forever determin what
is best.
The truth of these remarks is proved by examples in this country. An
immense revenue might have been drawn from America without resistance,
in almost any method but that which the British parliament adopted. But
their first attempts were made upon articles of common necessity; the
attempts were too visible; the people felt and resisted. Their apprehensions
were alarmed; their fears, whether well founded or imaginary, were
multiplied and confirmed by newspaper rhapsodies, and finally produced a
combined opposition to all British taxation. Then Great Britain should have
compounded; she did not; she opposed the general sense of three millions
of her subjects, and lost the whole.

A dispute existed between Connecticut and Pensylvania, respecting a tract
of land; a federal court decided the jurisdiction, or State claim, in favor of
Pensylvania; five thousand inhabitants, seated on the lands, acknowlege the
jurisdiction, but contend that their original purchase, and subsequent labor,
entitle them to the lands. Notwithstanding the invalidity of their State claim,
the settlers determin to maintain their lands. The question of right is at once
suspended, and the only inquiry is, which is the best policy, to indemnify a
few individuals by a pecuniary composition, or sacrifice five thousand
subjects. This question, left to the commonwealth, would be decided by a
great majority, in favor of the settlers, and against the very principles of
right on which the State holds the jurisdiction.
I am not competent to judge of the merits of the dispute between New York
and Vermont; but if the usurpation of Vermont were a conceded fact, and
that usurpation to be defended by arms, and the question of granting them
independence were left to the State of New York, I am confident that nine
tenths of the people would decide for the independence of Vermont against
their own rights.
Thus it often happens, that a general opinion, grounded on rational
expediency, will, and ought to decide political questions, contrary to the
strict principles of justice and equity.
I would, by no means, be understood to defend, by such doctrines, the
insurrections of a neighboring State. I reprobate every thing that wears the
least appearance of opposition to lawful authority. It is evident however,
that the Legislature of Massachusetts were too inattentive to the general
spirit of the State. The murmurs of the people were heard long before they
broke out into rebellion, and were treated with too much neglect. They were
a proof at least that something was wrong. This the Legislature
acknowleged in their late acts, and the complaints of the populace might
once have been silenced by such conciliatory measures.
But an opposition so violent must suddenly cease, or acquire system. In the
latter case, the demands of the insurgents will rise in proportion to their
strength; they will ask unreasonable concessions, and the sword must
decide their claims. The insurgents took wrong steps to obtain redress; they
should have rested their agrievances on petitions, and the event of an
election; but one rash step leads to a second, and to a third. These fatal

effects of popular discontent afford one useful lesson, that rulers should not
attempt to carry a measure against the general voice of a people.[35] But a
question will arise, how far may the people be opposed, when their schemes
are evidently pernicious? I answer, this can never happen thro design; and
errors, even of the populace, may gradually be removed. If the people
cannot be convinced, by reason and argument, of the impolicy or injustice
of a favorite scheme, we have only to wait for the consequences to produce
conviction. All people are not capable of just reasoning on the great scale of
politics; but all can feel the inconveniencies of wrong measures, and evils
of this kind generally furnish their own remedy. All popular Legislatures are
liable to great mistakes. Many of the acts of the American Legislatures,
respecting money and commerce, will, to future generations, appear
incredible. After repeated experiments, people will be better informed, and
astonished that their fathers could make such blunders in legislation.
If the people of this State[36] are not already convinced, they certainly will
be, that the addition of 150,000l. of paper, to the current specie of the State,
did not increase the permanent value of circulating medium a single
farthing. They were perhaps told that such a sum of paper would shut up the
specie, or enable the merchant to export it; but their jealousy made them
believe these the suggestions of interest; and nothing but the experiment
could satisfy their wishes. Every man of reflection must regret that he is
subject to the evils consequent on popular mistakes in judgement; but this is
the price of our independence and our forms of government.
Let us attend to the immediate and necessary consequences of the American
revolution.
So great an event as that of detaching millions of people from their parent
nation, could not have been effected without the operation of powerful
causes. Nothing but a series of real or imaginary evils could have shaken
the habits by which we were governed, and produced a combined
opposition against the power of Great Britain. I shall not enumerate any of
these evils; but observe that such evils, by twenty years operation upon the
fears or feelings of the Americans, had alienated their affections or
weakened those habits of respect, by which they were predisposed to
voluntary obedience. When a government has lost respect, it has lost the
main pillar of its authority. Not even a military force can supply the want of
respect among subjects. A change of sentiment prepares the way for a

change of government, and when that change of sentiment had become
general in America, nothing could have prevented a revolution.
But it is more easy to excite fears than to remove them. The jealousy raised
in the minds of Americans against the British government, wrought a
revolution; but the spirit did not then subside; it changed its object, and by
the arts of designing men, and the real distresses consequent on such a
political storm, was directed against our own governments. The restraints
imposed by respect and habits of obedience were broken thro, and the
licentious passions of men set afloat.
Nothing can be so fatal to morals and the peace of society, as a violent
shock given to public opinion or fixed habits. Polemic disputes have often
destroyed the friendship of a church, and filled it, not only with rancor, but
with immorality. Public opinion therefore in religion and government, the
great supports of society, should never be suddenly unhinged. The
separation of America, however, from all dependence on European
government, could not have been effected without previously attacking and
changing opinion. It was an essential step, but the effects of it will not
easily be repaired. That independence of spirit which preceded the
commencement of hostilities, and which victory has strengthened; that love
of dominion, inherent in the mind of man, which our forms of government
are continually flattering; that licentiousness of inquiry which a jealousy of
rights first produced and still preserves, cannot be controled and subdued,
but by a long series of prudent and vigorous measures.
Perhaps the present age will hardly see the restoration of perfect
tranquillity. But the spirit and principles, which wrought our separation
from Great Britain, will mostly die with the present generation; the next
generation will probably have new habits of obedience to our new
governments; and habits will govern them, with very little support from
law.
The force of habit in government is most strikingly illustrated by the
example of Connecticut. Most of the laws, customs and institutions, which
the people brought with them from England, or which they introduced, on
their first settlement, remain to this day, with such small alterations only as
would naturally be made in the progress of society and population.

The government of Connecticut had formerly little more than a nominal
dependence on England; independence therefore required but a little change
of the old constitution. The habits of the people have not been materially
changed; their respect for the government has not been suspended nor
diminished. It would therefore be extremely difficult to raise an insurrection
in that State against their own government;[37] for they have not been
accustomed to dispute the propriety of their established maxims and laws.
Whatever alterations in their constitution, a discerning Legislator might
suggest, it would be highly impolitic to attempt any changes, which should
disturb public opinion or alarm apprehension. When a law or custom
becomes inconvenient, the people will feel the evil and apply a remedy.
Most of the other States had new constitutions of government to form; they
had a kind of interregnum; an interval, when respect for all government was
suspended; an interval fatal in the last degree, to morals and social
confidence. This interval between the abolition of the old constitution and
the formation of a new one, lasted longer in Massachusetts than in the other
States, and there the effects are most visible. But perhaps it is impossible to
frame a constitution of government, in the closet, which will suit the
people; for it is frequent to find one, the most perfect in theory, the most
objectionable in practice. Hence we often hear popular complaints against
the present governments in America: And yet these may proceed rather
from the novelty of the obedience required, than from any real errors or
defects in the systems: It may be nothing but the want of habit which makes
people uneasy; the same articles which now produce clamors and
discontent, may, after twenty years practice, give perfect satisfaction. Nay,
the same civil regulation, which the present generation may raise a mob to
resist, the next generation may raise a mob to defend.
But perhaps a more immediate and powerful cause of a corruption of social
principles, is a fluctuation of money. Few people seem to attend to the
connexion between money and morals; but it may doubtless be proved to
the satisfaction of every reflecting mind, that a sudden increase of specie in
a country, and frequent and obvious changes of value, are more fruitful
sources of corruption of morals than any events that take place in a
community.
America began the late war without funds of money, and its circulating
specie was very inconsiderable. Commerce was regular, and speculation, a

term unknown to the body of the people.
The emission of paper was an obvious and necessary expedient; yet it was
bad policy to throw vast sums into circulation without taking some
measures to recall it. It was the fate of America to receive in bills of credit,
and in the course of three or four years, about twenty times the nominal
value of its current specie; the bills depreciated in the same proportion, and
the real value of the medium continued the same.
The first visible effect of an augmentation of the medium and the
consequent fluctuation of value, was, a host of jockies, who followed a
species of itinerant commerce; and subsisted upon the ignorance and
honesty of the country people; or in other words, upon the difference in the
value of the currency, in different places. Perhaps we may safely estimate,
that not less than 20,000 men in America, left honest callings, and applied
themselves to this knavish traffic. A sudden augmentation of currency
flattered people with the prospect of accumulating property without labor.
The first effect of too much money is to check manual labor, the only
permanent source of wealth. Industry, which secures subsistence and
advances our interest by slow and regular gains, is the best preservative of
morals; for it keeps men employed, and affords them few opportunities of
taking unfair advantages. A regular commerce has nearly the same effect as
agriculture or the mechanic arts; for the principles are generally fixed and
understood.
Speculation has the contrary effect. As its calculations for profit depend on
no fixed principles, but solely on the different value of articles in different
parts of the country, or accidental and sudden variations of value, it opens a
field for the exercise of ingenuity in taking advantage of these
circumstances. The speculator may begin with honest intentions; and may
justify his business, by saying, that he injures no man, when he givs the
current value of an article in one place, and sells it for its current value in
another; altho in this case he is a useless member of society, as he livs upon
the labor of others, without earning a farthing. But he does not stop here; he
takes an advantage of ignorance and necessity; he will, if possible,
monopolize an article to create a necessity. Repeated opportunities of this
kind gradually weaken the force of moral obligation; and nine persons of

ten, who enter into the business of speculation with a good character, will,
in a few years, lose their principles, and probably, their reputation.
Speculation is pernicious to morals, in proportion as its effects are extensiv.
Speculation in the English funds is practised on principles destructiv of
justice and morals; but it consists in the transfer of large sums; the
contingencies on which it depends are not frequent, and the business is
confined to a few sharpers in the metropolis. Such a speculation affects not
the body of the people. The medium circulating in the kingdom, has a fixed
permanent value, and affords no opportunities for irregular gains.
Very different is speculation in America. Here its objects are in every
person's hands; changes of value are frequent; opportunities of gain,
numberless; and the evil pervades the community. The country swarms with
speculators, who are searching all places, from the stores of the wealthy, to
the recesses of indigence, for opportunities of making lucrativ bargains. Not
a tavern can we enter, but we meet crowds of these people, who wear their
character in their countenances.
But the speculators are not the only men whose character and principles are
exposed by such a state of the currency; the honest laborer and the regular
merchant are often tempted to forsake the established principles of advance.
Every temptation of this kind attacks the moral principles, and exposes men
to small deviations from the rectitude of commutativ justice.
Such are the sources of corruption in commercial intercourse. A relaxation
of principle, in one instance, leads to every species of vice, and operates till
its causes cease to exist, or till all the supports of social confidence are
subverted. It is remarked by people very illiterate and circumscribed in their
observation, that there is not now the same confidence between man and
man, which existed before the war. It is doubtless true; this distrust of
individuals, a general corruption of manners, idleness, and all its train of
fatal consequences, may be resolved into two causes: The sudden flood of
money during the late war, and a constant fluctuation of the value of the
currencies.
The effects of a sudden augmentation of the quantity of money in
circulation were so obvious, during the war, and the example is so recent,
that the subject requires no illustration, but a recollection of facts. Yet there

is an example recorded in the History of France, so exactly in point, that I
cannot omit it.
During the regency of the Duke of Orleans, one Law, who had fled from
punishment in Scotland, and taken refuge in France, obtained, by his
address, a great share of confidence in the councils of the regent. He formed
a plan of drawing all the specie from circulation, and issuing bills upon the
royal treasury. It is not necessary to name the expedients he used to effect
his purpose. It is sufficient to observe, that by various methods, he drew
most of the specie of the kingdom into the public treasury, and issued bills
to about one hundred times the value of the specie, which had before
circulated. The notes or securities depreciated as they were thrown into
circulation, like our continental currency. The nature of a medium of trade,
it seems, was not well understood: Such a sudden depreciation was a
surprising phenomenon at that period; men of property, who were the
holders of the paper, were alarmed; the kingdom was in confusion. When
the bills had sunk to a fifth of their value, a royal edict was issued,
ordaining that the remaining specie in circulation should be sunk to a level
with paper. This resembles, in some respects, the regulation of prices in
America. An edict, so rash and absurd, increased the evils it was meant to
remedy, and filled the kingdom with clamor.
In a short time, the paper was sunk as low as our continental currency,
before its death.
The confusion was general; the regent and Law were obliged to fly the
kingdom; and both died in obscurity, the one in Italy, and the other, if I
mistake not, in the Netherlands. In France there was a total change of
property; poor men made fortunes by speculation, and the rich were
beggared. The result of the whole was, that the paper was called in at a
discount, by means similar to the forty for one act of the United States.
But the principal view I have in stating this example is, to show the effect of
a sudden inundation of money upon industry and morals. No sooner did the
nation feel an increase of the quantity of money, but the kingdom was
overrun with speculators; men who left useful occupations, for the prospect
of rapid accumulations of wealth. Knavery, over reaching, idleness,
prodigality, and every kind of vice prevailed, and filled the kingdom with
distress, confusion, and poverty.

The South Sea bubble, in England, was a farce of a similar kind, but its
effects were less extensiv.
The continental currency was not the sole cause of the idleness and
speculation, which prevailed in this country, about the years 1780, 1781,
and 1782. Vast quantities of specie were introduced by the French army, by
the Spanish trade, and by a clandestine intercourse with the British
garrisons. At the close of the war, there was more than double the quantity
of gold and silver in the country, which was necessary for the purposes of a
regular commerce.
This extraordinary circulation of specie had its usual, its certain effect; it
prompted multitudes to quit manual labor for trade. This circumstance, in
conjunction with the disbanding of the army, which left great numbers of
men without employment, and with a rage for foreign goods, which was
always strong, and was then increased by a long war, filled our commercial
towns with hosts of adventurers in business. The consequent influx of goods
and enormous credit necessary to obtain them, are evils that deeply affect
this country. I will not attempt a detail of the state of commerce in the
United States; but observe that the necessary exportation of specie was the
happiest event that could befal the United States; the only event that could
turn industry into its proper channel, and reduce the commerce of the
country to a proportion with the agriculture.
Dissipation was another consequence of a flood of money. No country
perhaps on earth can exhibit such a spirit of dissipation among men, who
derive their support from business, as America. It is supposed by good
judges, that the expenses of subsistence, dress and equipage, were nearly
doubled in the commercial towns, the two first years of the peace. I have no
doubt the support of the common people was enhanced twenty five per cent.
This augmentation of expenses, with a dimunition of productiv industry, are
the consequences of too much money, and a scarcity is our only remedy.
Short sighted people complain of the present scarcity; but it is the only hope
of our political salvation; and that Legislature which ventures to remove
popular complaints, by a coinage of great quantities of specie, or by its
substitute, paper, checks industry, keeps alive a spirit of dissipation, and
retards the increase of solid wealth. If this has been necessary, it is a
necessity sincerely to be lamented.

But there is one source of idleness and corruption, which is general in
America, and bids fair to be of long duration. I refer to the different species
of federal and State securities, which are every where diffused, and of
fluctuating value. These evidences of our debts open such prospects for
rapid accumulations of property to every class of people, that men cannot
withstand the temptation: Thousands are drawn from useful occupations
into a course of life, which cannot possibly benefit society; which must
render them useless, and probably will render them bad men, and dangerous
members of a community.
What remedy can be applied to so great an evil, it is not for me to determin.
But if I may offer my sentiments freely, I must acknowlege that I think no
measure can produce so much mischief, as the circulation of a depreciated
changeable currency. Let all our debts be placed on the footing of bank
stock, and made transferable only at the treasury; or let the present
evidences of it be called in, and new notes issued, payable only to the
creditor or original holder; or let the securities be purchased at their current
discount, let some method be adopted to draw them from circulation; for
they destroy public and private confidence; they cut the sinews of industry;
they operate like a slow poison, dissolving the stamina of government,
moral principles.
No paper should circulate in a commercial country, which is not a
representativ of ready cash; it must at least command punctual interest, and
security of the principal when demanded. Without these requisits, all notes
will certainly depreciate. Most of our public securities want all the requisits
of a paper currency. But if they did not; if they were equal in value to bank
notes or specie, still the sums are much too large for a circulating medium
in America. The amount of the continental and State certificates, with the
emissions of paper by particular States, cannot be less than seventy millions
of dollars, which is seven times the sum necessary for a circulation.
Were they equal in value to gold and silver, the whole medium would
depreciate, specie as well as paper. But as they want every requisit of a
paper currency, the whole depreciation falls upon the securities.
An alarming consequence of the State of our public debt remains to be
considered. Want of confidence in the public, added to the vast quantity of
paper, has sunk it to a third, sixth, or eighth part of its nominal value. Most

of the creditors of the public have parted with their securities at a great
discount, and are thus robbed of the monies which they earned by the sweat
of the brow. Men of property have purchased them for a trifle, and in some
States receive the interest in specie. In Massachusetts, this is the case with
respect to some part of the State debt. When a man buys a note of twenty
shillings value for five, and receives the interest, six per cent. in specie, he
in fact receives twenty four per cent. on his money.
This is one source of the insurrection in Massachusetts. The people feel the
injustice of paying such an interest to men who earned but a small part of it,
and whose sole merit is, that they have more money than their fellow
citizens who suffer the loss by depreciation. Those men in particular, who
fought for our independence, or loaned their property to save the country,
view with indignant resentment, that law which obliges them to pay twenty
four per cent. interest on the securities, which they have sold for a fourth, or
an eighth part of their honest demands.
This cannot justify the violent steps taken by the people; because petitions,
and united firmness in a constitutional way, would have procured redress.
But I state the facts to shew the effects of speculation, or rather, of the want
of faith in public engagements.
Such are the consequences of a variable medium; neglect to industry;
application to irregular commerce; relaxation of principles in social
intercourse; distrust of individuals; loss of confidence in the public, and of
respect for laws; innumerable acts of injustice between man and man, and
between the State and the subject; popular uneasiness, murmurs and
insurrections. And such effects will exist till their cause shall be removed.
Not the creation of a Supreme Power over the United States, is an object of
more importance, than the annihilation of every species of fluctuating
currency.
That instability of law, to which republics are prone, is another source of
corruption. Multiplication and changes of law have a great effect in
weakening the force of government, by preventing or destroying habits.
Law acquires force by a steady operation, and government acquires dignity
and respect, in proportion to the uniformity of its proceedings. Necessity
perhaps has made our federal and provincial governments frequently shift
their measures, and the unforeseen or unavoidable variations of public

securities, with the impossibility of commanding the resources of the
continent, to fulfil engagements, all predict a continuation of the evil. But
the whole wisdom of Legislatures should be exerted to devise a system of
measures which may preclude the necessity of changes that tend to bring
government into contempt.
A mild or lax execution of law may also have a bad effect in lessening the
respect for its officers. In a monarchy, there is no reasoning with the
executive; the will of the prince inspires terror. In our governments, the
officers are often familiar, and will even delay justice as long as possible to
assist the prisoner.
In some of the eastern States, the frequency and mildness of laws, have
introduced very singular habits. The people of Connecticut respect the laws
as much as any people; they would not be guilty of disobedience; they mean
generally to pay their debts, but are not very anxious to be punctual. They
suppose a creditor can wait for his money longer than the period when it is
due, and think it hard if he will not.[38]
This mild execution of law, and a consequential habit of dilatoriness, which
arise from the spirit of equality, are still prevalent amongst the body of the
people. These gave rise to the late incorporation of several commercial
towns, with large powers; an expedient which has answered the purpose of
giving to commerce the advantage of energy and dispatch in the collection
of debts. As most of the business is done in the cities, this effect will
gradually extend itself, and form different habits.
The great misfortune of the multiplicity of laws and frequency of litigation,
is, that they weaken a respect for the executiv authority, destroy the
principle of honor, and transfer the disgrace, which ought to follow
delinquency in payment, from a man's reputation, to the administration of
justice. The lawyers and courts are impeached, when the whole blame ought
to fall upon the debtor for his impunctuality. Honor, a substitute for honesty,
has more influence upon men than law; for in the one case, a man's
character is at stake, and in the other, his property. When a man's character
suffers not, by a failure of engagements, and by a public prosecution, the
collection of debts must be slow. But when a man's reputation is suspended
on the punctual discharge of his contracts, he will spare no pains to do it;
and this is or ought to be the case in all commercial countries.

Extensiv credit, in a popular government, is always pernicious, and may be
fatal. When the people are deeply or generally involved, they have power
and strong temptations to introduce an abolition of debts; an agrarian law,
or that modern refinement on the Roman plan, which is a substitute for
both, a paper currency, issued on depreciating principles. Rhode Island is a
melancholy proof of this truth, and New Hampshire narrowly escaped the
deplorable evils. In governments like ours, it is policy to make it the interest
of people to be honest. In short, the whole art of governing consists in
binding each individual by his particular interest, to promote the aggregate
interest of the community.
Massachusetts affords a striking example of the danger incurred by too
many private debts. During the war the operation of justice was necessarily
suspended, and debts were constantly multiplying and accumulating. When
law came to be rigorously enforced, the people were distressed beyond
measure, particularly in the western counties, where people are poorer than
in the parts of the State better settled, and nearer to market. These private
debts crowded hard, and operated with the demands of the federal creditors,
to push the people into violent measures.
The planters in Virginia owe immense sums of money to the British
merchants. What is the consequence? a law, suspending the collection of
British debts. The loss of their slaves is the ostensible excuse for this law;
but a more solid reason must be, the utter impossibility of immediately
discharging the debts. In our governments the men who owe the money,
make the laws; and a general embarrassment of circumstances is too strong
a temptation to evade or suspend the performance of justice. For this
reason, the wisdom of the Legislature might cooperate with the interest of
the merchant, to check a general credit. In some cases it might be safe and
wise to withdraw the protection of law from debts of certain descriptions. It
is an excellent law in one State, which ordains, that no tavern debt, of more
than two days standing, shall be recoverable by law. It prevents tavern
haunting and its consequences, idleness, drunkenness and quarrels. Perhaps
laws of this kind have the best effect in introducing punctual payments.
Their first effect is to prevent credit; but they gradually change a man's
regard for his property, to a more activ and efficient principle, an attention
to his character.

In the present anarchy in Massachusetts, monied men get credit with the
merchant, and are punctual to fulfil engagements, as they are sensible that
the merchant relies solely on their honor. The certain ultimate tendency of
withdrawing the protection of law from particular kinds of debts, is to
discourage tricks and evasions, and introduce habits of punctuality in
commerce.
The present state of our public credit hath the same effect. Repeated
violations of public faith, the circulation of a variable medium of trade, the
contempt of law, the perpetual fear of new legislativ schemes for
discharging our debts, and of tender laws, have made men very cautious in
giving credit, and when they do give it, they depend more on the honor of a
man than on any security derived from law. This one happy effect of want
of confidence in the public, is some small consolation for an infinite variety
of political evils and distresses.
Laws to prevent credit would be beneficial to poor people. With respect to
the contraction of debts, people at large, in some measure, resemble
children; they are not judges even of their own interest. They anticipate
their incomes, and very often, by miscalculation, much more than their
incomes. But this is not the worst effect; an easy credit throws them off
their guard in their expenses. In general we observe that a slow, laborious
acquisition of property, creates a caution in expenditures, and gradually
forms the miser. On the other hand, a sudden acquisition of money, either
by gambling, lotteries, privateering, or marriage, has a tendency to open the
heart, or throw the man off his guard, and thus makes him prodigal in his
expenses. Perhaps this is ever the case, except when a penurious habit has
been previously formed.
An easy and extensiv credit has a similar effect. When people can possess
themselves of property without previous labor, they consume it with
improvident liberality. A prudent man will not; but a large proportion of
mankind have not prudence and fortitude enough to resist the demands of
pride and appetite. Thus they often riot on other men's property, which they
would not labor to procure. They form habits of indolence and
extravagance, which ruin their families, and impoverish their creditors.
Another effect of extensiv credit, is a multitude of lawyers. Every thing
which tends to create disputes, to multiply debts, weaken a regard to

commercial engagements, and place the collection of debts on law, rather
than on honour, increases the encouragement of lawyers. The profession of
law is honorable, and the professors, I scruple not to aver, as liberal, honest
and respectable, as any class of men in the State. But their business must be
considered as a public evil, except in the drafting of legal instruments, and
in some real important disputes. Such is the habit of trusting to law, for the
recovery of debts, that, in some of the eastern States, one half or two thirds
of the lawyers are mere collectors. They bring forward suits for small debts,
that are not disputed; they recover judgement upon default, they take out
executions, and live upon their fees.
The evil is not so great in the middle States; but it is great in all the States.
Never was there such a rage for the study of law. From one end of the
continent to the other, the students of this science are multiplying without
number. An infallible proof that the business is lucrativ.
The insurgents in Massachusetts enumerate lawyers among their
grievances. They wish the Legislature to limit their number and their
demands. Short sighted mortals! They seem not to consider that lawyers
grow out of their own follies, and that the only radical remedy for the evil
is, to contract no more debts than they can pay, with strict punctuality.
The number of professional men in a State should be as few as possible; for
they do not increase the property of the State, but liv on the property
acquired by others.
There is little danger that the number of clergymen will be too great. In a
few instances, religious parties may have multiplied their teachers to too
great a number, and perhaps in some parts of the country, a few more
ministers of the gospel would be very useful.
Physicians will multiply in proportion to the luxuries and idleness of men.
They cannot be limited by law, for people will be as intemperate and as lazy
as they please.
But an artful Legislature will take away some of the causes of litigation,
and thus curtail the number of lawyers. We may always determin the degree
of corruption, in commercial habits, by the number of civil suits in the
courts of law. The multiplication of lawyers is a proof of private
embarrassments in any State; it is a convincing proof that in America these

embarrassments are numberless. The evil is of such magnitude in some
States, as to suspend the operation of law, and in all it produces distrust
among men, renders property unsafe, and perplexes our mutual intercourse.
In this situation, with popular governments, and an unbounded rage for
magnificent living, perhaps the only effectual remedy for a multitude of
public evils, is the restraining of credit. It might even be useful to destroy
all credit on the security of law, except debts of certain descriptions, where
mortgages might be given. This would not check business, but it would
oblige people to exercise a principle of honor, and to have recourse to
industry, and ready payment for articles which their necessities or their
fancies require. We should then be better able to determin, whether bucks
and bloods, in high life, "who roll the thundering chariot o'er the ground,"
are sporting with their own property, or that of honest creditors.
I cannot close these remarks without observing how much this country
owes to particular classes of people for the practice of the commercial
virtues. To the Friends, the Germans and the Dutch, this country is indebted
for that industry and provident economy, which enables them to subsist
without anxiety, and to be honest and punctual, without embarrassment.
Happy would it be for this country, if these virtues were more generally
practised. Paper money and foreign credit are mere temporary expedients to
keep up the appearance of wealth and splendor; but they are miserable
substitutes for solid property. The only way to become rich at home and
respectable abroad, is to become industrious, and to throw off our slavish
dependence on foreign manners, which obliges us to sacrifice our opinions,
our taste, and our interest, to the policy and aggrandizement of other
nations.

No. VIII.
ON PAPER MONEY.
[Published at Baltimore, August 9, 1785.]

Messrs. Printers,
I observed a paragraph of intelligence in your Journal, of the 26th of July,
respecting the circulation of paper currency in North Carolina. I am not
disposed to dispute the truth of the fact, that paper currency passes in that
State at par with specie; but I should be very sorry to see it drawn into a
precedent for other States.
The scarcity of cash is a general complaint, and superficial observers
impute the evil to a wrong cause, while shallow reasoners would remedy it
by an emission of paper credit.
The real state of our commerce is this; since the ratification of peace, the
quantity of goods imported into the United States has been much greater
than what was necessary for the consumption of the inhabitants. Perhaps I
shall not be wide of the truth, when I suppose that one third of the
importations would supply the demands of people. The consequence is, the
other two thirds continue on hand as a superfluity. The merchant finds no
market for his goods, and erroneously imputes the evil to a scarcity of cash.
But the real truth is, people do not want his goods; they purchase what they
want, and find cash or produce to make payment; but the surplus remains in
store.
In every trading nation, there ought to be a due proportion between the
commercial interest, the agricultural and the manufacturing. Whenever the
farmers and manufacturers are too numerous for the merchants, produce
and manufactures will be plentiful and cheap; trade will of course be
lucrativ. Whenever the merchants are too numerous for the laborers, the
importations of the former will exceed the wants of the latter; of course
goods will not find vent; and the merchant who owes nothing may lie and
sleep in indolence, while the merchant who deals on credit must fail. The

experience of almost every day proves the truth of this reasoning. I will
suppose that the number of merchants, and the quantity of goods in
Baltimore, are double to what they were two years ago; and the market for
goods is nearly the same. The effect will be, that the same profit of business
will be divided among double the number of men, while, at the same time,
rents and the price of provision in market will be double. The clear profit of
the merchant will therefore be reduced to one fourth part of what it was two
years ago. I submit to the inhabitants of this flourishing town, whether this
is a mere supposition, or a moderate state of facts; and whether this
reasoning will not, in a greater or less degree, apply to every commercial
town in the United States.
But is not money scarce? With respect to the quantity of goods in store,
money is very scarce: With respect to the produce of the country, there is
money enough. Almost every article of home produce will command cash;
but the merchant cannot get cash for his goods. Money is the representativ
of goods bought and sold. I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that two
years ago there was cash enough in the country to purchase all the goods in
market at the usual advance. I will suppose that the quantity of goods has
been trebled since that time. In this case, had the quantity of money
continued the same, there would have been cash enough to purchase just
one third of the goods. But suppose what is true, that at the time the
quantity of goods increases in this proportion, the quantity of money in
circulation diminishes in the same proportion. In this case there will be but
one third of the cash to purchase three times the goods. Thus but one sixth
part of the goods can be purchased by the circulating cash. The merchant
must then lower the price of his goods to one sixth of their value, or keep
them on hand. This reasoning, however mathematical, is just, and applies to
all commercial countries. It is a fair state of facts in America. But though
the quantity of money is greatly diminished, yet there is sufficient to
represent the produce of the country, which in quantity continues the same.
The price is however lowered by the diminution of the quantity of
circulating cash.
Whether the quantity of cash is diminished, and the quantity of goods
increased in the exact proportion above stated, is not material, the foregoing
reasoning being sufficient to illustrate the principle. The probability is, that

the disproportion between the goods in market and the cash in circulation, is
greater than I have supposed.
The following propositions, I venture to assert, are generally, if not
universally, true:
1. That the imports of a country should never exceed its exports. In other
words, the value of the goods imported should never exceed the value of the
superfluous produce, or that part of the produce which the inhabitants do
not want for their own consumption.
2. That too great a quantity of cash in circulation, is a much greater evil
than too small a quantity.
3. That too much money in a commercial country will inevitably produce a
scarcity.
4. That the wealth of a country does not consist in cash, but in the produce
of industry, viz. in agriculture and manufactures.
5. That in a commercial country, where people are industrious, there can
never be, for any long time, a want of cash sufficient for a medium.
The first proposition is universally acknowleged to be true.
The second is less obvious, but equally true. Too much money raises the
price of labor and of its effects; deprives us consequently of a foreign
market; produces indolence and dissipation; than which greater evils cannot
happen to a State. The sudden increase of money, by large emissions of
paper credit, at the beginning of the late war, produced more luxury,
indolence, corruption of morals, and other fatal effects, than all other causes
that ever took place in America. We feel these evils to this moment. On the
other hand, a scarcity of cash, tho it cramps commerce for a moment,
always checks the evils before mentioned, lowers the price of labor, and
produce will of course find a profitable market; it produces economy and
industry, and consequently preserves the morals of the people; for industry
goes further in preserving purity of morals, than all the sermons that were
ever preached.
This leads to an illustration of the third proposition. If too much money in a
country raises the price of labor and of produce, the consequence is, that
people will go abroad for articles, because they are cheaper in foreign

markets, and they will purchase as long as they can get cash. Importations
will be multiplied till the country is drained of cash, and then business will
return to a new channel. The history of trade in America, the last two years,
is an illustration of this proposition.
The fourth proposition, also, is illustrated by facts. I will suppose that ten
millions of dollars are sufficient for a medium in America: Let that sum be
instantaneously augmented to twenty millions, and the country is not a
farthing richer, for the price of goods will be immediately doubled. Two
dollars, in the latter case, purchase no more than one in the former. People
ignorantly suppose that goods rise in value; when the fact is, money falls in
value. Continental currency was a proof of this. There was cash enough for
a medium in the country before the war; and the addition of two hundred
millions of dollars did not increase the wealth of the country one farthing;
nor would the whole purchase more than the ten millions of specie which
circulated before the war. Had the paper all been Spanish milled dollars, the
effect would have been the same, had they continued in the country, and not
been hoarded.
The fifth proposition depends on this simple fact, that money is a fluid in
the commercial world, rolling from hand to hand wherever it is wanted, and
there is any thing to purchase it. Let the produce of a country excel, in the
least degree, the consumption, and it will never want money.
Admitting the foregoing observations to be true, both the necessity and
policy of emitting paper, vanish at once. Supposing paper currency to
preserve its credit, still so far from increasing the medium of trade, that in a
few months it will drive all the specie from the country. Bank notes and
bills of exchange are useful in facilitating a change or conveyance of
property; but to issue paper credit, merely with a view to increase the
circulating medium, in a country where the people may have just as much
gold and silver as they are pleased to work for, is the height of folly. If
people are indolent, or extravagant, all the paper currency under heaven will
not make them rich, or supply their wants of cash. If people are industrious
and frugal, and purchase no more foreign goods than they can pay for in
superfluous produce, they will ever have cash enough. Their whole system
of commerce stands on these single facts.

If the merchants bring more goods than people want, business must be dull;
money with them must be scarce. At the close of the war, cash was plentiful
and goods scarce. This made business lively, till people had procured a
supply. Remittances were made in cash, so long as it could be obtained.
That period is past, and the merchant must now look for remittances where
alone they ought ever to be found, in the produce of the country. Business is
just now returning into its proper channel, from which it had been diverted
by the violence of war, and the fluctuations of paper credit. The rapid
population of a country is an agreeable circumstance; but every profession
ought to increase in a due proportion. Supposing ten thousand carpenters
were to land in Baltimore at once, would they have business? Or would
they not exclaim, business is dull, money is scarce? Every one might have a
trifle of business, but they could not all make fortunes.
An event similar to this has taken place in Baltimore. The reputation for
business which Baltimore had acquired just at the close of the war, brought
merchants here from every part of the world, and almost one half of the
town has been built within two years. How, in the name of common sense,
do the merchants expect to find business? The people who come to this
market, multiply gradually, and double in about thirty years. But the
merchants who supply the goods have doubled, if not trebled, in numbers
and stock, within three years. There is, however, an expedient which will
yet enable them all to liv by trade. Let every merchant send abroad to
Ireland or Germany, and bring over his hundred able industrious farmers,
and fix them on the fertile lands of Maryland, which now lie useless and
uncultivated in the hands of the Nabobs: Or let three fourths of the traders
quit the business. Either of these expedients will make cash plentiful; and
one of them must take place.
I will just make one further remark; the want of a proper union among the
States, will always render our commerce fluctuating and unprofitable. We
may do as much business as we please; but if the duties and restrictions on
our trade remain, and the flag of the United States is insulted as it has been,
and each State is laying duties on the trade of its neighbor, our commerce
cannot be reduced to a system, and our profits must be uncertain. The want
of a Continental Power to guard the honor of the whole body, and reduce
our measures to one uniform system, is the great source of endless
calamities. We shall feel national abuse, till Congress are vested with

powers sufficient to govern and protect us; and till that period, foreigners,
like so many harpies, will prey upon our commerce, and disappoint the
exertions of our industry.

NO. IX.
On REDRESS of GRIEVANCES.
NEWBURY PORT, 1786.

By some resolves of the discontented people of this State, (Massachusetts)
it appears that the true cause of public grievances is mistaken, and
consequently the mode of redress will be mistaken. It is laughable enough
to hear the people gravely resolving, that the sitting of the general court at
Boston is a grievance, when every body may recollect that about twelve
years ago, the removal of the Legislature to Cambridge, was a grievance; an
unconstitutional stretch of power, that threw the province into a bustle. A
great change, since Hutchinson's time! Boston then was the only proper seat
of the Legislature.
Lawyers, too, are squeezed into the catalogue of grievances. Why, sir,
lawyers are a consequence; not a cause of public evils. They grow out of the
laziness, dilatoriness in payment of debts, breaches of contract, and other
vices of the people; just as mushrooms grow out of dunghills after a shower,
or as distilleries spring out of the taste for New England rum. The sober,
industrious, frugal Dutch, in New York, and the Quakers and Germans in
Pensylvania, have no occasion for lawyers; a collector never calls upon
them twice, and they feel no grievances. Before the war, there was, in
Orange county, New York, but one action of debt tried in eighteen years. O
happy people! happy times! no grievances.
Mr. Printer, I saw a man the other day, carrying a bushel or two of flaxseed.
Flaxseed is a cash article, and cash pays taxes. The man wanted cash to pay
his taxes; he must have cash; but, Mr. Printer, half an hour afterwards, I saw
him half drunk, and his saddle bags filled with coffee. But, sir, coffee pays
no taxes.
Another, a few days ago, brought a lamb to market. Lambs command cash,
and cash pays taxes; but the good countryman went to a store, and bought a
feather; five shillings for a feather, Mr. Printer, and feathers pay no taxes. Is

it not a grievance, sir, that feathers and ribbands, and coffee and new rum,
will not pay taxes?
Now, Mr. Printer, in my humble opinion, there are but two effectual
methods of redressing grievances; one depends on the people as individuals,
and the other on the Supreme Executiv authority.
As to the first, let every person, whether farmer, mechanic, lawyer, or
doctor, provide a small box, (a small box will be big enough) with a hole in
the lid. When he receives a shilling, let him put six pence into the box, and
use the other six pence in providing for his family; not rum or feathers, but
good bread and meat. Let this box remain untouched, until the collector
shall call. Then let it be opened, the tax paid, and the overplus of cash may
be expended on gauze, ribbands, tea, and New England rum. Let the box
then be put into its place again, to receive pence for the next collector. This
method, Mr. Printer, will redress all grievances, without the trouble, noise
and expense of town meetings, conventions and mobs.
As to the other method, sir, I can only say, were I at the head of the
Executiv authority, I should soon put the question to a decisiv issue. It
should be determined, on the first insurrection, whether our lives and our
properties shall be secure under the law and the constitution of the State, or
whether they must depend on the mad resolves of illegal meetings. Honest
men then would know whether they may rest in safety at home, or whether
they must seek for tranquillity in some distant country.

No. X.
The DEVIL is in you.[39]
PROVIDENCE, 1786.

That the political body, like the animal, is liable to violent diseases, which,
for a time, baffle the healing art, is a truth which we all acknowlege, and
which most of us lament. But as most of the disorders, incident to the
human frame, are the consequence of an intemperate indulgence of its
appetites, or of neglecting the most obvious means of safety; so most of the
popular tumults, which disturb government, arise from an abuse of its
blessings, or an inattention to its principles. A man of a robust constitution,
relying on its strength, riots in gratifications which weaken the stamina
vitæ; the surfeiting pleasures of a few years destroy the power of
enjoyment; and the full fed voloptuary feels a rapid transition to the meagre
valetudinarian. Thus people who enjoy an uncommon share of political
privileges, often carry their freedom to licentiousness, and put it out of their
power to enjoy society by destroying its support.
Too much health is a disease, which often requires a very strict regimen; too
much liberty is the worst of tyranny; and wealth may be accumulated to
such a degree as to impoverish a State. If all men attempt to become
masters, the most of them would necessarily become slaves in the attempt;
and could every man on earth possess millions of joes, every man would be
poorer than any man is now, and infinitely more wretched, because they
could not procure the necessaries of life.
My countrymen, it is a common saying now, that the devil is in you. I
question the influence of the devil, however, in these affairs. Divines and
politicians agree in this, to father all evil upon the devil; but the effects
ascribed to this prince of evil spirits, both in the moral and political world, I
ascribe to the wickedness and ignorance of the human heart. Taking the
word Devil in this sense, he is in you, and among you, in a variety of
shapes.

In the first place, the weakness of our federal government is the devil. It
prevents the adoption of any measures that are requisit for us, as a nation; it
keeps us from paying our honest debts; it also throws out of our power all
the profits of commerce, and this drains us of cash. Is not this the devil?
Yes, my countrymen, an empty purse is the devil.
You say you are jealous of your rights, and dare not trust Congress. Well,
that jealousy is an evil spirit, and all evil spirits are devils. So far the devil is
in you. You act, in this particular, just like the crew of a ship, who would
not trust the helm with one of their number, because he might possibly run
her ashore, when by leaving her without a pilot, they were certain of
shipwreck. You act just like men, who in raising a building, would not have
a master workman, because he might give out wrong orders. You will be
masters yourselves; and as you are not all ready to lift at the same time, one
labors at a stick of timber, then another, then a third; you are then vexed that
it is not raised; why let a master order thirteen of you to take hold together,
and you will lift it at once. Every family has a master (or a mistress—I beg
the ladies' pardon.) When a ship or a house is to be built, there is a master;
when highways are repairing, there is a master; every little school has a
master; the continent is a great school; the boys are numerous, and full of
roguish tricks, and there is no master. The boys in this great school play
truant, and there is no person to chastise them. Do you think, my
countrymen, that America is more easily governed than a school? You do
very well in small matters; extend your reason to great ones. Would you not
laugh at a farmer who would fasten a cable to a plough, and yet attempt to
draw a house with a cobweb? "And Nathan said unto David, thou art the
man." You think a master necessary to govern a few harmless children in a
school or family; yet leave thousands of great rogues to be governed by
good advice. Believe me, my friends, for I am serious; you lose rights,
because you will not giv your magistrates authority to protect them. Your
liberty is despotism, because it has no control; your power is nothing,
because it is not united.
But further, luxury rages among you, and luxury is the devil. The war has
sent this evil demon to impoverish people, and embarrass the public. The
articles of rum and tea alone, which are drank in this country, would pay all
its taxes. But when we add, sugar, coffee, feathers, and the whole list of
baubles and trinkets, what an enormous expense? No wonder you want

paper currency. My countrymen are all grown very tasty! Feathers and
jordans must all be imported! Certainly gentlemen, the devil is among you.
A Hampshire man, who drinks forty shillings worth of rum in a year, and
never thinks of the expense, will raise a mob to reduce the governor's salary,
which does not amount to three pence a man per annum. Is not this the
devil?
My countrymen—A writer appeared, not long ago, informing you how to
redress grievances.[40] He givs excellent advice. Let every man make a little
box, and put into it four pence every day. This in a year will amount to six
pounds one shilling and eight pence, a sum more than sufficient to pay any
poor man's tax. Any man can pay three or four pence a day, though no poor
man can, at the end of a year, pay six pounds. Take my advice, every man of
you, and you will hardly feel your taxes.
But further, a tender law is the devil. When I trust a man a sum of money, I
expect he will return the full value. That Legislature which says my debtor
may pay me with one third of the value he received, commits a deliberate
act of villany; an act for which an individual, in any government, would be
honored with a whipping post, and in most governments, with a gallows.
When a man makes dollars, one third of which only is silver, and passes
them for good coin, he must lose his ears, &c.
But Legislatures can, with the solemn face of rulers, and guardians of
justice, boldly give currency to an adulterated coin, enjoin it upon debtors
to cheat their creditors, and enforce their systematic knavery with legal
penalties. The differences between the man who makes and passes
counterfeit money, and the man who tenders his creditor one third of the
value of the debt, and demands a discharge, is the same as between a thief
and a robber. The first cheats his neighbor in the dark, and takes his
property without his knowlege: The last boldly meets him at noon day, tells
him he is a rascal, and demands his purse.
My countrymen, the devil is among you. Make paper as much as you
please; make it a tender in all future contracts, or let it rest on its own
bottom: But remember that past contracts are sacred things; that
Legislatures have no right to interfere with them; they have no right to say,
a debt shall be paid at a discount, or in any manner which the parties never
intended. It is the business of justice to fulfil the intention of parties in

contracts, not to defeat them. To pay bona fide contracts for cash, in paper
of little value, or in old horses, would be a dishonest attempt in an
individual; but for Legislatures to frame laws to support and encourage such
detestable villany, is like a judge who should inscribe the arms of a rogue
over the feat of justice, or clergymen who should convert into bawdy-
houses the temples of Jehovah. My countrymen, the world says, the devil is
in you: Mankind detest you as they would a nest of robbers.
But lastly, mobs and conventions are devils. Good men love law and legal
measures. Knaves only fear law, and try to destroy it. My countrymen, if a
constitutional Legislature cannot redress a grievance, a mob never can.
Laws are the security of life and property; nay, what is more, of liberty. The
man who encourages a mob to prevent the operation of law, ceases to be
free or safe; for the same principle which leads a man to put a bayonet to
the breast of a judge, will lead him to take property where he can find it;
and when the judge dare not act, where is the loser's remedy? Alas, my
friends, too much liberty is no liberty at all. Giv me any thing but mobs; for
mobs are the devil in his worst shape. I would shoot the leader of a mob,
sooner than a midnight ruffian. People may have grievances, perhaps, and
no man would more readily hold up his hand to redress them than myself;
but mobs rebel against laws of their own, and rebellion is a crime which
admits of no palliation.
My countrymen, I am a private, peaceable man. I have nothing to win or to
lose by the game of paper currency; but I revere justice. I would sooner pick
oakum all my life, than stain my reputation, or pay my creditor one farthing
less than his honest demands.
While you attempt to trade to advantage, without a head to combine all the
States into systematic, uniform measures, the world will laugh at you for
fools. While merchants take and giv credit, the world will call them idiots,
and laugh at their ruin. While farmers get credit, borrow money, and
mortgage their farms, the world will call them fools, and laugh at their
embarrassments. While all men liv beyond their income, and are harrassed
with duns and sheriffs, no man will pity them, or giv them relief. But when
mobs and conventions oppose the courts of justice, and Legislatures make
paper or old horses a legal tender in all cases, the world will exclaim with
one voice—Ye are rogues, and the devil is in you!

No. XI.
NEW LONDON, OCTOBER, 1786.

DESULTORY THOUGHTS.
No government has preserved more general and uninterrupted tranquillity
for a long period, than that of Connecticut. This is a strong proof of the
force of habit, and the danger that ever attends great alterations of
government or a suspension of law. Every system of civil policy must take
its complexion from the spirit and manners of the people.
Whatever political constitutions may be formed on paper, or in the
philosopher's closet, those only can be permanent which arise out of the
genius of the people.
A jealous uneasy temper has sometimes appeared, among the people of this
State; but as this has always proceeded from restless, ambitious men, whose
designs have been reprobated as soon as detected, this uneasiness has
always subsided without any violence to the Constitution. We do not advert
to the time when the course of law has been forcibly obstructed in
Connecticut.
In the middle and southern States the corrupt English mode of elections has
been adopted: We see men meanly stoop to advertise for an office, or beg
the votes of their countrymen. In those States elections are often mere riots;
almost always attended with disputes and bloody noses, and sometimes
with greater violence. In Connecticut, a man never advertises for an office,
nor do we know that a man ever solicited a vote for himself. We cannot
name the election that produced a dispute, even in words.
It belongs to the unprincipled of other States and countries to deride
religion and its preachers. It belongs to the coxcombs of courts, the
productions of dancing schools and playhouses, to ridicule our bashful
deportment and simplicity of manners. We revere the ancient institutions of
schools and churches in this State. We revere the discipline which has given

such a mild complexion to the manners of its inhabitants, and secured
private satisfaction and public tranquillity.
Paper money is the present hobby horse of the States, and every State has
more or less of the paper madness. What a pity it is mankind will not
discern their right hands from their left. Cash is scarce, is the general cry.
Well, this proves nothing more than that the balance of trade is against us,
and that we eat, drink, and wear more foreign commodities than we can pay
for in produce: That is, we spend more than we earn; or in other words, we
are poor.
But nothing shows the folly of people more, than their attempts to remedy
the evil by a paper currency. This is ignorance, it is absurdity in the
extreme. Do not people know that the addition of millions and millions of
money does not increase the value of a circulating medium one farthing. Do
they not know that the value of a medium ought not to be increased beyond
a certain ratio, even if it could be? and that to increase the circulating cash
of one State beyond the circulating cash of other States, is a material injury
to it. These propositions are as demonstrable as any problem in Euclid. Ten
millions of dollars in specie were supposed to be the medium in America
before the war. Congress issued at first five millions in bills. As these came
into circulation, specie went out; consequently they held their nominal and
real value on par, for the nominal value of the medium was not much
increased. Congress sent out another sum in bills; the nominal value of the
medium was doubled, the bills sunk one half, and the real value of the
medium remained the same. This was the subsequent progress; every
emission sunk the real value of bills, and two hundred millions of dollars
were, in the end, worth just ten millions in specie, and no more. Towards
the close of the war, the specie in America was more than doubled; it sunk
to less than half its former value, and the paper bills sunk in the same
proportion; from forty to eighty for one, nearly. We had too much specie in
the country, in the years 1782 and 1783; it ruined hundreds of merchants,
and injured the community.
But it is said, we want a circulating medium. This is not true; we have too
much in circulation. The specie and paper now circulating in America,
amounts to fifty or sixty millions of dollars; whereas we want not more than
ten or fifteen millions. The paper is therefore sunk in real value, so as to
reduce the real value of the whole medium to that sum which is wanted. We

may make millions of paper if we please; but we shall not add one farthing
to the property of the State. Money is not wealth in a State, but the
representativ of wealth. A paper currency may answer a temporary purpose
of enabling people to pay debts; but it is not an advantage even to the
debtor, unless it is depreciated; and in this case it is an injury to the creditor.
If the paper retains its value, the debtor must sooner or later purchase it with
the produce of his labor; and if it depreciates, it is the tool of knaves while it
circulates; it ruins thousands of honest unsuspecting people; it gives the
game to the idle speculator, who is a nuisance to the State; it stabs public
credit and private confidence; and what is worse than all, it unhinges the
obligations which unite mankind. A fluctuation of medium in a State makes
more fatal ravages among the morals of people, than a pestilence among
their lives. O America! happy would it have been for thy peace, thy morals,
thy industry, if, instead of a depreciation of paper bills and securities,
stamped with public faith, millions of infernal spirits had been let loose
among thy inhabitants! Never, never wilt thou experience the return of
industry, economy, private confidence and public content, till every species
of depreciated and fluctuating medium shall be annihilated; till Legislatures
learn to revere justice, and dread a breach of faith more than the vengeance
of vindictiv heaven!
Americans! you talk of a scarcity of cash. Well, the only remedy is, to
enable Congress to place our commerce on a footing with the trade of other
nations. Foreign States have nothing to do with Massachusetts or New
York. They must make treaties with United America, or not make them at
all. And while we boast of the independence of particular States, we lose all
the benefits of independence. For fear that Congress would abuse their
powers and enrich themselves, we, like the dog in the manger, will not even
enrich ourselves. We complain of poverty, and yet giv the profits of our
trade to foreign nations. Infatuated men! We have one truth to learn—That
nothing but the absolute power of regulating our commerce, vested in some
federal head, can ever restore to us cash, or turn the balance of trade in our
favor. New York alone, by its advantageous situation, is growing rich upon
the spoils of her neighbors, and impoverishing the continent to fill her own
treasury.
Lawyers, you say, O deluded Americans! are an evil. Will you always be
fools? Why lawyers are as good men as others: I venture to say further, that

lawyers in this country have devised and brought about the wisest public
measures that any State has adopted. My countrymen, the expense of
supporting a hundred lawyers is a very great and a very needless expense.
You pay to lawyers and courts every year thirty or forty thousand pounds. A
great expense, indeed! But courts and lawyers are not to be blamed. The
people are the cause of the evil, and they alone, as individuals, are able to
remedy it. And yet the remedy is very simple. Cease to run in debt, or pay
your debts punctually; then lawyers will cease to exist, and court houses
will be shut. If you wish or expect any other remedy than this, you certainly
will be disappointed. A man, who purposely rushes down a precipice and
breaks his arm, has no right to say, that surgeons are an evil in society. A
Legislature may unjustly limit the surgeon's fee; but the broken arm must be
healed, and a surgeon is the only man to do it.
My friends, learn wisdom. You are peaceable yet, and let the distractions of
your neighbors teach you to preserve your tranquillity.
Spend less money than you earn, and you will every day grow richer. Never
run in debt, and lawyers will become farmers. Never make paper money,
and you will not cheat your citizens, nor have it to redeem. Above all, pay
your public debts, for independence and the confederation require it.

No. XII.
NEW HAVEN, DECEMBER, 1786.

ADVICE to CONNECTICUT FOLKS.
my friends,

Times are hard; money is scarce; taxes are high, and private debts push us.
What shall we do? Why, hear a few facts, stubborn facts, and then take a bit
of advice.
In the year 1637, our good forefathers declared an offensiv war against the
Pequot Indians. Their troops were ninety men. Weathersfield was ordered to
furnish a hog for this army, Windsor a ram goat, and Hartford a hogshead of
beer, and four or five gallons of strong water.[41]
This was ancient simplicity! Let us make a little estimation of the expenses
annually incurred in Connecticut. (I say incurred, for we can contract debts,
though we cannot pay them.)
I will just make a distinction between necessary and unnecessary expenses.
Necessary. Unnecessary.
£. £. £.
Governor's Salary, 300 300
Lieutenant governor's, 100 100
Upper house, attendance
and travel, 60 days a year, 600 600
at 10l. a day,
Lower house, attendance
and travel, 170 members, 3,060 1,530 1,530
at 6s. a day, 60 days,
Five judges of the
Superior Court, at 24s. a 900 900
day, suppose 150 days,

Forty judges of Inferior
Courts, at 9s. a day, 720 720
suppose 40 days,
Six thousand actions in
the year, the legal expense 18,000 1,000 17,000
of each, suppose 3l.
Gratuities to 120 lawyers,
6,000 1,000 5,000
suppose 50l. each,
Two hundred clergymen,
20,000 20,000
at 100l. each,
Five hundred schools, at
10,000 10,000
20l. a year,
Support of poor, 10,000 10,000
Bridges and other town
10,000 10,000
expenses,
Contingencies and
10,000 10,000
articles not enumerated,
£.89,680 £.66,150 £.23,530
Now comes RUM, my friends.
£.
400,000 gallons of rum, at 4s. a gallon, 80,000
Allow for rum drank, on which excise is not paid,
10,000
50,000 gallons, at 4s.
£.90,000
Ninety nine hundredths unnecessary.
This is a fact: Deny it if you can, good folks. Now, say not a word about
taxes, judges, lawyers, courts, and women's extravagance. Your
government, your courts, your lawyers, your clergymen, your schools, and
your poor, do not all cost you so much as one paltry article, which does you
little or no good, but is as destructiv of your lives as fire and brimstone.
But let us proceed.
£.

A million of pounds of sugar, estimated by the
33,333
returns of excise masters, at 8d.
(This is double the quantity we want; but as it is
pernicious neither to health nor morals, I let it
pass.)
200,000lb. of tea, at 3s. 6d. 35,000
2,000 ditto hyson, at 14s. (Most of these
1,400
unnecessary.)
Coffee, molasses, spices, &c. 10,000
Dry goods, 250,000
£.329,733
The whole settlement will stand thus:
£.
Necessary expenses, 66,150
Unnecessary, ditto, 23,530
Rum, and other distilled spirits, 90,000
Other foreign articles, 329,733
£.510,413
Interest of the federal and State debts,£.130,000
Now, good people, I have a word of advice for you. I will tell you how to
pay your taxes and debts, without feeling them.
1st. Fee no lawyers.
You say lawyers have too high fees. I say they have not. They cost me not
one farthing. Do as I have always done, and lawyers' fees will be no trouble
at all. If I want a new coat, or my wife wants a new gown, we have agreed
to wear the old ones until we have got cash or produce to pay for them.
When we buy, we pay in hand; we get things cheaper than our neighbors;
merchants never dun us, and we have no lawyers' fees to pay. When we see
sheriffs and duns knocking at the doors of our neighbors, we laugh at their
folly. Besides, I keep a little drawer in my desk, with money enough in it to
pay the next tax; and I never touch a farthing until the collector calls. Now,
good folks, if you will take the same method, you will save out of lawyers'
fees and court charges, on the most moderate calculations, 20,000l. a year.

2dly. I allow my family but two gallons of rum a year. This is enough for
any family, and too much for most of them. I drink cyder and beer of my
own manufacture; and my wife makes excellent beer, I assure you. I advise
you all to do the same. I am astonished at you, good folks. Not a mechanic
or a laborer goes to work for a merchant, but he carries home a bottle of
rum. Not a load of wood comes to town, but a gallon bottle is tied to the
cart stake to be filled with rum. Scarcely a woman comes to town with tow
cloth, but she has a wooden gallon bottle in one side of her saddle bags, to
fill with rum. A stranger would think you to be a nation of Indians by your
thirst for this paltry liquor. Take a bit of advice from a good friend of yours.
Get two gallons of rum in a year; have two or three frolics of innocent
mirth; keep a little spirit for a medicine, and let your common drink be the
produce or manufacture of this country. This will make a saving of almost
400,000 gallons of rum, or 80,000l. a year.
3dly. Never buy any useless clothing.
Keep a good suit for Sundays and other public days; but let your common
wearing apparel be good substantial cloths, and linens of your own
manufacture. Let your wives and daughters lay aside their plumes. Feathers
and fripperies suit the Cherokees or the wench in your kitchen; but they
little become the fair daughters of America.[42] Out of the dry goods
imported, you may save 50,000l. a year.
These savings amount to 150,000l. a year. This is more than enough to pay
the interest of all our public debts.
My countrymen, I am not trifling with you: I am serious. You feel the facts I
state; you know you are poor, and ought to know, the fault is all your own.
Are you not satisfied with the food and drink which this country affords?
The beef, the pork, the wheat, the corn, the butter, the cheese, the cyder, the
beer, those luxuries which are heaped in profusion upon your tables? If not,
you must expect to be poor. In vain do you wish for mines of gold and
silver. A mine would be the greatest curse that could befal this country.
There is gold and silver enough in the world, and if you have not enough of
it, it is because you consume all you earn in useless food and drink. In vain
do you wish to increase the quantity of cash by a mint, or by paper
emissions. Should it rain millions of joes into your chimnies, on your
present system of expenses, you would still have no money. It would leave

the country in streams. Trifle not with serious subjects, nor spend your
breath in empty wishes. Reform; economize. This is the whole of your
political duty. You may reason, speculate, complain, raise mobs, spend life
in railing at Congress and your rulers; but unless you import less than you
export, unless you spend less than you earn, you will eternally be poor.

No. XIII.
NEW YORK, DECEMBER, 1787.

To the DISSENTING MEMBERS of the late Convention of
Pennsylvania.
gentlemen,

Your long and elaborate publication, assigning the reasons for your refusing
to subscribe the ratification of the new Federal Constitution, has made its
appearance in the public papers, and, I flatter myself, will be read
throughout the United States. It will feed the flame of opposition among the
weak, the wicked, the designing, and the factious; but it will make many
new converts to the proposed government, and furnish the old friends of it
with new weapons of defence. The very attempt to excite uneasiness and
disturbance in a State, about a measure legally and constitutionally adopted,
after a long and ample discussion in a convention of the people's delegates,
will create suspicions of the goodness of your cause. My address to you will
not be so lengthy as your publication; your arguments are few, altho your
harangue is long and insidious.
You begin with telling the world, that no defect was discovered in the
present confederation, till after the war. Why did you not publish the truth?
You know, gentlemen, that during six years of the war, we had no
confederation at all. You know that the war commenced in April, 1775, and
that we had no confederation till March, 1781. You know (for some of you
are men of abilities and reading) or ought to know, a principle of fear, in
time of war, operates more powerfully in binding together the States which
have a common interest, than all the parchment compacts on earth. Could
we, then, discover the defects of our present confederation, with two years'
experience only, and an enemy in our country? You know we could not.
I will not undertake to detect the falsehood of every assertion, or the fallacy
of all your reasoning on each article. In the most of them the public will
anticipate any thing I could say, and confute your arguments as fast as they
read them. But, gentlemen, your reasoning against the new Constitution

resembles that of Mr. Hume on miracles. You begin with some gratis dicta,
which are denied; you assume premises which are totally false, and then
reason on them with great address. Your whole reasoning, and that of all the
opposers of the federal government, is built on this false principle, that the
federal Legislature will be a body distinct from and independent of the
people. Unless your opposition is grounded on that principle, it stands on
nothing; and on any other supposition, your arguments are but declamatory
nonsense.
But the principle is false. The Congress, under the proposed constitution,
will have the same interest as the people; they are a part of the people; their
interest is inseparable from that of the people; and this union of interest will
eternally remain, while the right of election shall continue in the people.
Over this right Congress will have no control: The time and manner of
exercising that right are very wisely vested in Congress; otherwise a
delinquent State might embarrass the measures of the Union. The safety of
the public requires that the federal body should prevent any particular
delinquency; but the right of election is above their control; it must remain
in the people, and be exercised once in two, four or six years. A body thus
organized, with thirteen Legislatures watching their measures, and several
millions of jealous eyes inspecting their conduct, would not be apt to betray
their constituents. Yet this is not the best ground of safety. The first and
almost only principle that governs men, is interest. Love of our country is a
powerful auxiliary motiv to patriotic actions; but rarely or never operates
against private interest. The only requisit to secure liberty, is to connect the
interest of the governors with that of the governed. Blend these interests;
make them inseparable, and both are safe from voluntary invasion. How
shall this union be formed? This question is answered. The union is formed
by the equal principles on which the people of these States hold their
property and their rights. But how shall this union of interests be
perpetuated? The answer is easy; bar all perpetuities of estates; prevent any
exclusiv rights; preserve all preferment dependent on the choice of the
people; suffer no power to exist independent of the people or their
representativs. While there exists no power in a State, which is independent
of the will of the electors, the rights of the people are secure. The only
barrier against tyranny, that is necessary in any State, is the election of
legislators by the yeomanry of that State. Preserve that, and every privilege
is safe. The legislators thus chosen to represent the people, should have all

the power that the people would have, were they assembled in one body to
deliberate upon public measures. The distinction between the powers of the
people and of their representativs in the Legislature, is as absurd in theory,
as it proves pernicious in practice. A distinction, which has already
countenanced and supported one rebellion in America; has prevented many
good measures; has produced many bad; has created animosities in many
States, and embarrassments in all.[43] It has taught the people a lesson,
which, if they continue to practise, will bring laws into contempt, and
frequently mark our country with blood.
You object, gentlemen, to the powers vested in Congress. Permit me, to ask
you, where will you limit their powers? What bounds will you prescribe?
You will reply—we will reserve certain rights, which we deem invaluable,
and restrain our rulers from abridging them. But, gentlemen, let me ask
you, how will you define these rights? would you say, the liberty of the
press shall not be restrained? Well, what is this liberty of the press? Is it an
unlimited licence to publish any thing and every thing with impunity? If so,
the author and printer of any treatise, however obscene and blasphemous,
will be screened from punishment. You know, gentlemen, that there are
books extant, so shockingly and infamously obscene and so daringly
blasphemous, that no society on earth would be vindicable in suffering the
publishers to pass unpunished. You certainly know that such cases have
happened, and may happen again: Nay, you know that they are probable.
Would not that indefinite expression, the liberty of the press, extend to the
justification of every possible publication? Yes, gentlemen, you know, that
under such a general license, a man who should publish a treatise to prove
his Maker a knave, must be screened from legal punishment. I shudder at
the thought! But the truth must not be concealed. The constitutions of
several States guarantee that very license.
But if you attempt to define the liberty of the press, and ascertain what
cases shall fall within that privilege, during the course of centuries, where
will you begin? Or rather, where will you end? Here, gentlemen, you will
be puzzled. Some publications certainly may be a breach of civil law: You
will not have the effrontery to deny a truth so obvious and intuitivly
evident. Admit that principle; and unless you can define precisely the cases,
which are, and are not a breach of law, you have no right to say, the liberty
of the press shall not be restrained; for such a license would warrant any

breach of law. Rather than hazard such an abuse of privilege, is it not better
to leave the right altogether with your rulers and your posterity? No
attempts have ever been made by a legislativ body in America, to abridge
that privilege; and in this free enlightened country, no attempts could
succeed, unless the public should be convinced that an abuse of it would
warrant the restriction. Should this ever be the case, you have no right to
say, that a future Legislature, or that posterity shall not abridge the
privilege, or punish its abuses.
But you say, that trial by jury is an unalienable right, that ought not to be
trusted with our rulers. Why not? If it is such a darling privilege, will not
Congress be as fond of it, as their constituents? An elevation into that
council, does not render a man insensible to his privileges, nor place him
beyond the necessity of securing them. A member of Congress is liable to
all the operations of law, except during his attendance on public business;
and should he consent to a law, annihilating any right whatever, he deprives
himself, his family and estate, of the benefit resulting from that right, as
well as his constituents. This circumstance alone, is a sufficient security.
But, why this outcry about juries? If the people esteem them so highly, why
do they ever neglect them, and suffer the trial by them to go into disuse? In
some States, Courts of Admiralty have no juries, nor Courts of Chancery at
all. In the City Courts of some States, juries are rarely or never called, altho
the parties may demand them; and one State, at least, has lately passed an
act, empowering the parties to submit both law and fact to the court. It is
found, that the judgment of a court gives as much satisfaction, as the verdict
of a jury; for the court are as good judges of fact, as juries, and much better
judges of law. I have no desire to abolish trials by jury, altho the original
design and excellence of them, is in many cases superseded. While the
people remain attached to this mode of deciding causes, I am confident, that
no Congress can wrest the privilege from them.
But, gentlemen, our legal proceedings want a reform. Involved in all the
mazes of perplexity, which the chicanery of lawyers could invent, in the
course of five hundred years, our road to justice and redressis tedious,
fatiguing and expensiv. Our judicial proceedings are capable of being
simplified, and improved in almost every particular. For mercy's sake,
gentlemen, do not shut the door against improvement. If the people of
America, should ever spurn the shackles of opinion, and venture to leave

the road, which is so overgrown with briers and thorns, as to strip a man's
clothes from his back as he passes, I am certain they can devise a more
easy, safe, and expeditious mode of administering the laws, than that which
harasses every poor mortal, that is wretched enough to want legal justice. In
States where very respectable merchants, have repeatedly told me, they had
rather lose a debt of fifty pounds, than attempt to recover it by a legal
process, one would think that men, who value liberty and property, would
not restrain any government from suggesting a remedy for such disorders.
Another right, which you would place beyond the reach of Congress, is the
writ of habeas corpus. Will you say that this right may not be suspended in
any case? You dare not. If it may be suspended in any case, and the
Congress are to judge of the necessity, what security have you in a
declaration in its favor? You had much better say nothing upon the subject.
But you are frightened at a standing army. I beg you, gentlemen, to define a
standing army. If you would refuse to giv Congress power to raise troops,
to guard our frontiers, and garrison forts, or in short, to enlist men for any
purpose, then we understand you; you tie the hands of your rulers, so that
they cannot defend you against any invasion. This is protection, indeed! But
if Congress can raise a body of troops for a year, they can raise them for a
hundred years, and your declaration against standing armies can have no
other effect, than to prevent Congress from denominating their troops, a
standing army. You would only introduce into this country the English farce
of mechanically passing an annual bill for the support of troops which are
never disbanded.
You object to the indefinite power of taxation in Congress. You must then
limit the exercise of that power by the sums of money to be raised; or
leaving the sums indefinite, must prescribe the particular mode in which,
and the articles on which the money is to be raised. But the sums cannot be
ascertained, because the necessities of the States cannot be foreseen nor
defined. It is beyond even your wisdom and profound knowlege, gentlemen,
to ascertain the public exigencies, and reduce them to the provisions of a
constitution. And if you would prescribe the mode of raising money, you
will meet with equal difficulty. The different States have different modes of
taxation, and I question much whether even your skill, gentlemen, could
invent a uniform system that would fit easy upon every State. It must
therefore be left to experiment, with a power that can correct the errors of a

system, and suit it to the habits of the people. And if no uniform mode will
answer this purpose, it will be in the power of Congress to lay taxes in each
State, according to its particular practice.
You know that requisitions on the States are ineffectual; that they cannot be
rendered effectual, but by a compulsory power in Congress; that without an
efficient power to raise money, government cannot secure person, property
or justice; that such power is as safely lodged in your Representativs in
Congress, as it is in your Representativs in your distinct Legislatures.
You would likewise restrain Congress from requiring excessiv bail or
imposing excessiv fines and unusual punishment. But unless you can, in
every possible instance, previously define the words excessiv and unusual;
if you leave the discretion of Congress to define them on occasion, any
restriction of their power by a general indefinit expression, is a nullity—
mere formal nonsense. What consummate arrogance must you possess, to
presume you can now make better provision for the government of these
States, during the course of ages and centuries, than the future Legislatures
can, on the spur of the occasion! Yet your whole reasoning on the subject
implies this arrogance, and a presumption that you have a right to legislate
for posterity!
But to complete the list of unalienable rights, you would insert a clause in
your declaration, that every body shall, in good weather, hunt on his own
land, and catch fish in rivers that are public property. Here, gentlemen, you
must have exerted the whole force of your genius! Not even the all
important subject of legislating for a world, can restrain my laughter at this
clause! As a supplement to that article of your bill of rights, I would suggest
the following restriction:—"That Congress shall never restrain any
inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or
prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter's night, or even on his
back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right." This article is of just as
much consequence as the eighth clause of your proposed bill of rights.
But to be more serious, gentlemen, you must have had in idea the forest
laws in Europe, when you inserted that article; for no circumstance that ever
took place in America, could have suggested the thought of a declaration in
favor of hunting and fishing. Will you forever persist in error? Do you not
reflect that the state of property in America, is directly the reverse of what it

is in Europe? Do you not consider, that the forest laws in Europe originated
in feudal tyranny, of which not a trace is to be found in America? Do you
not know that in this country almost every farmer is lord of his own soil?
That instead of suffering under the oppression of a monarch and nobles, a
class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every
man in America is a lord himself, enjoying his property in fee? Where then
the necessity of laws to secure hunting and fishing? You may just as well
ask for a clause, giving license for every man to till his own land, or milk
his own cows. The barons in Europe procured forest laws to secure the right
of hunting on their own land, from the intrusion of those who had no
property in lands. But the distribution of land in America, not only
supersedes the necessity of any laws upon this subject, but renders them
absolutely trifling. The same laws which secure the property in land, secure
to the owner the right of using it as he pleases.
But you are frightened at the prospect of a consolidation of the States. I
differ from you very widely. I am afraid, after all our attempts to unite the
States, that contending interests, and the pride of State sovereignties, will
either prevent our union, or render our federal government weak, slow and
inefficient. The danger is all on this side. If any thing under heaven now
endangers our liberties and independence, it is that single circumstance.
You harp upon that clause of the new constitution, which declares, that the
laws of the United States, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land; when
you know that the powers of the Congress are defined, to extend only to
those matters which are in their nature and effects, general. You know, the
Congress cannot meddle with the internal police of any State, or abridge its
sovereignty. And you know, at the same time, that in all general concerns,
the laws of Congress must be supreme, or they must be nothing.

No. XIV.
PHILADELPHIA, MARCH, 1787.

On TEST LAWS, OATHS of ALLEGIANCE and ABJURATION,
and PARTIAL EXCLUSIONS from OFFICE.
To change the current of opinion, is a most difficult task, and the attempt is
often ridiculed. For this reason, I expect the following remarks will be
passed over with a slight reading, and all attention to them cease with a
hum.
The revisal of the test law has at length passed by a respectable majority of
the Representativs of this State. This is a prelude to wiser measures; people
are just awaking from delusion. The time will come (and may the day be
near!) when all test laws, oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and partial
exclusions from civil offices, will be proscribed from this land of freedom.
Americans! what was the origin of these discriminations? What is their use?
They originated in savage ignorance, and they are the instruments of
slavery. Emperors and generals, who wished to attach their subjects to their
persons and government; who wished to exercise despotic sway over them,
or prosecute villanous wars, (for mankind have always been butchering
each other) found the solemnity of oaths had an excellent effect on poor
superstitious soldiers and vassals; oracles, demons, eclipses; all the
terrifying phenomena of nature, have at times had remarkable effects in
securing the obedience of men to tyrants. Oaths of fealty, and farcical
ceremonies of homage, were very necessary to rivet the chains of feudal
vassals; for the whole system of European tenures was erected on
usurpation, and is supported solely by ignorance, superstition, artifice, or
military force. Oaths of allegiance may possibly be still necessary in
Europe, where there are so many contending powers contiguous to each
other: But what is their use in America? To secure fidelity to the State, it
will be answered. But where is the danger of defection? Will the inhabitants
join the British in Nova Scotia or Canada? Will they rebel? Will they join
the savages, and overthrow the State? No; all these are visionary dangers.

My countrymen, if a State has any thing to fear from its inhabitants, the
constitution or the laws must be wrong. Danger cannot possibly arise from
any other cause.
Permit me to offer a few ideas to your minds; and let them be the subject of
more than one hour's reflection.
An oath creates no new obligation. A witness, who swears to tell the whole
truth, is under no new obligation to tell the whole truth. An oath reminds
him of his duty; he swears to do as he ought to do; that is, he adds an
express promise to an implied one. A moral obligation is not capable of
addition or diminution.
When a man steps his foot into a State, he becomes subject to its general
laws. When he joins it as a member, he is subject to all its laws. The act of
entering into society, binds him to submit to its laws, and to promote its
interest. Every man, who livs under a government, is under allegiance to
that government. Ten thousand oaths do not increase the obligation upon
him to be a faithful subject.
But, it will be asked, how shall we distinguish between the friends and
enemies of the government? I answer, by annihilating all distinctions. A
good constitution, and good laws, make good subjects. I challenge the
history of mankind to produce an instance of bad subjects under a good
government. The test law in Pensylvania has produced more disorder, by
making enemies in this State, than have cursed all the union besides. During
the war, every thing gave way to force; but the feelings and principles of
war ought to be forgotten in peace.
Abjuration! a badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry. If the
government of Pensylvania is better than that of Great Britain, the subjects
will prefer it, and abjuration is perfectly nugatory. If not, the subject will
have his partialities in spite of any solemn renunciation of a foreign power.
But what right has even the Legislature to deprive any class of citizens of
the benefits and emoluments of civil government? If any men have forfeited
their lives or estates, they are no longer subjects; they ought to be banished
or hung. If not, no law ought to exclude them from civil emoluments. If any
have committed public crimes, they are punishable; if any have been guilty,
and have not been detected, the oath, as it now stands, obliges them to

confess their guilt. To take the oath, is an implicit acknowlegement of
innocence; to refuse it, is an implicit confession that the person has aided
and abetted the enemy. This is rank despotism. The inquisition can do no
more than force confession from the accused.
I pray God to enlighten the minds of the Americans. I wish they would
shake off every badge of tyranny. Americans!—The best way to make men
honest, is to let them enjoy equal rights and privileges; never suspect a set
of men will be rogues, and make laws proclaiming that suspicion. Leave
force to govern the wretched vassals of European nabobs, and reconcile
subjects to your own constitutions by their excellent nature and beneficial
effects. No man will commence enemy to a government which givs him as
many privileges as his neighbors enjoy.

No. XV.
SKETCHES of the RISE, PROGRESS and CONSEQUENCES of
the late REVOLUTION.
Written in the years 1787, 1788, and 1789; now republished, with material corrections, and a Letter
from the late Commander in Chief, explaining the Circumstances and Proceedings, preparatory to
the Capture of Lord Cornwallis.

America was originally peopled by uncivilized nations, which lived mostly
by hunting and fishing. The Europeans, who first visited these shores,
treating the nativs as wild beasts of the forest, which have no property in the
woods where they roam, planted the standard of their respectiv masters
where they first landed, and in their names claimed the country by right of
discovery.[44] Prior to any settlement in North America numerous titles of
this kind were acquired by the English, French, Spanish, and Dutch
navigators, who came hither for the purposes of fishing and trading with the
nativs. Slight as such titles were, they were afterwards the causes of
contention between the European nations. The subjects of different princes
often laid claim to the same tract of country, because both had discovered
the same river or promontary; or because the extent of their respectiv claims
was indeterminate.
While the settlements in this vast uncultivated country were inconsiderable
and scattered, and the trade of it confined to the bartering of a few trinkets
for furs, a trade carried on by a few adventurers, the interfering of claims
produced no important controversy among the settlers or the nations of
Europe. But in proportion to the progress of population, and the growth of
the American trade, the jealousies of the nations, which had made early
discoveries and settlements on this coast, were alarmed; ancient claims
were revived; and each power took measures to extend and secure its own
possessions at the expense of a rival.
By the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the English claimed a right of cutting
logwood in the Bay of Campeachy, in South America. In the exercise of this
right, the English merchants had frequent opportunities of carrying on a

contraband trade with the Spanish settlements on the continent. To remedy
this evil, the Spaniards resolved to annihilate a claim, which, though often
acknowleged, had never been clearly ascertained. To effect this design, they
captured the English vessels, which they found along the Spanish Main, and
many of the British subjects were doomed to work in the mines of Potosi.
Repeated severities of this kind at length (1739) produced a war between
England and Spain. Porto Bello was taken from the Spaniards, by Admiral
Vernon. Commodore Anson, with a squadron of ships, sailed to the South
Seas, distressed the Spanish settlements on the western shore of America,
and took a galleon, laden with immense riches. But in 1741 a formidable
armament, destined to attack Carthagena, under the command of Lord
Cathcart, returned unsuccessful, with the loss of upwards of twelve
thousand British soldiers and seamen; and the defeat of the expedition,
raised a clamor against the minister, Sir Robert Walpole, which produced a
change in the administration. This change removed the scene of war to
Europe, so that America was not immediately affected by the subsequent
transactions; except that Louisburgh, the principal fortress of Cape Breton,
was taken from the French by General Pepperell, assisted by Commodore
Warren and a body of New England troops.
This war was ended in 1748 by the treaty of peace signed at Aix la
Chapelle, by which restitution was made on both sides of all places taken
during the war.
Peace, however, was of short duration. The French possessed Canada, and
had made considerable settlements in Florida, claiming the country on both
sides of the Missisippi, by right of discovery. To secure and extend their
claims, they established a line of forts, on the English possessions, from
Canada to Florida. They had secured the important pass at Niagara, and
erected a fort at the junction of the Allegany and Monongahela rivers, called
Fort Du Quesne. They took pains to secure the friendship and assistance of
the nativs, encroachments were made upon the English possessions, and
mutual injuries succeeded. The disputes among the settlers in America, and
the measures taken by the French to command all the trade of the St.
Lawrence river on the north, and of the Missisippi on the south, excited a
jealousy in the English nation, which soon broke forth in open war.

In 1756, four expeditions were undertaken in America against the French.
One was conducted by General Monckton, who had orders to drive the
French from the encroachments on the province of Nova Scotia. This
expedition was attended with success. General Johnson was ordered, with a
body of troops, to take possession of Crown Point, but he did not succeed.
General Shirley commanded an expedition against the fort at Niagara, but
lost the season by delay. General Braddock marched against fort Du
Quesne, but in penetrating through the wilderness, he incautiously fell into
an ambuscade and suffered a total defeat. General Braddock was killed, but
a part of his troops were saved by the prudence and bravery of General
Washington, at this time a Colonel, who then began to exhibit proofs of
those military talents, by which he afterwards conducted the armies of
America to victory, and his country to independence. The ill success of
these expeditions left the English settlements in America exposed to the
depredations of both the French and Indians. But the war now raged in
Europe and the East Indies, and engaged the attention of both nations in
those quarters.
It was not until the campaign in 1758, that affairs assumed a more favorable
aspect in America. But upon a change of administration, Mr. Pitt was
appointed Prime Minister, and the operations of war became more vigorous
and successful. General Amherst was sent to take possession of Cape
Breton; and after a warm siege, the garrison of Louisburgh surrendered by
capitulation. General Forbes was successful in taking possession of fort Du
Quesne, which the French thought fit to abandon. But General
Abercrombie, who commanded the troops destined to act against the French
at Crown Point and Ticonderoga, attacked the lines at Ticonderoga, where
the enemy were strongly entrenched, and was defeated with a terrible
slaughter of his troops. After his defeat, he returned to his camp at Lake
George.
The next year, more effectual measures were taken to subdue the French in
America. General Prideaux and Sir William Johnson began the operations
of the campaign by taking the French fort near Niagara.[45] General
Amherst took possession of the forts at Crown Point and Ticonderoga,
which the French had abandoned.
But the decisiv blow, which proved fatal to the French interests in America,
was the defeat of the French army, and the taking of Quebec, by the brave

general Wolfe. This hero was slain in the beginning of the action, on the
plains of Abram, and Monsieur Montcalm, the French commander, likewise
lost his life. The loss of Quebec was soon followed by the capture of
Montreal, by General Amherst, and Canada has remained ever since in
possession of the English.
Colonel Grant, in 1761, defeated the Cherokees in Carolina, and obliged
them to sue for peace. The next year, Martinico was taken by Admiral
Rodney and General Monkton; and also the islands of Grenada, St.
Vincents, and others. The capture of these was soon followed by the
surrender of the Havanna, the capital of the island of Cuba.
In 1763, a definitiv treaty of peace was concluded at Paris, between Great
Britain, France and Spain, by which the English ceded to the French several
islands in the West Indies, but were confirmed in the possession of all North
America on this side the Missisippi, except New Orleans, and a small
district of the neighboring country.
But this war, however brilliant the success, and glorious the event, proved
the cause of great and unexpected misfortunes to Great Britain. Engaged
with the combined powers of France and Spain, during several years, her
exertions were surprising, and her expense immense. To discharge the debts
of the nation, the parliament was obliged to have recourse to new
expedients for raising money. Previous to the last treaty in 1763, the
parliament had been satisfied to raise a revenue from the American
Colonies by monopoly of their trade.
At the beginning of the last war with France, commissioners from many of
the colonies had assembled at Albany, and proposed that a great council
should be formed by deputies from the several colonies, which, with a
general Governor to be appointed by the crown, should be empowered to
take measures for the common safety, and to raise money for the execution
of their designs. This proposal was not relished by the British ministry; but
in place of this plan, it was proposed, that the Governors of the colonies,
with the assistance of one or two of their council, should assemble and
concert measures for the general defence; erect forts, levy troops, and draw
on the treasury of England for monies that should be wanted; but the
treasury to be reimbursed by a tax on the colonies, to be laid by the English
parliament. To this plan, which would imply an avowal of the right of

parliament to tax the colonies, the provincial assemblies objected with
unshaken firmness. It seems, therefore, that the British parliament, before
the war, had it in contemplation to exercise the right they claimed of taxing
the colonies at pleasure, without permitting them to be represented. Indeed
it is obvious that they laid hold of the alarming situation of the colonies
about the year 1754, and 1755, to force them into an acknowlegement of the
right, or to the adoption of measures that might afterwards be drawn into
precedent. The colonies however, with an uncommon foresight and
firmness, defeated all their attempts. The war was carried on by requisitions
on the colonies for supplies of men and money, or by voluntary
contributions.
But no sooner was peace concluded, than the English parliament resumed
the plan of taxing the colonies; and to justify their attempts, said, that the
money to be raised, was to be appropriated to defray the expense of
defending them in the late war.
The first attempt to raise a revenue in America appeared in the memorable
stamp act, passed March 22, 1765; by which it was enacted that certain
instruments of writing, as bills, bonds, &c. should not be valid in law,
unless drawn on stamped paper, on which a duty was laid. No sooner was
this act published in America, than it raised a general alarm. The people
were filled with apprehensions at an act which they supposed an attack on
their constitutional rights. The colonies petitioned the king and parliament
for a redress of the grievance, and formed associations for the purpose of
preventing the importation and use of British manufactures, until the act
should be repealed. This spirited and unanimous opposition of the
Americans produced the desired effect; and on the 18th of March, 1766, the
stamp act was repealed. The news of the repeal was received in the colonies
with universal joy, and the trade between them and Great Britain was
renewed on the most liberal footing.
The parliament, by repealing this act, so obnoxious to their American
brethren, did not intend to lay aside the scheme of raising a revenue in the
colonies, but merely to change the mode. Accordingly the next year, they
passed an act, laying a certain duty on glass, tea, paper, and painters' colors;
articles which were much wanted, and not manufactured, in America. This
act kindled the resentment of the Americans, and excited a general
opposition to the measure; so that parliament thought proper in 1770, to

take off these duties, except three pence a pound on tea. Yet this duty,
however trifling, kept alive the jealousy of the colonists, and their
opposition to parliamentary taxation continued and increased.
But it must be remembered that the inconvenience of paying the duty was
not the sole, nor principal cause of the opposition, it was the principle
which, once admitted, would have subjected the colonies to unlimitted
parliamentary taxation, without the privilege of being represented. The
right, abstractly considered, was denied; and the smallest attempt to
establish the claim by precedent, was uniformly resisted. The Americans
could not be deceived as to the views of parliament; for the repeal of the
stamp act was accompanied with an unequivocal declaration, "that the
parliament had a right to make laws of sufficient validity to bind the
colonies in all cases whatsoever."
The colonies therefore entered into measures to encourage their own
manufactures, and home productions, and to retrench the use of foreign
superfluities; while the importation of tea was prohibited. In the royal and
proprietary governments, the Governors and people were in a state of
continual warfare. Assemblies were repeatedly called, and suddenly
dissolved. While sitting, the assemblies employed the time in dating
grievances and framing remonstrances. To inflame these discontents, an act
of parliament was passed, ordaining that the Governors and Judges should
receive their salaries of the crown; thus making them independent of the
provincial assemblies, and removeable only at the pleasure of the king.
These arbitrary proceedings, with many others not here mentioned, could
not fail of producing a rupture. The first act of violence, was the massacre at
Boston, on the evening of the fifth of March, 1770. A body of British troops
had been stationed in Boston to awe the inhabitants, and enforce the
measures of parliament. On the fatal day, when blood was to be shed, as a
preclude to more tragic scenes, a riot was raised among some soldiers and
boys; the former aggressing by throwing snow balls at the latter. The
bickerings and jealousies between the inhabitants and soldiers, which had
been frequent before, now became serious. A multitude was soon collected,
and the controversy became so warm, that to disperse the people, the troops
were embodied and ordered to fire upon the inhabitants. This fatal order
was executed, and several persons fell a sacrifice. The people restrained
their vengeance at the time; but this wanton act of cruelty and military

despotism fanned the flame of liberty; a flame that was not to be
extinguished but by a total separation of the colonies from their oppressiv
and hostile parent.
In 1773, the spirit of the Americans broke out into open violence. The
Gaspee, an armed schooner, belonging to his Britannic Majesty, had been
stationed at Providence, in Rhode Island, to prevent smuggling. The
vigilance of the commander irritated the inhabitants to that degree, that
about two hundred armed men entered the vessel at night, compelled the
officers and men to go on shore, and set fire to the schooner. A reward of
five hundred pounds, offered by government for apprehending any of the
persons concerned in this daring act, produced no effectual discovery.
About this time, the discovery and publication of some private confidential
letters, written by the royal officers in Boston, to persons in office in
England, served to confirm the apprehensions of the Americans, with
respect to the designs of the British government. It was now made obvious
that more effectual measures would be taken to establish the supremacy of
the British parliament over the colonies. The letters recommended decisiv
measures, and the writers were charged, by the exasperated Americans, with
betraying their trust and the people they governed.
As the resolutions of the colonies not to import or consume tea, had, in a
great measure, deprived the English government of a revenue from this
quarter, the parliament formed a scheme of introducing tea into America,
under cover of the East India company. For this purpose an act was passed,
enabling the company to export all sorts of teas, duty free, to any place
whatever. The company departed from their usual mode of business and
became their own exporters. Several ships were freighted with teas, and
sent to the American colonies, and factors were appointed to receive and
dispose of their cargoes.
The Americans, determined to oppose the revenue system of the English
parliament in every possible shape, considered the attempt of the East India
company to evade the resolutions of the colonies, and dispose of teas in
America, as an indirect mode of taxation, sanctioned by the authority of
parliament. The people assembled in various places, and in the large
commercial towns, took measures to prevent the landing of the teas.
Committees were appointed, and armed with extensiv powers to inspect

merchants' books, to propose tests, and make use of other expedients to
frustrate the designs of the East India company. The same spirit pervaded
the people from New Hampshire to Georgia. In some places, the consignees
of the teas were intimidated so far as to relinquish their appointments, or to
enter into engagements not to act in that capacity. The cargo sent to South
Carolina was stored, the consignees being restrained from offering the tea
for sale. In other provinces, the ships were sent back without discharging
their cargoes.
But in Boston the tea shared a more violent fate. Sensible that no local
measures could prevent its being landed, and that if once landed, it would
be disposed of; a number of men in disguise, on the 18th of December
1773, entered the ships and threw overboard three hundred and forty chests
of it, which was the proportion belonging to the East India company. No
sooner did the news of this destruction of the tea reach Great Britain, than
the parliament determined to punish that devoted town. On the king's laying
the American papers before them, a bill was brought in and passed, "to
discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping of goods,
wares and merchandizes at the town of Boston, or within the harbor."
This act, passed March 25, 1774, called the Boston port bill, threw the
inhabitants of Massachusetts into the greatest consternation. The town of
Boston passed a resolution, expressing their sense of this oppressiv
measure, and a desire that all the colonies would concur to stop all
importation from Great Britain. Most of the colonies entered into spirited
resolutions, on this occasion, to unite with Massachusetts in a firm
opposition to the unconstitutional measures of the parliament. The first of
June, the day on which the port bill was to take place, was appointed to be
kept as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer throughout the colonies, to
seek the divine direction and aid, in that critical and gloomy juncture of
affairs.
During the height of the consternation and confusion which the Boston port
bill occasioned; at the very time when a town meeting was sitting to
consider of it, General Gage, who had been appointed to the government of
Massachusetts, arrived in the harbor. His arrival however did not allay the
popular ferment, or check the progress of the measures then taking, to unite
the colonies in opposition to the oppressiv act of parliament.

But the port bill was not the only act that alarmed the apprehensions of the
Americans. Determined to compel the province of Massachusetts to submit
to their laws, parliament passed an act for "the better regulating government
in the province of Massachusetts Bay." The object of this act was to alter
the government, as it stood on the charter of king William, to take the
appointment of the executiv out of the hands of the people, and place it in
the crown; thus making even the judges and sheriffs dependent on the king,
and removeable only at his pleasure.
This act was soon followed by another, which ordained that any person,
indicted for murder, or other capital offence, committed in aiding the
magistrates in executing the laws, might be sent by the governor either to
another colony, or to Great Britain for his trial.
This was soon followed by the Quebec bill; which extended the bounds of
that province, and granted many privileges to the Roman Catholics. The
object of this bill was, to secure the attachment of that province to the
crown of England, and prevent its joining the colonies in their resistance to
the laws of parliament.
But these measures did not intimidate the Americans. On the other hand
they served to confirm their former apprehensions of the evil designs of
government, and to unite the colonies in their opposition. A correspondence
of opinion with respect to the unconstitutional acts of parliament, produced
a uniformity of proceedings in the colonies. The people generally concurred
in a proposition for holding a Congress by deputation from the several
colonies, in order to concert measures for the preservation of their rights.
Deputies were accordingly appointed, and met at Philadelphia, on the 26th
of October, 1774.
In this first Congress, the proceedings were cool, deliberate and loyal; but
marked with unanimity and firmness. Their first act was a declaration, or
state of their claims as to the enjoyment of all the rights of British subjects,
and particularly that of taxing themselves exclusivly, and of regulating the
internal police of the colonies. They also drew up a petition to the king,
complaining of their grievances and praying for a repeal of the
unconstitutional and oppressiv acts of parliament. They signed an
association to suspend the importation of British goods, and the exportation
of American produce, until their grievances should be redressed. They sent

an address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and another to the people of
America; in the former of which they enumerated the oppressiv steps of
parliament, and called on their British brethren not to aid the ministry in
enslaving their American subjects; and in the latter, they endeavored to
confirm the people in a spirited and unanimous determination to defend
their constitutional rights.
In the mean time, every thing in Massachusetts wore the appearance of
opposition by force. A new council for the Governor had been appointed by
the crown. New judges were appointed, and attempted to proceed in the
execution of their office. But the juries refused to be sworn under them; in
some counties, the people assembled to prevent the courts from proceeding
to business; and in Berkshire they succeeded, setting an example of
resistance that has since been followed, in violation of the laws of the State.
In this situation of affairs, the day for the annual muster of the militia
approached. General Gage, apprehensiv of some violence, had the
precaution to seize the magazines of ammunition and stores at Cambridge
and Charlestown, and lodged them in Boston. This measure, with the
fortifying of that neck of land which joins Boston to the main land at
Roxbury, caused a universal alarm and ferment. Several thousand people
assembled, and it was with difficulty they could be restrained from falling
upon the British troops.
On this occasion, an assembly of delegates from all the towns in Suffolk
county, was called; and several spirited resolutions were agreed to. These
resolutions were prefaced with a declaration of allegiance; but they
breathed a spirit of freedom that does honor to the delegates. They declared
that the late acts of parliament and the proceedings of General Gage, were
glaring infractions of their rights and liberties, which their duty called them
to defend by all lawful means.
This assembly remonstrated against the fortification of Boston neck, and
against the Quebec bill; and resolved upon a suspension of commerce, and
encouragement of arts and manufactures, the holding of a provincial
Congress, and a submission to the measures which should be recommended
by the Continental Congress. They recommended that the collectors of
taxes should not pay any money into the treasury, without further orders;

they also recommended peace and good order, as they meant to act merely
upon the defensiv.
In answer to their remonstrance, General Gage assured them that he had no
intention to prevent the free egress and regress of the inhabitants to and
from the town of Boston, and that he would not suffer any person under his
command to injure the person or property of any of his majesty's subjects.
Previous to this, a General Assembly had been summoned to meet; and
notwithstanding the writs had been countermanded by the Governor's
proclamation, on account of the violence of the times and the resignation of
several of the new counsellors, yet representativs were chosen by the
people, who met at Salem, resolved themselves into a provincial Congress,
and adjourned to Concord.
This Congress addressed the Governor with a rehearsal of their distresses,
and took the necessary steps for defending their rights. They regulated the
militia, made provision for supplying the treasury, and furnishing the people
with arms; and such was the enthusiasm and union of the people, that the
recommendations of the provincial Congress had the force of laws.
General Gage was incensed at these measures; he declared, in his answer to
the address, that Britain could never harbor the black design of enslaving
her subjects, and published a proclamation in which he insinuated that such
proceedings amounted to rebellion. He also ordered barracks to be erected
for the soldiers; but he found difficulty in procuring laborers, either in
Boston or New York.
In the beginning of 1775, the fishery bills were passed in parliament, by
which the colonies were prohibited to trade with Great Britain, Ireland or
the West Indies, or to take fish on the banks of Newfoundland.
In the distresses to which these acts of parliament reduced the town of
Boston, the unanimity of the colonies was remarkable, in the large supplies
of provision, furnished by the inhabitants of different towns from New
Hampshire to Georgia, and shipped to the relief of the sufferers.
Preparations began to be made, to oppose by force, the execution of these
acts of parliament. The militia of the country were trained to the use of
arms; great encouragement was given for the manufacture of gunpowder,
and measures were taken to obtain all kinds of military stores.

In February, Colonel Leslie was sent with a detachment of troops from
Boston, to take possession of some cannon at Salem. But the people had
intelligence of the design, took up the draw bridge in that town, and
prevented the troops from passing, until the cannon were secured; so that
the expedition failed.
In April, Colonel Smith, and Major Pitcairn were sent with a body of about
nine hundred troops, to destroy the military stores which had been collected
at Concord, about twenty miles from Boston. It is believed, that another
object of this expedition, was to seize on the persons of Messrs. Hancock
and Adams, who, by their spirited exertions, had rendered themselves very
obnoxious to General Gage. At Lexington, the militia were collected on a
green, to oppose the incursion of the British forces. These were fired upon
by the British troops, and eight men killed on the spot.
The militia were dispersed, and the troops proceeded to Concord; where
they destroyed a few stores. But on their return, they were incessantly
harrassed by the Americans, who, inflamed with just resentment, fired upon
them from houses and fences, and pursued them to Boston. The loss of the
British in this expedition, in killed, wounded and prisoners, was two
hundred and seventy three men.
Here was spilt the first blood in the late war; a war which severed America
from the British empire. Lexington opened the first scene of this great
drama, which, in its progress, exhibited the most illustrious characters and
events, and closed with a revolution, equally glorious for the actors, and
important in its consequences to mankind.
This battle roused all America. The militia collected from all quarters, and
Boston, in a few days was besieged by twenty thousand men. A stop was
put to all intercourse between the town and country, and the inhabitants
were reduced to great want of provisions. General Gage promised to let the
people depart, if they would deliver up their arms. The people complied; but
when the General had obtained their arms, the perfidious man refused to let
the people go.
In the mean time, a small number of men, to the amount of about two
hundred and forty, under the command of Colonel Allen, and Colonel
Easton, without any public orders, surprised and took the British garrisons
at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, without the loss of a man on either side.

During these transactions, the Generals Howe, Burgoyne, and Clinton,
arrived at Boston from England, with a number of troops. In June
following, our troops attempted to fortify Bunker's hill, which lies near
Charlestown, and but a mile and an half from Boston. They had, during the
night, thrown up a small breast work, which sheltered them from the fire of
the British cannon. But the next morning, the British army was sent to drive
them from the hill, and, landing under cover of their cannon, they set fire to
Charlestown, which was consumed, and marched to attack our troops in the
entrenchments. A severe engagement ensued, in which the British,
according to their own accounts, had seven hundred and forty killed, and
eleven hundred and fifty wounded. They were repulsed at first, and thrown
into disorder; but they finally carried the fortification, with the point of the
bayonet. The Americans suffered a small loss, compared with the British;
the whole loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners, being but about four
hundred and fifty.
The loss most lamented on this bloody day, was that of Dr. Warren, who
was at this time a Major General, and commanded the troops on this
occasion. He died like a brave man, fighting valiantly at the head of his
party, in a little redoubt at the right of our lines.
General Warren, who had rendered himself conspicuous by his universal
merit, abilities, and eloquence, had been a delegate to the first general
Congress, and was at this time President of the provincial Congress of
Massachusetts. But quitting the humane and peaceable walk of his
profession as a physician, and breaking through the endearing ties of family
connexions, he proved himself equally calculated for the field, as for public
business or private study.
About this, time, the Continental Congress appointed George Washington,
Esq. a nativ of Virginia, to the chief command of the American arm. This
gentleman had been a distinguished and successful officer in the preceding
war, and he seemed destined by heaven to be the savior of his country. He
accepted the appointment with a diffidence which was a proof of his
prudence and his greatness. He refused any pay for eight years laborious
and arduous service; and by his matchless skill, fortitude and perseverance,
conducted America thro indescribeable difficulties, to independence and
peace.

While true merit is esteemed, or virtue honored, mankind will never cease
to revere the memory of this Hero; and while gratitude remains in the
human breast, the praises of Washington shall dwell on every American
tongue.
General Washington, with other officers appointed by Congress, arrived at
Cambridge, and took command of the American army in July. From this
time, the affairs of America began to assume the appearance of a regular
and general opposition to the forces of Great Britain.
In autumn, a body of troops, under the command of General Montgomery,
besieged and took the garrison at St. John's, which commands the entrance
into Canada. The prisoners amounted to about seven hundred. General
Montgomery pursued his success, and took Montreal; and designed to push
his victories to Quebec.
A body of troops, commanded by General Arnold, was ordered to march to
Canada, by the river Kennebeck, and through the wilderness. After
suffering every hardship, and the most distressing hunger, they arrived in
Canada, and were joined by General Montgomery, before Quebec. This city,
which was commanded by Governor Carleton, was immediately besieged.
But there being little hope of taking the town by a siege, it was determined
to storm it.
The attack was made on the last day of December, but proved unsuccessful,
and fatal to the brave General, who, with his aid, was killed in attempting to
scale the walls.
Of the three divisions which attacked the town, one only entered, and that
was obliged to surrender to superior force. After this defeat, General
Arnold, who now commanded the troops, continued some months before
Quebec, altho his troops suffered incredibly by cold and sickness. But the
next spring, the Americans were obliged to retreat from Canada.
About this time, the large and flourishing town of Norfolk, in Virginia, was
wantonly burnt by order of lord Dunmore, the then royal Governor of that
province.
General Gage went to England in September, and was succeeded in the
command, by General Howe.

Falmouth, a considerable town in the province of Maine, in Massachusetts,
shared the fate of Norfolk; being laid in ashes by order of the British
admiral.
The British king entered into treaties with some of the German princes for
about seventeen thousand men, who were to be sent to America the next
year, to assist in subduing the colonies. The parliament also passed an act,
forbidding all intercourse with America; and while they repealed the Boston
port and fishery bills, they declared all American property on the high seas,
forfeited to the captors. This act induced Congress to change the mode of
carrying on the war; and measures were taken to annoy the enemy in
Boston. For this purpose, batteries were opened on several hills, from
whence shot and bombs were thrown into the town. But the batteries which
were opened on Dorchester point had the best effect, and soon obliged
General Howe to abandon the town. In March, 1776, the British troops
embarked for Halifax, and General Washington entered the town in
triumph.
In the ensuing summer, a small squadron of ships commanded by Sir Peter
Parker, and a body of troops under the Generals Clinton and Cornwallis,
attempted to take Charleston, the capital of South Carolina. The ships made
a violent attack upon the fort on Sullivan's Island, but were repulsed with
great loss, and the expedition was abandoned.
In July, Congress published their declaration of independence, which
separated America from Great Britain. This great event took place two
hundred and eighty four years after the first discovery of America by
Columbus; one hundred and sixty six, from the first effectual settlement in
Virginia; and one hundred and fifty six from the first settlement of
Plymouth, in Massachusetts, which were the earliest English settlements in
America.
Just after this declaration, General Howe with a powerful force arrived near
New York, and landed the troops upon Staten Island. General Washington
was in New York with about thirteen thousand men, who were encamped
either in the city or the neighboring fortifications.
The operations of the British began by the action on Long Island, in the
month of August. The Americans were defeated, and General Sullivan and
lord Sterling, with a large body of men, were made prisoners. The night

after the engagement, a retreat was ordered, and executed with such silence,
that the Americans left the island without alarming their enemies, and
without loss.
In September, the city of New York was abandoned by the American army,
and taken by the British.
In November, Fort Washington, on York Island, was taken, and more than
two thousand men made prisoners. Fort Lee, opposit to Fort Washington, on
the Jersey shore, was soon after taken, but the garrison escaped.
About the same time, General Clinton was sent with a body of troops to
take possession of Rhode Island; and succeeded. In addition to all these
losses and defeats, the American army suffered by desertion, and more by
sickness, which was epidemic, and very mortal.
The northern army at Ticonderoga, was in a disagreeable situation,
particularly after the battle on Lake Champlain, in which the American
force, consisting of a few light vessels, under the command of Generals
Arnold and Waterbury, was totally dispersed. But General Carleton, instead
of pursuing his victory, landed at Crown Point, reconnoitered our posts at
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, and returned to winter quarters in
Canada.
The American army might now be said to be no more. All that now
remained of an army, which at the opening of the campaign, amounted to at
least twenty five thousand men, did not now exceed three thousand. The
term of their engagements being expired, they returned, in large bodies, to
their families and friends; the few, who from personal attachment, local
circumstances, or superior perseverance and bravery, continued with the
Generals Washington and Lee, were too inconsiderable to appear
formidable in the view of a powerful and victorious enemy.
In this alarming and critical situation of affairs, General Lee, through an
imprudent carelessness, which ill became a man in his important station,
was captured by a party of the British light horse, commanded by Colonel
Harcourt; this unfortunate circumstance gave a severe shock to the
remaining hopes of the little army, and rendered their situation truly
distressing.

While these things were transacting in New Jersey, General Washington, far
from being discouraged by the loss of General Lee, and always ready to
improve every advantage to raise the drooping spirits of his handful of men,
had made a stand on the Pensylvania side of the Delaware. Here he
collected his scattered forces, called in the assistance of the Pensylvania
militia, and on the night of the 25th of December, (1776) when the enemy
were lulled into security by the idea of his weakness, and by the inclemency
of the night, which was remarkably boisterous, as well as by the fumes of a
Christmas eve, he crossed the river, and at the breaking of day, marched
down to Trenton, and so completely surprised them, that the greater part of
the detachment which were stationed at this place, surrendered after a short
resistance. The horsemen and a few others made their escape at the opposit
end of the town. Upwards of nine hundred Hessians were taken prisoners at
this time.
This successful expedition first gave a favorable turn to our affairs, which,
after this, seemed to brighten thro the whole course of the war. Soon after,
General Washington attacked the British troops at Princeton, and obtained a
complete victory; not, however, without being bravely opposed by Colonel
Mawhood.
The address in planning and executing these enterprises, reflected the
highest honor on the commander, and the success revived the desponding
hopes of America. The loss of General Mercer, a gallant officer, at
Princeton, was the principal circumstance that allayed the joys of victory.
The following year, 1777, was distinguished by very memorable events, in
favor of America. On the opening of the campaign, Governor Tryon was
sent with a body of troops, to destroy the stores at Danbury, in Connecticut.
This plan was executed, and the town mostly burnt. The enemy suffered in
their retreat, and the Americans lost General Wooster, a brave and
experienced officer.
General Prescot was taken from his quarters, on Rhode Island, by the
address and enterprise of Colonel Barton, and conveyed prisoner to the
continent.
General Burgoyne, who commanded the northern British army, took
possession of Ticonderoga, which had been abandoned by the Americans.
He pushed his successes, crossed Lake George, and encamped upon the

banks of the Hudson, near Saratoga. His progress, however, was checked,
by the defeat of Colonel Baum, near Bennington, in which the undisciplined
militia of Vermont, under General Stark, displayed unexampled bravery,
and captured almost the whole detachment.
The militia assembled from all parts of New England, to stop the progress
of General Burgoyne.
These, with the regular troops, formed a respectable army, commanded by
General Gates. After two severe actions, in which the Generals Lincoln and
Arnold, behaved with uncommon gallantry, and were wounded, General
Burgoyne found himself enclosed with brave troops, and was forced to
surrender his whole army, amounting, according to some, to ten thousand,
and according to others, to five thousand seven hundred and fifty two men,
into the hands of the Americans. This memorable event happened on the
17th of October, 1777; and diffused an universal joy over America, and laid
a foundation for the treaty with France.
But before these transactions, the main body of the British forces had
embarked at New York, sailed up the Chesapeak, and landed at the head of
Elk river. The army soon began their march for Philadelphia. General
Washington had determined to oppose them, and for this purpose made a
stand, first at Red Clay Creek, and then upon the heights, near Brandywine
Creek. Here the armies engaged, and the Americans were overpowered, and
suffered great loss. The enemy soon pursued their march, and took
possession of Philadelphia towards the close of September.
Not long after, the two armies were again engaged at Germantown, and in
the beginning of the action, the Americans had the advantage; but by some
unlucky accident, the fortune of the day was turned in favor of the British.
Both sides suffered considerable losses; on the side of the Americans, was
General Nash.
In an attack upon the forts at Mud Island and Red Bank, the Hessians were
unsuccessful, and their commander, Colonel Donop, killed. The British also
lost the Augusta, a ship of the line. But the forts were afterwards taken, and
the navigation of the Delaware opened. General Washington was reinforced,
with part of the troops which had composed the northern army, under
General Gates; and both armies retired to winter quarters.

In October, the same month in which General Burgoyne was taken at
Saratoga, General Vaughan, with a small fleet, sailed up Hudson's river, and
wantonly burnt Kingston, a beautiful Dutch settlement, on the west side of
the river.
The beginning of the next year, 1778, was distinguished by a treaty of
alliance between France and America; by which we obtained a powerful
and generous ally. When the English ministry were informed that this treaty
was on foot, they dispatched commissioners to America, to attempt a
reconciliation. But America would not now accept their offers. Early in the
spring, Count de Estaing, with a fleet of fifteen sail of the line, was sent by
the court of France to assist America.
General Howe left the army, and returned to England; the command then
devolved upon Sir Henry Clinton.
In June, the British army left Philadelphia, and marched for New York. On
their march they were annoyed by the Americans; and at Monmouth, a very
regular action took place, between part of the armies; the enemy were
repulsed with great loss, and had General Lee obeyed his orders, a signal
victory must have been obtained. General Lee, for his ill conduct that day,
was suspended, and was never afterwards permitted to join the army.
General Lee's conduct, at several times before this, had been very
suspicious. In December 1776, he lay at Chatham, about eleven miles from
Elizabeth Town, with a brigade of troops, when a great quantity of baggage
was stored at Elizabeth Town, under a guard of only five hundred Hessians.
General Lee was apprised of this, and might have surprised the guard and
taken the baggage. But he neglected the opportunity, and after several
marches and counter marches between Troy, Chatham and Morristown, he
took up his quarters at or near White's tavern, where he was surprised and
taken prisoner by a party of the British horse. He was heard to say
repeatedly, that General Washington would ruin a fine army. It was
suspected that he had designs to supplant the General, and his friends
attempted to place him at the head of the army. General Washington's
prudent delays and cautious movements afforded General Lee's friends
many opportunities to spread reports unfavorable to his character. It was
insinuated, with some success, that General Washington wanted courage
and abilities. Reports of this kind, at one time, rendered General Lee very

popular, and it is supposed he wished to frustrate General Washington's
plans, in order to increase the suspicions already entertained of his
generalship, and turn the public clamor in his own favor. His conduct at
Monmouth, must have proceeded from such a design; for he commanded
the flower of the American army, and was not destitute of courage.
In August, General Sullivan, with a large body of troops, attempted to take
possession of Rhode Island, but did not succeed. Soon after, the stores and
shipping at Bedford in Massachusetts, were burnt by a party of the British
troops. The same year, Savannah, then the capital of Georgia, was taken by
the British, under the command of Colonel Campbell.
In the following year (1779) General Lincoln was appointed to the
command of the southern army.
Governor Tryon and Sir George Collier made an incursion into Connecticut,
and burnt, with wanton barbarity, the towns of Fairfield and Norwalk. But
the American arms were crowned with success, in a bold attack upon
Stoney Point, which was surprised and taken by General Wayne, in the
night of the 15th of July. Five hundred men were made prisoners, with little
loss on either side.
A party of British forces attempted this summer, to build a fort on
Penobscot river, for the purpose of cutting timber in the neighboring forests.
A plan was laid by Massachusetts, to dislodge them, and a considerable
fleet collected for the purpose. But the plan failed of success, and the whole
marine force fell into the hands of the British, except some vessels which
were burnt by the Americans themselves.
In October, General Lincoln and Count de Estaing made an assault upon
Savannah; but they were repulsed with considerable loss. In this action, the
celebrated Polish Count Pulaski, who had acquired the reputation of a brave
soldier, was mortally wounded.
In this summer, General Sullivan marched with a body of troops, into the
Indians' country, and burnt and destroyed all their provisions and
settlements that fell in their way.
On the opening of the campaign, the next year, (1780) the British troops left
Rhode Island. An expedition under General Clinton and Lord Cornwallis,
was undertaken against Charleston, South Carolina, where General Lincoln

commanded. This town, after a close siege of about six weeks, was
surrendered to the British commander; and General Lincoln, and the whole
American garrison were made prisoners.
General Gates was appointed to the command in the southern department,
and another army collected. In August, Lord Cornwallis attacked the
American troops at Camden, in South Carolina, and routed them with
considerable loss. He afterwards marched through the southern States, and
supposed them entirely subdued.
The same summer, the British troops made frequent incursions from New
York into the Jersies; ravaging and plundering the country.
In July, a French fleet, under Monsieur d'Ternay, with a body of land forces,
commanded by Count de Rochambeau, arrived at Rhode Island, to the great
joy of the Americans.
This year was also distinguished by the infamous treason of General
Arnold. General Washington having some business to transact at
Wethersfield, in Connecticut, left Arnold to command the important post of
West Point; which guards a pass in Hudson's river, about sixty miles from
New York. Arnold's conduct in the city of Philadelphia, the preceding
winter, had been censured; and the treatment he received in consequence,
had given him offence.
He determined to take revenge; and for this purpose, he entered into a
negociation with Sir Henry Clinton, to deliver West Point, and the army,
into the hands of the British. While General Washington was absent, he
dismounted the cannon in some of the forts, and took other steps to render
the taking of the post easy for the enemy.
But by a providential discovery, the whole plan was defeated. Major Andre,
aid to General Clinton, a brave officer, who had been sent up the river as a
spy, to concert the plan of operations with Arnold, was taken, condemned
by a court martial, and executed. Arnold made his escape, by getting on
board the Vulture, a British vessel, which lay in the river. His conduct has
stamped him with infamy; and, like all traitors, he is despised by all
mankind. General Washington arrived in camp just after Arnold had made
his escape, and restored order in the garrison.

After the defeat of General Gates in Carolina, General Greene was
appointed to the command in the southern department. From this period,
things in that quarter wore a more favorable aspect. Colonel Tarleton, the
activ commander of the British legion, was defeated by General Morgan,
the intrepid commander of the rifle men.
After a variety of movements, the two armies met at Guilford, in Carolina.
Here was one of the best fought actions during the war. General Greene and
Lord Cornwallis exerted themselves at the head of their respectiv armies;
and although the Americans were obliged to retire from the field of battle,
yet the British army suffered an immense loss, and could not pursue the
victory. This action happened on the 15th March, 1781.
In the spring, Arnold the traitor, who was made a Brigadier General in the
British service, with a small number of troops, sailed for Virginia, and
plundered the country. This called the attention of the French fleet to that
quarter; and a naval engagement took place between the English and
French, in which some of the English ships were much damaged, and one
entirely disabled.
After the battle of Guilford, General Greene moved towards South
Carolina, to drive the British from their posts in that State. Here Lord
Rawdon obtained an inconsiderable advantage over the Americans, near
Camden. But General Greene more than recovered this advantage, by the
brilliant and successful action at the Eutaw Springs; where General Marian
distinguished himself, and the brave Colonel Washington was wounded and
taken prisoner.
Lord Cornwallis, finding General Greene successful in Carolina, marched
to Virginia, collected his forces, and fortified himself in Yorktown. In the
mean time Arnold made an incursion into Connecticut, burnt a part of New
London, took Fort Griswold by storm, and put the garrison to the sword.
The garrison consisted chiefly of men suddenly collected from the little
town of Groton, which, by the savage cruelty of the British officer who
commanded the attack, lost, in one hour, almost all its heads of families.
The brave Colonel Ledyard, who commanded the fort, was slain with his
own sword, after he had surrendered.
The Marquis de la Fayette, the brave and generous nobleman, whose
services command the gratitude of every American, had been dispatched

with about two thousand light infantry, from the main army, to watch the
motions of lord Cornwallis in Virginia. He prosecuted this expedition with
the greatest military ability. Although his force was much inferior to that of
the enemy, he obliged them to leave Richmond and Williamsburgh, and to
seek protection under their shipping.
About the last of August, Count de Grasse arrived with a large fleet in the
Chesapeak, and blocked up the British troops at Yorktown. Admiral
Greaves, with a British fleet, appeared off the Capes, and an action
succeeded; but it was not decisiv.
General Washington had before this time moved the main body of his army,
together with the French troops, to the southward; and as soon as he heard
of the arrival of the French fleet in the Chesapeak, he made rapid marches
to the head of Elk, where embarking, the troops soon arrived at Yorktown.
A close siege immediately commenced, and was carried on with such vigor,
by the combined forces of America and France, that lord Cornwallis was
obliged to surrender. This glorious event which took place on the 19th of
October, 1781, decided the contest in favor of America; and laid the
foundation of a general peace.[46]
A few months after the surrender of Cornwallis, the British evacuated all
their posts in South Carolina and Georgia, and retired to the main army in
New York.
The next spring, (1782) Sir Guy Carleton arrived in New York, and took the
command of the British army, in America. Immediately on his arrival, he
acquainted General Washington and Congress, that negociations for a peace
had been commenced at Paris.
On the 30th of November, 1782, the provisional articles of peace were
signed at Paris; by which Great Britain acknowleged the independence and
sovereignty of the United States of America; and these articles were
afterwards ratified by a definitiv treaty.
Thus ended a long and arduous conflict, in which Great Britain expended
near an hundred millions of money, with an hundred thousand lives, and
won nothing. America endured every cruelty and distress from her enemies;
lost many lives and much treasure; but delivered herself from a foreign
dominion, and gained a rank among the nations of the earth.

Holland acknowleged the independence of the United States on the 19th of
April, 1782; Sweden, February 5th, 1783; Denmark, the 25th of February;
Spain, in March, and Russia in July, 1783.
No sooner was peace restored by the definitiv treaty, and the British troops
withdrawn from the country, than the United States began to experience the
defects of their general government. While an enemy was in the country,
fear, which had first impelled the colonies to associate in mutual defence,
continued to operate as a band of political union. It gave to the resolutions
and recommendations of Congress the force of laws, and generally
commanded a ready acquiescence on the part of the State legislatures.
Articles of confederation and perpetual union had been framed in Congress,
and submitted to the consideration of the States, in the year 1778. Some of
the States immediately acceded to them; but others, which had not
unappropriated lands, hesitated to subscribe a compact, which would giv an
advantage to the States which possessed large tracts of unlocated lands, and
were thus capable of a great superiority in wealth and population. All
objections however had been overcome, and by the accession of Maryland
in March, 1781, the articles of confederation were ratified, as the frame of
government for the United States.
These articles, however were framed during the rage of war, when a
principle of common safety supplied the place of a coerciv power in
government; by men who could have had no experience in the art of
governing an extensiv country, and under circumstances the most critical
and embarrassing. To have offered to the people at that time, a system of
government armed with the powers necessary to regulate and control the
contending interests of thirteen States, and the possessions of millions of
people, might have raised a jealousy between the States or in the minds of
the people at large, that would have weakened the operations of war, and
perhaps have rendered a union impracticable. Hence the numerous defects
of the confederation.
On the conclusion of peace, these defects began to be felt. Each State
assumed the right of disputing the propriety of the resolutions of Congress,
and the interest of an individual State was placed in opposition to the
common interest of the union. In addition to this source of division, a
jealousy of the powers of Congress began to be excited in the minds of
people.

This jealousy of the privileges of freemen, had been roused by the oppressiv
acts of the British parliament; and no sooner had the danger from this
quarter ceased, than the fears of people changed their object, and were
turned against their own rulers.
In this situation, there were not wanting men of industry and talents, who
had been enemies to the revolution, and who embraced the opportunity to
multiply the apprehensions of people and increase the popular discontents.
A remarkable instance of this happened in Connecticut. As soon as the
tumults of war had subsided, an attempt was made to convince the people,
that the act of Congress passed in 1778, granting to the officers of the army,
half pay for life, was highly unjust and tyrannical; and that it was but the
first step towards the establishment of pensions and an uncontrolable
despotism. The act of Congress, passed in 1783, commuting half pay for
life for five years full pay, was designed to appease the apprehensions of
people, and to convince them that this gratuity was intended merely to
indemnify the officers for their losses by the depreciation of the paper
currency; and not to establish a precedent for the granting of pensions. This
act, however, did not satisfy the people, who supposed that the officers had
been generally indemnified for the loss of their pay, by the grants made
them from time to time by the legislatures of the several States. Besides the
act, while it gave five years full pay to the officers, allowed but one year's
pay to the privates; a distinction which had great influence in exciting and
continuing the popular ferment, and one that turned a large share of the
public rage against the officers themselves.
The moment an alarm was raised respecting this act of Congress, the
enemies of our independence became activ in blowing up the flame, by
spreading reports unfavorable to the general government, and tending to
create public dissensions. Newspapers, in some parts of the country, were
filled with inflammatory publications; while false reports and groundless
insinuations were industriously circulated to the prejudice of Congress and
the officers of the late army. Among a people feelingly alive to every thing
that could affect the rights for which they had been contending, these
reports could not fail of having a powerful effect; the clamor soon became
general; the officers of the army, it was believed, had attempted to raise
their fortunes on the distresses of their fellow citizens, and Congress
become the tyrants of their country.

Connecticut was the seat of this uneasiness; altho other States were much
agitated on the occasion. But the inhabitants of that State, accustomed to
order and a due subordination to the laws, did not proceed to outrages; they
took their usual mode of collecting the sense of the State; assembled in
town meetings; appointed committees to meet in convention, and consult
what measures should be adopted to procure a redress of their grievances.
In this convention, which was held at Middletown, some nugatory resolves
were passed, exploiting a disapprobation of the half pay act, and the
subsequent commutation of the grant for five years whole pay. The same
spirit also discovered itself in the assembly, at their October session, in
1783. A remonstrance against the acts in favor of the officers, was framed in
the house of representativs, and notwithstanding the upper house refused to
concur in the measure, it was sent to Congress.
During this situation of affairs, the public odium against the officers, was
augmented by another circumstance. The officers, just before the
disbanding of the army, had formed a society, called by the name of the
Cincinnati, after the Roman Dictator, Cincinnatus, which, it was said, was
intended to perpetuate the memory of the revolution, the friendship of the
officers, and the union of the States; and also to raise a fund for the relief of
poor widows and orphans, whose husbands and fathers had fallen during
the war, and for their descendants. The society was divided into State
societies, which were to meet on the 4th of July, and with other business,
depute a number of their members to convene annually in general meeting.
The members of the institution were to be distinguished by wearing a
medal, emblematical of the design of the society, and the honors and
advantages were to be hereditary in the eldest male heirs, and in default of
male issue, in the collateral male heirs. Honorary members were to be
admitted, but without the hereditary advantages of the society, and provided
their number would never exceed the ratio of one to four of the officers or
their descendants.
Whatever were the real views of the framers of this institution, its design
was generally understood to be harmless and honorable. The ostensible
views of the society could not however skreen it from popular jealousy. A
spirited pamphlet appeared in South Carolina, the avowed production of
Mr. Burke, one of the judges of the supreme court in that State, in which the
author attempted to prove that the principles, on which the society was

formed, would, in process of time, originate and establish an order of
nobility in this country, which would be repugnant to the genius of our
republican governments, and dangerous to liberty. This pamphlet appeared
in Connecticut, during the commotions raised by the half pay and
commutation acts, and contributed not a little to spread the flame of
opposition. Nothing could exceed the odium which prevailed at this time,
against the men who had hazarded their persons and properties in the
revolution.
Notwithstanding the discontents of the people were general, and ready to
burst forth in sedition, yet men of information, viz. the officers of
government, the clergy, and persons of liberal education, were mostly
opposed to the unconstitutional steps taken by the committees and
convention at Middletown. They supported the propriety of the measures of
Congress, both by conversation and writing, proved that such grants to the
army were necessary to keep the troops together, and that the expense
would not be enormous nor oppressiv. During the close of the year 1783,
every possible exertion was made to enlighten the people, and such was the
effect of the arguments used by the minority, that in the beginning of the
following year, the opposition subsided, the committees were dismissed,
and tranquillity restored to the State. In May, the legislature were able to
carry several measures which had before been extremely unpopular. An act
was passed, granting the import of five per cent. to Congress; another
giving great encouragement to commerce, and several towns were
incorporated with extensiv privileges, for the purpose of regulating the
exports of the State, and facilitating the collection of debts.
The opposition to the Congressional acts in favor of the officers, and to the
order of the Cincinnati, did not rise to the same pitch in the other States as
in Connecticut; yet it produced much disturbance in Massachusetts, and
some others. Jealousy of power had been universally spread among the
people of the United States. The destruction of the old forms of
governments, and the licentiousness of war had, in a great measure, broken
their habits of obedience; their passions had been inflamed by the cry of
despotism; and like centinels, who have been suddenly surprised by the
approach of an enemy, the rustling of a leaf was sufficient to giv them an
alarm. This spirit of jealousy, which has not yet subsided, and which will

probably continue visible during the present generation, operated with other
causes to relax the energy of our federal operations.
During the war, vast sums of paper currency had been emitted by Congress,
and large quantities of specie had been introduced, towards the close of the
war, by the French army, and the Spanish trade. This plenty of money
enabled the States to comply with the first requisitions of Congress; so that
during two or three years, the federal treasury was, in some measure,
supplied. But when the danger of war had ceased, and the vast importations
of foreign goods had lessened the quantity of circulating specie, the States
began to be very remiss in furnishing their proportion of monies. The
annihilation of the credit of the paper bills had totally stopped their
circulation, and the specie was leaving the country in cargoes, for
remittances to Great Britain; still the luxurious habits of the people,
contracted during the war, called for new supplies of goods, and private
gratification seconded the narrow policy of State interest in defeating the
operations of the general government.
Thus the revenues of Congress were annually diminishing; some of the
States wholly neglecting to make provision for paying the interest of the
national debt; others making but a partial provision, until the scanty
supplies received from a few of the rich States, would hardly satisfy the
demands of the civil list.
This weakness of the federal government, in conjunction with the flood of
certificates or public securities, which Congress could neither fund nor pay,
occasioned them to depreciate to a very inconsiderable value. The officers
and soldiers of the late army were obliged to receive for wages these
certificates, or promissary notes, which passed at a fifth, or eighth, or a
tenth of their nominal value; being thus deprived at once of the greatest part
of the reward due for their services. Some indeed profited by speculations
in these evidences of the public debt; but such as were under a necessity of
parting with them, were robbed of that support which they had a right to
expect and demand from their countrymen.
Pensylvania indeed made provision for paying the interest of her debts, both
State and federal; assuming her supposed proportion of the continental debt,
and giving the creditors her own State notes in exchange for those of the

United States. The resources of that State are immense, but she has not been
able to make punctual payments, even in a depreciated paper currency.
Massachusetts, in her zeal to comply fully with the requisitions of
Congress, and satisfy the demands of her own creditors, laid a heavy tax
upon the people. This was the immediate cause of the rebellion in that State,
in 1786. But a heavy debt lying on the State, added to burdens of the same
nature, upon almost every incorporation within it; a decline, or rather an
extinction of public credit; a relaxation and corruption of manners, and a
free use of foreign luxuries; a decay of trade and manufactures, with a
prevailing scarcity of money; and, above all, individuals involved in debt to
each other: These were the real, though more remote causes of the
insurrection. It was the tax which the people were required to pay, that
caused them to feel evils which we have enumerated: This called forth all
their other grievances; and the first act of violence committed, was the
burning or destroying of a tax bill. This sedition threw the State into a
convulsion which lasted about a year; courts of justice were violently
obstructed; the collection of debts was suspended; and a body of armed
troops, under the command of General Lincoln, was employed during the
winter of 1786, to disperse the insurgents. Yet so numerous were the latter
in the counties of Worcester, Hampshire and Berkshire, and so obstinately
combined to oppose the execution of law by force, that the Governor and
Council of the State thought proper not to intrust General Lincoln with
military powers, except to act on the defensiv, and to repel force with force,
in case the insurgents should attack him. The leaders of the rebels however
were not men of talents; they were desperate, but without fortitude; and
while they were supported with a superior force, they appeared to be
impressed with that consciousness of guilt, which awes the most daring
wretch, and makes him shrink from his purpose. This appears by the
conduct of a large party of the rebels before the magazine at Springfield;
where General Shepard with a small guard, was stationed to protect the
continental stores. The insurgents appeared upon the plain, with a vast
superiority of numbers, but a few shot from the artillery made the multitude
retreat in disorder, with the loss of four men. This spirited conduct of
General Shepard, with the industry, perseverance and prudent firmness of
General Lincoln, dispersed the rebels, drove the leaders from the State, and
restored tranquillity. An act of indemnity was passed in the Legislature for
all the insurgents, except a few leaders, on condition they should become

peaceable subjects, and take the oath of allegiance. The leaders afterwards
petitioned for pardon, which, from motivs of policy, was granted by the
Legislature.
But the loss of public credit, popular disturbances, and insurrections, were
not the only evils which were generated by the peculiar circumstances of
the times. The emissions of bills of credit and tender laws, were added to
the black catalogue of political disorders.
The expedient of supplying the deficiencies of specie, by emissions of
paper bills, was adopted very early in the colonies. The expedient was
obvious and produced good effects. In a new country, where population is
rapid, and the value of lands increasing, the farmer finds an advantage in
paying legal interest for money; for if he can pay the interest by his profits,
the increasing value of his lands will, in a few years, discharge the
principal.
In no colony was this advantage more sensibly experienced than in
Pensylvania. The emigrants to that province were numerous; the natural
population rapid; and these circumstances combined, advanced the value of
real property to an astonishing degree. As the first settlers there, as well as
in other provinces, were poor, the purchase of a few foreign articles drained
them of specie. Indeed for many years, the balance of trade must have
necessarily been greatly against the colonies.
But bills of credit, emitted by the State and loaned to the industrious
inhabitants, supplied the want of specie, and enabled the farmer to purchase
stock. These bills were generally a legal tender in all colonial or private
contracts, and the sums issued did not generally exceed the quantity requisit
for a medium of trade; they retained their full nominal value in the purchase
of commodities. But as they were not received by the British merchants, in
payment for goods, there was a great demand for specie and bills, which
occasioned the latter at various times to appreciate. Thus was introduced a
difference between the English sterling money and the currencies of the
colonies which remains to this day.[47]
The advantages the colonies had derived from bills of credit, under the
British government, suggested to Congress, in 1775, the idea of issuing bills
for the purpose of carrying on the war. And this was perhaps their only
expedient. Money could not be raised by taxation; it could not be borrowed.

The first emissions had no other effect upon the medium of commerce, than
to drive the specie from circulation. But when the paper substituted for
specie, had, by repeated millions, augmented the sum in circulation, much
beyond the usual sum of specie, the bills began to lose their value. The
depreciation continued in proportion to the sums emitted, until seventy, and
even one hundred and fifty nominal paper dollars, were hardly an
equivalent for one Spanish milled dollar. Still from the year 1775 to 1781,
this depreciating paper currency was almost the only medium of trade. It
supplied the place of specie, and enabled Congress to support a numerous
army; until the sum in circulation amounted to two hundred millions of
dollars. But about the year 1780, specie began to be plentiful, being
introduced by the French army, a private trade with the Spanish islands, and
an illicit intercourse with the British garrison at New York. This
circumstance accelerated the depreciation of the paper bills, until their value
had sunk almost to nothing. In 1781, the merchants and brokers in the
southern States, apprehensiv of the approaching fate of the currency, pushed
immense quantities of it suddenly into New England, made vast purchases
of goods in Boston, and instantly the bills vanished from circulation.
The whole history of this continental paper is a history of public and private
frauds. Old specie debts were often paid in a depreciated currency, and even
new contracts for a few weeks or days were often discharged with a small
part of the value received. From this plenty and fluctuating state of the
medium, sprung hosts of speculators and itinerant traders, who left their
honest occupations for the prospect of immense gains, in a fraudulent
business, that depended on no fixed principles, and the profits of which
could be reduced to no certain calculations.
To increase these evils, a project was formed to fix the prices of articles,
and restrain persons from giving or receiving more for any commodity than
the price stated by authority. These regulating acts were reprobated by every
man acquainted with commerce and finance; as they were intended to
prevent an effect without removing the cause. To attempt to fix the value of
money, while streams of bills were incessantly flowing from the treasury of
the United States, was as ridiculous as an attempt to restrain the rising of
water in rivers amidst showers of rain.
Notwithstanding all opposition, some States framed and attempted to
enforce these regulating acts. The effect was, a momentary apparent stand

in the price of articles; innumerable acts of collusion and evasion among the
dishonest; numberless injuries done to the honest; and finally a total
disregard of all such regulations, and the consequential contempt of laws
and the authority of the magistrate.
During these fluctuations of business, occasioned by the variable value of
money, people lost sight, in some measure, of the steady principles which
had before governed their intercourse with each other. Speculations
followed and relaxed the rigor of commercial obligations.
Industry likewise had suffered by the flood of money which had deluged the
States. The prices of produce had risen in proportion to the quantity of
money in circulation, and the demand for the commodities of the country.
This made the acquisition of money easy, and indolence and luxury, with
their train of desolating consequences, spread themselves among all
descriptions of people.
But as soon as hostilities between Great Britain and America were
suspended, the scene was changed. The bills emitted by Congress had long
before ceased to circulate; and the specie of the country was soon drained
off to pay for foreign goods, the importations of which exceeded all
calculation. Within two years from the close of the war, a scarcity of money
was the general cry. The merchants found it impossible to collect their
debts, and make punctual remittances to their creditors in Great Britain; and
the consumers were driven to the necessity of retrenching their superfluities
in living and of returning to their ancient habits of industry and economy.
This change was however progressiv and slow. In many of the States which
suffered by the numerous debts they had contracted, and by the distresses of
war, the people called aloud for emissions of paper bills to supply the
deficiency of a medium. The depreciation of the continental bills, was a
recent example of the ill effects of such an expedient, and the impossibility
of supporting the credit of paper, was urged by the opposers of the measure
as a substantial argument against adopting it. But nothing would silence the
popular clamor; and many men of the first talents and eminence, united
their voices with that of the populace. Paper money had formerly
maintained its credit, and been of singular utility; and past experience,
notwithstanding a change of circumstances, was an argument in its favor
that bore down all opposition.

Pensylvania, although one of the richest States in the union, was the first to
emit bills of credit, as a substitute for specie. But the revolution had
removed the necessity of it, at the same time that it had destroyed the means
by which its former credit had been supported. Lands, at the close of the
war, were not rising in value; bills on London could not so readily be
purchased, as while the province was dependent on Great Britain; the State
was split into parties, one of which attempted to defeat the measures most
popular with the other; and the depreciation of continental bills, with the
injuries which it had done to individuals, inspired a general distrust of all
public promises.
Notwithstanding a part of the money was loaned on good landed security,
and the faith of that wealthy State pledged for the redemption of the whole
at its nominal value, yet the advantages of specie as a medium of
commerce, especially as an article of remittance to London, soon made a
difference of ten per cent. between the bills of credit and specie. This
difference may be considered rather as an appreciation of gold and silver,
than a depreciation of paper; but its effects, in a commercial State, must be
highly prejudicial. It opens the door to frauds of all kinds, and frauds are
usually practised on the honest and unsuspecting, especially upon all classes
of laborers.
This currency of Pensylvania is receivable in all payments at the custom
house, and for certain taxes, at its nominal value; yet it has sunk to two
thirds of this value, in the few commercial transactions where it is received.
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, had recourse to the same
wretched expedient to supply themselves with money; not reflecting that
industry, frugality, and good commercial laws are the only means of turning
the balance of trade in favor of a country, and that this balance is the only
permanent source of solid wealth and ready money. But the bills they
emitted shared a worse fate than those of Pensylvania; they expelled almost
all the circulating cash from the States; they lost a great part of their
nominal value; they impoverished the merchants, and embarrassed the
planters.
The State of Virginia had too much wisdom to emit bills; but tolerated a
practice among the inhabitants of cutting dollars and smaller pieces of

silver, in order to prevent it from leaving the State. This pernicious practice
prevailed also in Georgia.[48]
Maryland escaped the calamity of a paper currency. The house of delegates
brought forward a bill for the emission of bills of credit to a large amount;
but the senate firmly and successfully resisted the pernicious scheme. The
opposition between the two houses was violent and tumultuous; it
threatened the State with anarchy; but the question was carried to the
people, and the good sense of the senate finally prevailed.
New Jersey is situated between two or the largest commercial towns in
America, and consequently drained of specie. This State also emitted a
large sum in bills of credit, which served to pay the interest of the public
debt; but the currency depreciated, as in other States.
Rhode Island exhibits a melancholy proof of that licentiousness and
anarchy which always follows a relaxation of the moral principles. In a rage
for supplying the State with money, and filling every man's pocket without
obliging him to earn it by his diligence, the Legislature passed an act for
making one hundred thousand pounds in bills; a sum much more than
sufficient for a medium of trade in that State, even without any specie. The
merchants in Newport and Providence opposed the act with firmness; their
opposition added fresh vigour to the resolution of the assembly, and
induced them to inforce the scheme by a legal lender of a most
extraordinary nature. They passed an act, ordaining that if any creditor
should refuse to take their bills, for any debt whatever, the debtor might
lodge the sum due, with a justice of the peace, who should giv notice of it in
the public papers; and if the creditor did not appear and receive the money
within six months from the first notice, his debt should be forfeited. This act
astonished all honest men, and even the promoters of paper money making
in other States, and on other principles, reprobated this act of Rhode Island,
as wicked and oppressiv. But the State was governed by faction. During the
cry for paper money, a number of boisterous ignorant men, were elected
into the Legislature, from the smaller towns in the State. Finding
themselves united with a majority in opinion, they formed and executed any
plan their inclination suggested; they opposed every measure that was
agreeable to the mercantile interest; they not only made bad laws to suit
their own wicked purposes, but appointed their own corrupt creatures to fill
the judicial and executiv departments. Their money depreciated sufficiently

to answer all their vile purposes in the discharge of debts; business almost
totally ceased; all confidence was lost; the State was thrown into confusion
at home, and was execrated abroad.
Massachusetts Bay had the good fortune, amidst her political calamities, to
prevent an emission of bills of credit. New Hampshire made no paper; but
in the distresses which followed her loss of business after the war, the
Legislature made horses, lumber, and most articles of produce a legal tender
in the fulfilment of contracts. It is doubtless unjust to oblige a creditor to
receive any thing for his debt, which he had not in contemplation at the time
of the contract. But as the commodities which were to be a tender by the
law of New Hampshire, were of an intrinsic value, bearing some proportion
to the amount of the debt, the injustice of the law was less flagrant, than that
which enforced the tender of paper in Rhode Island. Indeed a similar law
prevailed for some time in Massachusetts; and in Connecticut it is optional
with the creditor, either to imprison the debtor, or take land on an execution,
at a price to be fixed by three indifferent freeholders; provided no other
means of payment shall appear to satisfy the demand. It must not however
be omitted, that while the most flourishing commercial States introduced a
paper medium, to the great injury of honest men, a bill for an emission of
paper in Connecticut, where there is very little specie, could never
command more than one eighth of the votes of the Legislature. The movers
of the bill have hardly escaped ridicule; so generally is the measure
reprobated as a source of fraud and public mischief.
The Legislature of New York, a State that had the least necessity and
apology for making paper money, as her commercial advantages always
furnish her with specie sufficient for a medium, issued a large sum in bills
of credit, which support their value better than the currency of any other
State. Still the paper has raised the value of specie, which is always in
demand for exportation, and this difference of exchange between paper and
specie, exposes commerce to most of the inconveniencies resulting from a
depreciated medium.
Such is the history of paper money thus far; a miserable substitute for real
coin, in a country where the reins of government are too weak to compel the
fulfilment of public engagements; and where all confidence in public faith
is totally destroyed.

While the States were thus endeavoring to repair the loss of specie, by
empty promises, and to support their business by shadows, rather than by
reality, the British ministry formed some commercial regulations that
deprived them of the profits of their trade to the West Indies and to Great
Britain. Heavy duties were laid upon such articles as were remitted to the
London merchants for their goods, and such were the duties upon American
bottoms, that the States were almost wholly deprived of the carrying trade.
A prohibition was laid upon the produce of the United States, shipped to the
English West India Islands in American built vessels, and in those manned
by American seamen. These restrictions fell heavy upon the eastern States,
which depended much upon ship building for the support of their trade; and
they materially injured the business of the other States.
Without a union that was able to form and execute a general system of
commercial regulations, some of the States attempted to impose restraints
upon the British trade that should indemnify the merchant for the losses he
had suffered, or induce the British ministry to enter into a commercial
treaty, and relax the rigor of their navigation laws. These measures however
produced nothing but mischief. The States did not act in concert, and the
restraints laid on the trade of one State operated to throw the business into
the hands of its neighbor. Massachusetts, in her zeal to counteract the effect
of the English navigation laws, laid enormous duties upon British goods
imported into that State; but the other States did not adopt a similar
measure; and the loss of business soon obliged that State to repeal or
suspend the law. Thus when Pensylvania laid heavy duties on British goods,
Delaware and New Jersey made a number of free ports to encourage the
landing of goods within the limits of those States; and the duties in
Pensylvania served no purpose, but to create smuggling.
Thus divided, the States began to feel their weakness. Most of the
Legislatures had neglected to comply with the requisitions of Congress for
furnishing the federal treasury; the resolves of Congress were disregarded;
the proposition for a general import to be laid and collected by Congress
was negatived first by Rhode Island, and afterwards by New York. The
British troops continued, under pretence of a breach of treaty on the part of
America, to hold possession of the forts on the frontiers of the States, and
thus commanded the fur trade. Many of the States individually were
infested with popular commotions or iniquitous tender laws, while they

were oppressed with public debts; the certificates or public notes had lost
most of their value, and circulated merely as the objects of speculation;
Congress lost their respectability, and the United States their credit and
importance.
In the midst of these calamities, a proposition was made in 1785, in the
house of delegates, in Virginia, to appoint commissioners, to meet such as
might be appointed in the other States, who should form a system of
commercial regulations for the United States, and recommend it to the
several Legislatures for adoption. Commissioners were accordingly
appointed and a request was made to the Legislatures of the other States to
accede to the proposition. Accordingly several of the States appointed
commissioners, who met at Annapolis in the summer of 1786, to consult
what measures should be taken to unite the States in some general and
efficient commercial system. But as the States were not all represented, and
the powers of the commissioners were, in their opinion, too limited to
propose a system of regulations adequate to the purposes of government,
they agreed to recommend a general convention to be held at Philadelphia
the next year, with powers to frame a general plan of government for the
United States. This measure appeared to the commissioners absolutely
necessary. The old confederation was essentially defectiv. It was destitute of
almost every principle necessary to giv effect to legislation.
It was defectiv in the article of legislating over States, instead of
individuals. All history testifies that recommendations will not operate as
laws, and compulsion cannot be exercised over States, without violence,
war and anarchy. The confederation was also destitute of a sanction to its
laws. When resolutions were passed in Congress, there was no power to
compel obedience by fine, by suspension of privileges or other means. It
was also destitute of a guarantee for the State governments. Had one State
been invaded by its neighbor, the union was not constitutionally bound to
assist in repelling the invasion, and supporting the constitution of the
invaded State. The confederation was further deficient in the principle of
apportioning the quotas of money to be furnished by each State; in a want
of power to form commercial laws, and to raise troops for the defence and
security of the union; in the equal suffrage of the States, which placed
Rhode Island on a footing in Congress with Virginia; and to crown all the
defects, we may add the want of a judiciary power, to define the laws of the

union, and to reconcile the contradictory decisions of a number of
independent judicatories.
These and many inferior defects were obvious to the commissioners, and
therefore they urged a general convention, with powers to form and offer to
the consideration of the States, a system of general government that should
be less exceptionable. Accordingly in May, 1787, delegates from all the
States, except Rhode Island, assembled at Philadelphia; and chose General
Washington for their president. After four months deliberation, in which the
clashing interests of the several States, appeared in all their force, the
convention agreed to recommend a plan of federal government, &c.
As soon as the plan of the federal constitution was submitted to the
Legislatures of the several States, they proceeded to take measures for
collecting the sense of the people upon the propriety of adopting it. In the
small State of Delaware, a convention was called in November, which, after
a few days deliberation, ratified the constitution, without a dissenting voice.
In the convention of Pensylvania, held the same month, there was a spirited
opposition to the new form of government. The debates were long and
interesting. Great abilities and firmness were displayed on both sides; but,
on the 13th of December, the constitution was received by two thirds of the
members. The minority were dissatisfied, and with an obstinacy that ill
became the representativs of a free people, published their reasons of
dissent, which were calculated to inflame a party already violent, and
which, in fact, produced some disturbances in the western parts of the State.
But the opposition has since subsided.
In New Jersey, the convention which met in December, were unanimous in
adopting the constitution; as was likewise that of Georgia.
In Connecticut there was some opposition; but the constitution was, on the
9th of January, 1788, ratified by three fourths of the votes in convention,
and the minority peaceably acquiesced in the decision.
In Massachusetts, the opposition was large and respectable. The convention,
consisting of more than three hundred delegates, were assembled in
January, and continued their debates, with great candor and liberality, about
five weeks. At length the question was carried for the constitution by a
small majority, and the minority, with that manly condescension which

becomes great minds, submitted to the measure, and united to support the
government.
In New Hampshire, the federal cause was, for some time doubtful. The
greatest number of the delegates in convention, were at first on the side of
the opposition; and some, who might have had their objections removed by
the discussion of the subject, instructed to reject the constitution. Altho the
instructions of constituents cannot, on the true principles of representation,
be binding upon a deputy, in any legislativ assembly, because his
constituents are but a part of the State, and have not heard the arguments
and objections of the whole; whereas, his act is to affect the whole State,
and therefore is to be directed by the sense or wisdom of the whole,
collected in the legislativ assembly; yet the delegates in the New Hampshire
convention conceived, very erroneously, that the sense of the freemen in the
towns, those little districts, where no act of legislation can be performed,
imposed a restraint upon their own wills.[49] An adjournment was therefore
moved, and carried. This gave the people opportunity to gain a farther
knowlege of the merits of the constitution, and at the second meeting of the
convention, it was ratified by a respectable majority.
In Maryland, several men of abilities appeared in the opposition, and were
unremitted in their endeavors to persuade the people, that the proposed plan
of government was artfully calculated to deprive them of their dearest
rights; yet in convention it appeared that five sixths of the voices were in
favor of it.
In South Carolina, the opposition was respectable; but two thirds of the
convention appeared to advocate and vote for the constitution.
In Virginia, many of the principal characters opposed the ratification of the
constitution with great abilities and industry. But after a full discussion of
the subject, a small majority, of a numerous convention, appeared for its
adoption.
In New York, two thirds of the delegates in convention were, at their first
meeting, determined to reject the constitution. Here, therefore, the debates
were the most interesting, and the event extremely doubtful. The argument
was managed with uncommon address and abilities on both sides of the
question. But during the session, the ninth and tenth States had acceded to
the proposed plan, so that by the constitution, Congress were empowered to

issue an ordinance for organizing the new government. This event placed
the opposition on new ground; and the expediency of uniting with the other
States; the generous motivs of conciliating all differences, and the danger of
a rejection, influenced a respectable number, who were originally opposed
to the constitution, to join the federal interest. The constitution was
accordingly ratified by a small majority; but the ratification was
accompanied here, as in Virginia, with a bill of rights, declaratory of the
sense of the convention, as to certain great principles, and with a catalogue
of amendments, which were to be recommended to the consideration of the
new Congress, and the several State Legislatures.
North Carolina met in convention in July, to deliberate on the new
constitution. After a short session they rejected it, by a majority of one
hundred and seventy six, against seventy six.
Rhode Island was doomed to be the sport of a blind and singular policy. The
Legislature, in consistency with the measures which had been before
pursued, did not call a convention, to collect the sense of the State upon the
proposed constitution; but in an unconstitutional and absurd manner,
submitted the plan of government to the consideration of the people.
Accordingly it was brought before town meetings, and in most of them
rejected. In some of the large towns, particularly in Newport and
Providence, the people collected and resolved, with great propriety, that
they could not take up the subject; and that the proposition for embracing or
rejecting the federal constitution, could come before no tribunal but that of
the State in convention or legislature.
From the moment the proceedings of the general convention at Philadelphia
transpired, the public mind was exceedingly agitated, and suspended
between hope and fear, until nine States had ratified the plan of a federal
government. Indeed, the anxiety continued until Virginia and New York had
acceded to the system. But this did not prevent the demonstrations of joy,
on the accession of each State.
On the ratification in Massachusetts, the citizens of Boston, in the elevation
of their joy, formed a procession in honor of the happy event, which was
novel, splendid and magnificent. This example was afterwards followed,
and in some instances improved upon, in Baltimore, Charleston,
Philadelphia, New Haven, Portsmouth and New York, successivly. Nothing

could equal the beauty and grandeur of these exhibitions. A ship was
mounted upon wheels, and drawn thro the streets; mechanics erected stages,
and exhibited specimens of labor in their several occupations, as they
moved along the road; flags with emblems, descriptiv of all the arts and of
the federal union, were invented and displayed in honor of the government;
multitudes of all ranks in life assembled to view the majestic scenes; while
sobriety, joy and harmony marked the brilliant exhibitions, by which the
Americans celebrated the establishment of their empire.
In March, 1789, the delegates from the eleven ratifying States, convened in
New York, where convenient and elegant accommodations had been
furnished by the citizens. On opening the ballots for President, it appeared
that the late Commander in Chief of our armies was unanimously elected to
the dignified office. This event diffused universal joy among the friends to
the union.
The deliberations of the first American Legislature were marked with
wisdom, spirit, and generally with candor. The establishment of a revenue
and judiciary system, with other national measures; the wise appointments
to offices; the promptness and energy of the executiv, with a growing
popular attachment to the general government, open the fairest prospect of
peace, union and prosperity to these States; a prospect that is brightened by
the accession of North Carolina to the government in November, 1789.

No. XVI.
REMARKS on the Method of burying the DEAD among the
Nativs of this Country; compared with that among the ancient
Britons.
Being an Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, dated New York,
January 20, 1788.

[Note. I had embraced the idea, that the remarkable fortifications on the
Muskingum, might be justly ascribed to the Spaniards, under Ferdinand de
Soto, who penetrated into Florida, about the year 1540; which opinion I
endeavored to maintain as probably well founded, and wrote three or four
letters on the subject, to Dr. Stiles, which were published in 1789. It is now
very clear that my opinion was not well founded; but that Chicaca, which I
had supposed to be Muskingum, ought to have been written Chicaça, with a
cedilla, as it is in the original Spanish; and pronounced Chikesaw. This
determins the place of Soto's winter quarters, the second year after landing,
to be in the territories of the present Chikesaws. Those letters, therefore,
are not worth republishing; but the following extract, on a different subject,
may be considered as worthy of preservation.]
But how shall we account for the mounts, caves, graves, &c. and for the
contents, which evince the existence of the custom of burning the dead or
their bones; can these be ascribed to the Spaniards? I presume, Sir, you will
be of opinion they cannot. Capt. Heart says,[50] these graves are small
mounts of earth, from some of which human bones have been taken; in one
were found bones in the natural position of a man, buried nearly east and
west, and a quantity of ising glass on his breast; in the other graves, the
bones were irregular, some calcined by fire, others burnt only to a certain
degree, so as to render them more durable; in others the mouldered bones
retain their shape, without any substance; others are partly rotten and partly
the remains of decayed bones; in most of the graves were found stones
evidently burnt, pieces of charcoal, Indian arrows and pieces of earthen
ware, which appeared to be a composition of shells and cement.

That these mounts and graves are the works of the nativ Indians, is very
evident, for such small mounts are scattered over every part of North
America. "It was customary with the Indians of the West Jersey," says Mr.
Smith, page 137, "when they buried the dead, to put family utensils, bows
and arrows, and sometimes wampum into the grave, as tokens of their
affection. When a person of note died far from the place of his own
residence, they would carry his bones to be buried there. They washed and
perfumed the dead, painted the face, and followed singly; left the dead in a
fitting posture, and covered the grave pyramidically. They were very
curious in preserving and repairing the graves of their dead, and pensivly
visited them."
It is said by the English, who are best acquainted with the manners of the
nativs, that they had a custom of collecting, at certain stated periods, all the
bones of their deceased friends, and burying them in some common grave.
Over these cemetaries or general repositories of the dead, were erected
those vast heaps of earth or mounts, similar to those which are called in
England barrows, and which are discovered in every part of the United
States.
The Indians seem to have had two methods of burying the dead; one was, to
deposit one body (or at most but a small number of bodies) in a place, and
cover it with stones, thrown together in a careless manner. The pile thus
formed would naturally be nearly circular, but those piles that are
discovered are something oval. In the neighborhood of my father's house,
about seven miles from Hartford, on the public road to Farmington, there is
one of those Carrnedds or heaps of stone. I often passed by it in the early
part of my youth, but never measured its circumference or examined its
contents. My present opinion is, that its circumference is about twenty five
feet. The inhabitants in the neighborhood report, as a tradition received
from the nativs, that an Indian was buried there, and that it is the custom for
every Indian that passes by to cast a stone upon the heap. This custom I
have never seen practised, but have no doubt of its existence; as it is
confirmed by the general testimony of the first American settlers.[51]
The other mode of burying the dead, was to deposit a vast number of
bodies, or the bones which were taken from the single scattered graves, in a
common cemetary, and over them raise vast tumuli or barrows, such as the
mount at Muskingum, which is 390 feet in circumference, and 50 feet high.

The best account of these cemetaries may be found in Mr. Jefferson's Notes
on Virginia, which will appear the most satisfactory to the reader in his own
words.
"I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument, for I would not
honor with that name, arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half
shapen images. Of labor on the large scale, I think there are no remains as
respectable as would be a common ditch for the draining of lands, unless it
be the barrows, of which many are to be found all over this country. These
are of different sizes, some of them constructed of earth, and some of loose
stones. That they were repositories of the dead has been obvious to all; but
on what particular occasion constructed, was matter of doubt. Some have
thought they covered the bones of those who have fallen in battles, fought
on the spot of interment. Some ascribe them to the custom, said to prevail
among the Indians, of collecting at certain periods the bones of all their
dead, wherever deposited at the time of death. Others again supposed them
the general sepulchre for towns, conjectured to have been on or near these
grounds, and this opinion was supported by the quality of the lands in
which they are found, (those constructed of earth being generally in the
softest and most fertile meadow grounds on river sides) and by a tradition
said to be handed down from the aboriginal Indians, that when they settled
in a town, the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put about
him so as to cover and support him; that when another died, a narrow
passage was dug to the first, the second reclined against him, and the cover
of earth replaced, and so on. There being one of these in my neighborhood,
I wished to satisfy myself whether any, and which of these opinions were
just; for this purpose I determined to open and examin it thoroughly. It was
situated on the low grounds of the Rivanna, about two miles above its
principal fork, and opposit to some hills on which had been an Indian town.
It was of a spheroidical form, of about forty feet diameter at the base, and
had been of about twelve feet altitude, tho now reduced by the plow to
seven and a half; having been under cultivation about a dozen years.
"Before this, it was covered with trees of twelve inches diameter, and round
the base was an excavation of five feet depth and width, from whence the
earth had been taken, of which the hillock was formed. I first dug
superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones
at different depths, from six inches to three feet, below the surface. These

were lying in the utmost confusion; some vertical, some oblique, some
horizontal, and directed to every point of the compass, entangled and held
together in clusters by the earth. Bones of the most distant parts were found
together; as for instance, the small bones of the foot in the hollow of a scull;
many sculls were sometimes in contact, lying on the face, on the side, on
the back, top or bottom, so as on the whole, to giv the idea of bones emptied
promiscuously from a bag or basket, and covered over with earth, without
any attention to their order. The bones, of which the greatest numbers
remained, were sculls, jaw bones, teeth, the bones of the arms, thighs, legs,
feet and hands. A few ribs remained, some vertibræ of the neck and spine,
without their processes, and one instance only of the bone which serves as
the base to the vertebral column (the os sacrum)."
After making some remarks on the state of putrefaction in which the bones
appeared, and on the discovery of the bones of infants, Mr. Jefferson goes
on, "I proceeded then to make a perpendicular cut thro the body of the
barrow, that I might examin its internal structure. This passed about three
feet from its center, was opened to the former surface of earth, and was
wide enough for a man to walk thro and examin its sides.
"At the bottom, that is on the level of the circumjacent plain, I found bones;
above these a few stones brought from a cliff, a quarter of a mile off, and
from the river one eighth of a mile off. Then a large interval of earth, then a
stratum of bones, and so on. At one end of the section, were four strata of
bones plainly distinguishable; at the other, three; the strata in one part not
ranging with those in another. The bones nearest the surface were least
decayed. No holes were discovered in any of them, as if made with bullets,
arrows or other weapons. I conjectured that in this barrow might have been
a thousand skeletons. Every one will readily seize the circumstances above
related, which militate against the opinion, that it covered the bones only of
persons fallen in battle; and against the tradition also which would make it
the common sepulchre of a town, in which the bodies were placed upright,
and touching each other. Appearances certainly indicate, that it has derived
both origin and growth from the accustomary collection of bones and
deposition of them together; that the first collection had been deposited on
the common surface of the earth, that a few stones were put over it, and
then a covering of earth, that the second had been laid on this, had covered
more or less of it in proportion to the number of bones, and was then also

covered with earth, and so on. The following are the particular
circumstances, which giv it this aspect. 1 The number of bones. 2 The strata
in one part having no correspondence with those in another. 3 The different
states of decay in these strata, which seem to indicate a difference in the
time of inhumation. 4 The existence of infant bones among them.
"But on whatever occasion they may have been made, they are of
considerable notoriety among the Indians; for a party passing about thirty
years ago, thro the part of the country where this barrow is, went thro the
woods directly to it, without any instructions or inquiry, and having staid
about it some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of
sorrow, they returned to the high road which they had left about half a
dozen miles, to pay this visit, and pursued their journey. There is another
barrow, much resembling this, in the low grounds of the south branch of the
Shenandoah, where it is crossed by the road leading from the Rockfish Gap
to Staunton. Both of these have within these dozen years, been cleared of
their trees and put under cultivation, are much reduced in their height, and
spread in width, by the plow, and will probably disappear in time. There is
another on a hill in the blue ridge of mountains, a few miles north of Wood's
Gap, which is made up of small stones thrown together. This has been
opened, and found to contain human bones, as the others do. There are also
others in other parts of the country."
From this account of Mr. Jefferson, to whose industry and talents the
sciences and his country will ever be indebted, we may fairly conclude that
the mounts at Muskingum are the work of the nativ Indians. It is however
necessary to notice two or three particulars, in the appearance of those at
Muskingum, which are not discovered (or not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson)
in the structure of that which he examined. These are the ising glass, the
earthen ware, the charcoal, and the calcination of the bones by fire. As to
the first it is well known that the ising glass is found only in particular parts
of America, and the savages in other parts could not obtain it. Mr. Jefferson
mentions no discovery of earthen ware, but it was used by the Indians in
every part of America. The piece you once shewed me, sir, is a specimen of
what is found wherever there has been an Indian town. Pieces of it are dug
up frequently in the meadows on Connecticut river. It appears to be formed
of pure clay, or of shells and cement, hardened by fire, and as we might
naturally suppose, without glazing. By sections of vessels which remain, it

is evident they were wrought with great ingenuity, and into beautiful and
convenient forms.
The charcoal and calcination of some bones are a proof that there has
existed, among the savages of America, a custom of burning the dead, or
their bones, after the dissolution of the flesh. It does not appear that this
custom was general, but it is not at all surprising to find that such a practice
has existed in this country; since it has been frequent among the uncivilized
nations on the eastern continent.
I am sensible, sir, that you have entertained an opinion that the story of
Madoc, the Welch Prince, may be true, and that it is possible the
fortifications at Muskingum may be the work of his colony. Of the truth of
this conclusion there is perhaps no direct evidence, and yet collateral
evidence may be obtained, that it is not chimerical. There is such a
surprising affinity between the Indian mounts and the barrows or cemetaries
which are remaining in England, but particularly in Wales and Anglesey, the
last retreat of the original Britons, that we can hardly resolve it into a
common principle of analogy that subsists between nations in the same
stage of society; but incredulity itself will acknowlege the probability, that
the primitiv inhabitants of Britain and America had a common stock from
which they were derived, long since the age of the first parent: Not that I
believe North America to be peopled so late as the twelfth century, the
period of Madoc's migration, but supposing America to have been settled
two or three thousand years before that period, a subsequent colony might
pass the Atlantic and bring the Roman improvements in fortification.
Waving further conjectures, I beg leave to describe the analogy between the
barrows in England and Wales, and in America. This will be striking, and
cannot fail to entertain a curious reader, because it is attended with positiv
proofs.
In England, Scotland, Wales, and the island Anglesey, there are numbers of
monuments erected by the ancients; but the most remarkable are generally
found in the two latter, whither the old Britons retreated from their Roman
and Saxon conquerors; and Anglesey, the ancient Mona, is supposed to have
been the chief seat of the Druids. The remains of most consequence are the
cromlechs, the tumuli, and the cumuli or carrnedds. Cromlech, if the word
is derived from the British roots krom laech, signifies a bending stone.[52]

This is the common opinion, as Rowland observes.[53] If we trace the origin
to the Hebrew, the root of the old British,[54] we shall find it not less
significativ; for cærem luach signify devoted stone, or altar. These
cromlechs consist of large stones, pitched on end in the earth, as supporters,
upon which is laid a broad stone of a vast size. The supporters stand in a
bending posture, and are from three to seven feet high. The top stone is
often found to be of twenty or thirty tons weight, and remains to this day on
the pillars. Numbers of these are found in Wales and Anglesey; but none is
more remarkable than that in Wiltshire, called stone henge, for a full
description of which I must beg leave to refer you to Camden's Britannia,
vol. I, page 119. These cromlechs are doubtless works of great antiquity;
but for what purpose they were erected, at such an immense expense of
time and labor as would be necessary to convey stones of thirty tons weight
a considerable distance, and raise them several feet, is not easily
determined. The probability is that they were altars for sacrifice, as pieces
of burnt bones and ashes are found near them. They might also be used in
other ceremonies, under the druidical system, as the ratification of
covenants, &c. As this kind of monuments is not found in America, I will
wave a further consideration of it; observing only, that it was an ancient
practice among the eastern nations, to raise heaps of stones, as witnesses of
agreements, and sacrifice upon them, as a solemn ratification of the act of
the parties. Many instances of this ceremony are mentioned in the old
testament. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was witnessed by a heap
of stones, which served also as a boundary between their respectiv claims.
"And Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, that is, the heap, and called
his brethren to eat bread." Gen. xxxi, 54. A similar custom seems to have
prevailed among the primitiv Britons.
But the tumuli, barrows or mounts of earth, which remain in multitudes in
England and Wales, are constructed exactly in the manner of the barrows,
described by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Heart. One of these in Wiltshire,
Camden thus describes.[55] "Here Selbury, a round hill, rises to a
considerable height, and seems by the fashion of it, and the sliding down of
the earth about it, to have been cast up by mens hands. Of this fort there are
many in this country, round and copped, which are called burrows or
barrows; perhaps raised in memory of the soldiers slain there. For bones are
found in them, and I have read, it was a custom among the northern people,

that every soldier who survived a battle, should bring a helmet full of earth
towards the raising of monuments for their slain fellows."
This is said to be the largest and most uniform barrow in the country, and
perhaps in England; and I regret that the height and circumference are not
mentioned. I am however informed verbally by a gentleman who has visited
England, that some of these tumuli appear to have been nearly one hundred
feet high.[56] There are also in the same country several kinds of barrows of
different sizes; some surrounded with trenches; others not; some with stones
set round them, others without any; the general figure of them is nearly
circular, but a little oval.
In Penbrokeshire, in Wales, Camden informs us[57] "there are divers ancient
tumuli, or artificial mounts for urn burial, whereof the most notable I have
seen, are those four, called krigeu kemaes, or the burrows of kemeas. One of
these a gentlemen of the neighborhood, out of curiosity, and for the
satisfaction of some friends, caused lately to be dug; and discovered therein
five urns, which contained a considerable quantity of burnt bones and
ashes." If there is any difference between these barrows, and those at
Muskingum, it is this, that in Wales the bones were lodged in urns; probably
this was the fate of the bodies of eminent men only, or it proves a greater
degree of improvement in Britain than appears among the American
savages.
In Caermardhinshire, there is a barrow of a singular kind. It is called, krig y
dyrn (probably the king's barrow.[58]) The circumference at bottom is sixty
paces, and its height about six yards. It rises by an easy ascent to the top,
which is hollow. This is a heap of earth, raised over a carrnedd or pile of
stones. In the center of the cavity on the top, there is a large flat stone, about
nine feet by five; beneath this was found a kist vaen, a kind of stone chest,
four feet and a half by three, and made up of stones, and within and about it
were found a few pieces of brick and stones. This might have been the tomb
of a druid, or prince.
The cumuli of stones or caernedds, as they are called by the Welsh, from
keren nedh, a coped heap, are scattered over the west of England and Wales,
and appear to have been raised in the manner of our Indian heaps, and for
the same purpose, viz. to preserve the memory of the dead. Every Indian in
this country that passes one of these heaps, throws a stone upon it. Rowland

remarks that the same custom exists among the vulgar Welch to this day;
and if I mistake not, Camden takes notice of the same practice. Rowland
says, "in these coel ceithic, (certain festivals) people use, even to this day, to
throw and offer each one his stone, tho they know not the reason. The
common tradition is, that these heaps cover the graves of men, signal either
for eminent virtues, or notorious villanies, on which every person looked on
himself obliged as he passed by, to bestow a stone, in veneration of his
good life, or in detestation of his vileness." This practice now prevails in
Wales and Anglesey, merely as a mark of contempt.
The carrnedds in America answer exactly the description of those in Wales,
and the practice of throwing upon the heap each man his stone as he passes
by, exists among the Indians, in its purity; that is, as a mark of respect.
It is said by authors that mounts and piles of stones, are found likewise in
Denmark and Sweden; but in construction they differ from those found in
Britain. Yet from the foregoing descriptions, taken from authentic
testimony, it appears, that between the barrows in England and America, the
manner of constructing them in both, and the purposes to which they were
applied, there is an analogy, rarely to be traced in works of such
consequence, among nations whose intercourse ceased at Babel; an analogy
that we could hardly suppose would exist among nations descended from
different stocks. This analogy however, without better evidence, will not
demonstrate the direct descent of the Indians from the ancient Celts or
Britons. But as all the primitiv inhabitants of the west of Europe were
evidently of the same stock, it is natural to suppose they might pass from
Norway to Iceland, from Iceland to Greenland, and from thence to
Labrador; and thus the North American savages may claim a common
origin with the primitiv Britons and Celts. This supposition has some
foundation, and is by no means obviated by Cook's late discoveries in the
Pacific ocean.[59]
These are however but conjectures. Future discoveries may throw more
light upon these subjects. At present, a few facts only can be collected to
amuse a contemplativ mind, and perhaps lead to inquiries which will result
in a satisfactory account of the first peopling of America, and of the few
remains of antiquity which it affords.

No. XVII.
NEW YORK, FEBRUARY, 1788.

On the REGULARITY of the City of PHILADELPHIA.
"Well, how do you like Boston?" said an American to a Londoner, who had
just arrived, and walked thro the town. "Extremely," replied the
Englishman; "it resembles London in the crookedness and narrowness of
the streets; I am always pleased with a careless irregularity and variety."
"How do you like Boston," says a nativ of the town to a Philadelphian. "I
am much pleased with the people," replies the gentleman; "but the streets
are so crooked, narrow and irregular, that I have good luck to find my way,
and keep my stockings clean."
An Englishman and a Bostonian, walking together in Philadelphia, were
heard to say, "how fatiguing it is to pass thro this town! such a sameness in
the whole! no variety! when you have seen one street, you have seen the
whole town!"
These remarks, which are heard every day, illustrate most strikingly the
force of habit and tradition. The influence of habit is every where known
and felt; any prepossessions therefore in favor of our nativ town, is not a
matter of surprise. But that a traditionary remark or opinion should be
handed from one generation to another, and lead nations into error, without
a detection of its falsity, is a fact as astonishing as it is real. Such is the
opinion of the writers on the fine arts; "that variety is pleasing;" an opinion
embraced without exception, and applied promiscuously to the works of
nature and of art. I have rarely met with a person, not an inhabitant of
Philadelphia, who would not say he was disgusted with its regularity; and I
am confident that the opinion must proceed from that common place
remark, that variety is pleasing; otherwise men could not so unanimously
condemn what constitutes its greatest beauty.
That in the productions of nature, variety constitutes a principal part of
beauty, and a fruitful source of pleasure, will not be denied: But the beauty

and agreeableness of works of art depend on another principle, viz. utility
or convenience. The design of the work, or the end proposed by it, must be
attentivly considered before we are qualified to judge of its beauty.
This kind of beauty is called by Lord Kaim,[60] relativ beauty. He observes
very justly, that "intrinsic beauty is a perception of sense merely; for to
perceive the beauty of a spreading oak, or of a flowing river, no more is
required but singly an act of vision. Relativ beauty is accompanied with an
act of understanding and reflection; for of a fine instrument or engine, we
perceive not the relativ beauty, until we are made acquainted with its use
and destination." A plow has not the least intrinsic beauty; but when we
attend to its use, we are constrained to consider it as a beautiful instrument,
and such a view of it furnishes us with agreeable sensations.
The single question therefore, with respect to a town or city, is this: Is it
planned and constructed for the greatest possible convenience? If so, it is
completely beautiful. If wide and regular streets are more useful and
convenient than those that are narrow and crooked, then a city constructed
upon a regular plan is the most beautiful, however uniform the streets in
their directions and appearance.
I have often heard a comparison made between the level roads of Holland
and the uniform streets of Philadelphia. A dull sameness is said to render
both disagreeable. Yet if a person will attentivly consider the difference, I
am persuaded he will be convinced that his taste is but half correct; that is,
that a just remark with respect to a level open country, is improperly applied
to a commercial city. Variety in the works of nature is pleasing; but never in
the productions of art, unless in copies of nature, or when that variety does
not interfere with utility. A level champaign country is rarely convenient or
useful; on the other hand, it is generally more barren than a country
diversified with hills and vales. There is not generally any advantage to be
derived from a wide extended plain; the principle of utility, therefore does
not oppose and supersede the taste for variety, and a tedious sameness is left
to have its full effect upon the mind of a spectator. This is the fact with
respect to the roads in Holland.
But it is otherwise in a city, which is built for the express purpose of
accommodating men in business. We do not consider it as we do a
landscape, an imitation of a natural scene, and designed to please the eye;

but we attend to its uses in artificial society, and if it appears to be
calculated for the convenience of all classes of citizens, the plan and
construction must certainly be beautiful, and afford us agreeable sensations.
The regularly built towns in America are Philadelphia, Charleston, in South
Carolina, and New Haven. All these may be esteemed beautiful, tho not
perfectly so. Philadelphia wants a public square or place of resort for men
of business, with a spacious building for an exchange. This should be near
Market street, in the center of business. The gardens at the State House are
too small for a public walk in that large city. The whole line of bank
houses[61] is the effect of ill timed parsimony. The houses are inconvenient,
and therefore not pleasing to the eye; at the same time they render Water
street too narrow.
But whatever faults may be found in the construction or plan of the city, its
general appearance is agreeable, and its regularity is its greatest beauty.
Whenever I hear a person exclaim against the uniformity that pervades that
city, I suppose him the dupe of a common place remark, or that he believes
a city built merely to please the eye of a spectator.
Charleston is situated upon low ground; but just above high water mark.
The soil is sand, which, with a scarcity of stone, has prevented the streets
from being paved. The plan of the city is regular, but some of the streets are
too narrow. As it is almost surrounded with water and low marshy ground, it
was necessary to attend to every circumstance that should contribute to
preserve a pure air. For this purpose, it was the original design of the
citizens, to prevent any buildings from being erected on the wharves, in
front of the town; thus leaving a principal street, called the bay, open to the
sea breezes. Since the revolution, this design has been partially dispensed
with; and some buildings erected on the water side of the bay, and
particularly one in front of the Exchange, which stands at the head of Broad
street, and commands an extensiv view of the town on one side, and of the
harbor on the other. Should stores and warehouses be raised on the wharves,
to such a height as to intercept a view of the harbor from the bay, they
would diminish the beauty of the town, and in some degree prevent the
agreeable effect of the cool breezes from the sea.
New Haven was laid out on a most beautiful plan, which has however
suffered in the execution. The streets cross each other at right angles, as in

Philadelphia; and divide the city into convenient squares. But in the center
is a large public square, the sides of which are more than three hundred
yards in length, and adorned with rows of trees. Thro the center of this
square runs a line of elegant public buildings, viz. the state house, two
churches and a school house. This square is a capital ornament to the town;
but is liable to two exceptions. First, it is too large for the populousness of
the city, which contains about 500 buildings. In so small a town, it must
generally be empty, and consequently givs the town an appearance of
solitude or dullness. In the second place, that half of the square which lies
west of the public buildings, is occupied mostly by the church yard, which
is enclosed with a circular fence. This reduces the public ground on the
opposit side to a paralellogram, which is a less beautiful figure than a
square; and annihilates the beauty of the western division which it occupies.
Notwithstanding these circumstances, the green or public ground in the
center of New Haven, renders it perhaps the most beautiful small settlement
in America.

No. XVIII.
NEW YORK, MAY, 1788.

A DISSERTATION concerning the INFLUENCE of LANGUAGE
on OPINIONS, and of OPINIONS on LANGUAGE.[62]
The design of this dissertation is to show how far truth and accuracy of
thinking are concerned in a clear understanding of words. I am sensible that
in the eye of prejudice and ignorance, grammatical researches are the
business of school boys; and hence we may deduce the reason why
philosophers have generally been so inattentiv to this subject. But if it can
be proved that the mere use of words has led nations into error, and still
continues the delusion, we cannot hesitate a moment to conclude, that
grammatical enquiries are worthy of the labor of men.
The Greek name of the Supreme Being, Theos, is derived from Theo, to
run, or move one's self. Hence we discover the ideas which the Greeks
originally entertained of God, viz. that he was the great principle of motion.
The same word, it is said, was primarily appropriated to the stars, as
moving bodies; and it is probable that, in the early ages of Greece, the
heavenly bodies might be esteemed Deities, and denominated Theoi,
moving bodies or principles. The Latin word Deus was used to denote those
inferior beings which we call spirits or angels, or perhaps one God among
several. To giv the true idea of Deus in French and English, the word should
be rendered le Dieu, the God. This at least may be said of the word, in its
true original sense; however it may have been used in the later ages of
Rome.
The English word God, is merely the old Saxon adjectiv god, now spelt and
pronounced good.
The German Gott is from the same root. The words God and good therefore
are synonimous. The derivation of the word leads us to the notions which
our ancestors entertained of the Supreme Being; supposing him to be the
principle or author of good, they called him, by way of eminence, Good, or
the Good. By long use and the progress of knowlege, the word is become

the name of the great Creator, and we have added to it ideas of other
attributes, as justice, power, immutability, &c. Had our heathen ancestors
entertained different ideas of the Deity; had they, for instance, supposed
justice to have been his leading attribute, if I may use the term, they would
have called him the just; and this appellation, by being uniformly
appropriated to a certain invisible being, or supposed cause of certain
events, would in time have lost the article the, and just would have become
the name of the Deity. Such is the influence of opinion in the formation of
language.
Let us now compare the names of the Deity in the three languages; the
Greek, Theos, denoting a moving being, or the principle of action, evinces
to us that the Greeks gave the name to the cause of events, without having
very clear ideas of the nature or attributes of that cause. They supposed the
great operations of nature to have each its cause; and hence the plurality of
causes, theoi, or moving principles.
The Romans borrowed the same word, Deus, and used it to denote the
celestial agents or gods which they supposed to exist, and to superintend the
affairs of the universe.
Our northern ancestors had an idea that all favorable events must have an
efficient cause; and to this cause they gave the name of God or good. Hence
we observe that the English and German words God and Got do not convey
precisely the same idea, as the Theos and Deus of the Greeks and Romans.
The former cannot be used in the plural number; as they are the names of a
single indivisible being; the latter were used as names common to a number
of beings.
The word Demon, in Greek, was used to signify subordinate deities, both
good and evil. The Jews, who had more perfect ideas of the Supreme Being,
supposed there could be but one good Deity, and consequently that all the
demons of the Greeks must be evil beings or devils. In this sense alone they
used the word, and this restricted sense has been communicated thro
Christian countries in modern ages. The opinion of the Jews, therefore, has
had a material effect upon language, and would lead us into an error
respecting the Greek mythology; unless we should trace the word demon to
its primitiv signification.

The word devil, in English, is merely a corruption of the evil, occasioned by
a rapid pronunciation. This will not appear improbable to those who know,
that in some of the Saxon dialects, the character which we write th is almost
invariably written and pronounced d. Hence we learn, the notion which our
ancestors entertained of the cause of evil, or of unfortunate events. They
probably ascribed such events to a malignant principle, or being, which they
called, by way of eminence, the evil; and these words, corrupted by
common use, have given name to the being or principle.
I would only observe here that the etymology of these two words, God and
devil, proves that the Manichean doctrine of a good and evil principle
prevailed among our northern ancestors. It has prevailed over most of the
eastern countries in all ages, and Christianity admits the doctrine, with this
improvement only, that it supposes the evil principle to be subordinate to
the good. The supreme cause of events, Christians believe to be good or
God, for the words are radically the same; the cause of evil they believe to
be subordinate; yet, strange as it may seem, they suppose the subordinate
evil principle to be the most prevalent.
We are informed by Ludolph, that the Ethiopeans, having but one word for
nature and person, could not understand the controversy about Christ's two
natures. This is not surprising; nations, in a savage state, or which have not
been accustomed to metaphysical disquisitions, have no terms to
communicate abstract ideas, which they never entertained; and hence the
absurdity of attempting to christianize savages. Before men can be
Christians they must be civilized; nay, they must be philosophers. It is
probable that many who are called Christians, are in the state of the
Ethiopians, with respect to the same doctrin; and that they pass thro life,
without ever having any clear ideas of the different natures of Christ. Yet
the distinction is constantly made in words; and that distinction passes for a
difference of ideas. Such is the influence of language on opinion.
The words soul, mind and spirit, are constantly used by people, and
probably the difference of words has given rise to an opinion that there is an
actual difference of things. Yet I very much question whether the persons
who use these words every day, annex any distinct ideas to them; or if they
do, whether they could explain the difference.

The Greeks believed in the doctrin of transmigration. They had observed
the metamorphosis of the caterpillar, and supposing the same soul to
animate the different bodies, and believing the soul to be perpetual or
immortal, they made the butterfly the hieroglyphic of the soul: Hence the
Greek word for soul, psuke, came to signify also a butterfly.
For want of attending to the true etymology of the word glory, false
opinions have gained an establishment in the world, and it may be
hazardous to dispute them. It is said that the glory of God does not depend
on his creatures, and that the glory of the good man depends not on the
opinion of others. But what is glory? The Greek word doxe explains it. It is
derived from dokeo, to think; and signifies the good opinion of others. This
is its true original meaning; a man's glory therefore consists in having the
good opinion of men, and this cannot generally be obtained, but by
meritorious actions. The glory of God consists in the exalted ideas which
his creatures entertain of his being and perfections. His glory therefore
depends wholly on his creatures. The word is indeed often used to signify
the greatness, splendor or excellence of the divine character. In this sense
the divine glory may be independent of created beings; but it is not the
primitiv sense of the word, nor the sense which answers to the original
meaning of the Greek doxe, and the Latin gloria.
No right in England and America is so much celebrated as that of trial by
peers; by which is commonly understood, trial by equals. The right is
valuable, but is not derived from the primitiv custom of trial by equals; on
the contrary, it is very questionable whether such a custom existed prior to
Alfred. Yet the trial by peers existed long before, and can be traced back to
the date of the Christian era. The truth is, the word peer is not derived from
the Latin par, equal; but from the German, or Teutonic bar or par, which
signified a landholder, freeman or judge. The bars were that class of men
who held the fees or property in estates; and from whom the word baron
and the attendant privileges are derived. We have the same root in baron,
baronet, parliament, parish, and many other words, all implying some
degree of authority, eminence or jurisdiction. From the same word bar or
par, (for B and P are convertible letters) the word peer is derived, as it is
used in the common expressions house of peers, trial by peers. It signified
originally, not equals, but judges or barons. The house of peers in England
derives its appellation and its jurisdiction from the ancient mode of trial by

bars or barons; for it is the final resort in all judicial cases. Yet the ancient
English lawyers, supposing the word to be from the Latin par, equal, have
explained it in that sense, and multiplied encomiums without end upon the
excellence of the privilege. The privilege is valuable, but its excellence, if it
consists in a trial by equals, is modern, compared with the original custom,
which was a trial by barons, or principal landholders.
It is probable that our modern writers, misunderstanding the term voluptas,
have passed too severe censures upon epicures. The true primitiv meaning
of voluptas was that of pleasurable sensations arising from innocent
gratifications. Our modern word voluptuousness carries with it a much
stronger idea, and hence we are led into an error reflecting the doctrine of
Epicurus, who might confine his ideas of pleasure to innocent gratifications.
We have been accustomed from childhood to hear the expressions, the dew
falls; the dews of heaven; and it is probable that nine people out of ten, have
never suspected the inaccuracy of the phrases. But dew is merely the
perspiration of the earth; it rises instead of falling, and rises during the
night.[63]
It was also supposed that manna in the eastern countries, came from above,
and it is called in scripture bread from heaven. Yet manna is a gum, exuding
from plants, trees and bushes, when pierced by certain insects. The truth of
this fact was not discovered, till the middle of the sixteenth century.
Every man knows, when the prices of goods rise, it is said they become
dear; yet when the prices rise in consequence of an overflowing sum of
money in circulation, the fact is that the value of money falls, and the value
of goods remains the same. This erroneous opinion had an amazing effect in
raising popular clamor, at the commencement of the late revolution.
I will name but one other instance, which has a material influence upon our
moral and religious opinions. It is said in scripture that God hardened
Pharaoh's heart. How? Was there a miracle in the case? By no means. The
manner of speaking leads us into the mistake. The first cause is mentioned,
and not the intermediate cause or causes. So we should say, that General
Washington attacked the British troops at Monmouth; altho he was at a
great distance when the attack was commenced, and only ordered the
attack. I suspect that similar modes of speaking in scripture often lead
superficial minds into mistakes, and in some instances, giv occasion to

infidels to scoff at passages, which, if rightly understood, would silence all
objections.
This is a fruitful theme, and would lead an ingenious inquirer into a wide
field of investigation. But I have neither time nor talents to do it justice; the
few hints here suggested may have some effect in convincing my readers of
the importance and utility of all candid researches into the origin and
structure of speech; and pave the way for further investigations, which may
assist us in correcting our ideas and ascertaining the force and beauty of our
own language.

No. XIX.
PHILADELPHIA, 1787.

On VOCAL MUSIC.
The establishment of schools for teaching psalmody in this city is a pleasing
institution; but people seem not to understand the design, or rather are not
aware of the advantages which may result from it, if properly conducted
and encouraged. Most people consider music merely as a source of
pleasure; not attending to its influence on the human mind, and its
consequent effects on society. But it should be regarded as an article of
education, useful as well as ornamental.
The human mind is formed for activity; and will ever be employed in
business or diversions. Children are perpetually in motion, and all the
ingenuity of their parents and guardians should be exerted to devise
methods for restraining this activ principle, and directing it to some useful
object, or to harmless trifles. If this is not done, their propensity to action,
even without a vicious motiv, will hurry them into follies and crimes. Every
thing innocent, that attracts the attention of children, and will employ their
minds in leisure hours, when idleness might otherwise open the way to vice,
must be considered as a valuable employment. Of this kind is vocal music.
There were instances of youth, the last winter, who voluntarily attended a
singing school in preference to the theatre. It is but reasonable to suppose,
that if they would neglect a theatre for singing, they would neglect a
thousand amusements, less engaging, and more pernicious.
Instrumental music is generally prefered to vocal, and considered as an
elegant accomplishment. It is indeed a pleasing accomplishment; but the
preference given to it, is a species of the same false taste, which places a
son under the tuition of a drunken clown, to make him a gentleman of strict
morals.
Instrumental music may exceed vocal in some nice touches and distinctions
of sound; but when regarded as to its effects upon the mind and upon
society, it is as inferior to vocal, as sound is inferior to sense. It is very easy

for a spruce beau to display a contempt for vocal music, and to say that
human invention has gone beyond the works of God Almighty. But till the
system of creation shall be new modelled, the human voice properly
cultivated will be capable of making the most perfect music. It is neglected;
sol faing is unfashionable, and that is enough to damn it: But people who
have not been acquainted with the perfection of psalmody, are incapable of
making a suitable comparison between vocal and instrumental music. I have
often heard the best vocal concerts in America, and the best instrumental
concerts; and can declare, that the music of the latter is as inferior to that of
the former, as the merit of a band box macaroni is to that of a Cato.
Instrumental music affords an agreeable amusement; and as an amusement
it ought to be cultivated. But the advantage is private and limited; it pleases
the ear, but leaves no impression upon the heart.
The design of music is to awaken the passions, to soften the heart for the
reception of sentiment. To awaken passion is within the power of
instruments, and this may afford a temporary pleasure; but society derives
no advantage from it, unless some useful sentiment is left upon the heart.
Instruments are secondary in their use; they were invented originally, not to
supercede, but to assist the voice. The first histories of all nations were
written in verse, and sung by their bards. In later ages, the oaten reed, the
harp and the lyre, were found to improve the pleasures of music; but the
neglect of the voice and of sentiment was reserved for modern corruption.
Ignorant indeed is the man, and possessed of a wretched taste, who can
seriously despise the humble pleasures of vocal music, and prefer the bare
harmony of sounds. Sentiment should ever accompany music; the sounds
should ever correspond with the ideas, otherwise music loses all its force.
Union of sentiment, with harmony of sounds, is the perfection of music.
Every string of the human heart may be touched; every passion roused by
the different kinds of sounds; the courage of the warrior; the cruelty of the
tyrant; anger; grief; love, with all its sensibilities, are subject to the
influence of music. Even brutes acknowlege its effects; but while they in
common with man feel the effects of a harmony of mere sounds, man
enjoys the superior felicity of receiving sentiment; and while he relishes the
pleasures of chords in sound, he imbibes a disposition to communicate
happiness to society.

Seldom indeed do men reflect on the connexion between the chords of
music and the social affections. Morality is to immorality, what harmony is
to discord. Society detests vice, and the ear is offended with discordant
sounds. Society is pleased and happified with virtue, and the ear is
delighted with harmony. This beautiful analogy points out the utility of
cultivating music as a science. Harsh discordant sounds excite the peevish
malevolent passions; harmonious sounds correct and soften the rougher
passions.
Every person will acknowlege, that love refines the heart, and renders it
more susceptible, and more capable of social virtue. It is for this reason that
men who have particular attachments to women, or associate much with
ladies of delicacy, are more disposed to do acts of kindness, in every sphere
of life, than those who seldom frequent ladies company. On the other hand,
anger, jealousy, envy, are dissocial passions; and even when they are
excited by a single object, they poison the heart, and disqualify it for
exciting the social affections towards any of the human race. Every
institution, therefore, calculated to prepare the human heart for exerting the
social virtues, and to suppress or check the malignant passions, must be
highly beneficial to society; and such I consider establishments in favor of
vocal music. Happy, indeed, should I feel, could I see youth devoted every
where to the refinement of their voices and morals; to see them prefer moral
or religious pieces to the indecent songs or low diversions which taint the
mind in early life, and diffuse their pernicious influence through society.
If the poison of the tarantula may be counteracted by music; if the Spanish
ladies are won by nocturnal serenades; if the soldier is inspired with
courage by the martial sounds of the trumpet, and the Christian impressed
with devout sentiments by the solemn tones of the organ; what advantage
may society derive from the softening harmony of choirs of voices,
celebrating the praises of social virtue! Happy days! when false taste and
false opinions shall vanish before the progress of truth; when princes shall
resume their ancient and honorable task of teaching the young to be good
and great; when an Addison shall be preferred to a Chesterfield; when the
wealth of nations shall be no longer lavished upon fiddlers and dancers;
when the characters of a Benezet and a Washington shall obscure the
glories of a Cæsar; and when no man shall be ashamed to be good, because
it is unfashionable.

No. XX.
NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

On MORALITY.
"The principles of morality are little understood among savages," says Lord
Kaimes, "and if they arrive to maturity among enlightened nations, it is by
slow degrees."
With submission to that writer, I would advance another position equally
true, "that the principles of eating and drinking are little understood by
savages, and if they arrive to maturity among civilized nations, it is by slow
degrees."
The truth is, morality consists in discharging the social duties of life; and so
far as the state of savages requires an intercourse of duties, the moral
principles seem to be as perfect in them as in more enlightened nations.
Savages in a perfectly rude state have little or no commerce; the
transactions between man and man are confined to very few objects, and
consequently the laws which regulate their intercourse and distribute
justice, must be few and simple.[64] But the crime of murder is as severely
punished by savages, as by civilized nations. Nay, I question whether it is
possible to name the barbarous tribe, which suffers an individual to take the
life of another, upon as easy terms as the modern feudal Barons in Europe
may do that of a vassal; or with the same impunity that a planter in the West
Indies takes the life of a slave. I speak of a time of peace, and of the
conduct of savages towards their own tribes. As to war, every nation of
savages has its arbitrary customs, and so has every civilized nation. Savages
are generally partial and capricious in the treatment of their prisoners; some
they treat with a singular humanity; and others they put to death with the
severest cruelty. Well, do not civilized people the same? Did a savage ever
endure greater torments, than thousands of prisoners during the late war?
But not to mention the practice of a single nation, at a single period; let us
advert to a general rule among civilized nations; that it is lawful to put to
death prisoners taken in a garrison by storm. The practice grounded on this

rule, is as direct and as enormous a violation of the laws of morality, as the
slow deliberate tortures exercised by the most barbarous savages on earth.
Well, what are the ideas of savages respecting theft? How do they differ
from those of an enlightened people? Many things are possessed in
common, as provisions taken in hunting, corn, &c. Ferdinand de Soto
relates, that the tribes (and he visited hundreds in Florida) had public
granaries of corn laid up for winter, which was distributed by authority to
each family, according to its number. But for an individual to take from this
common stock without license, was considered as a criminal defrauding of
the public. And with regard to the few articles, in which individuals acquire
private property, the savages have as correct ideas of meum and tuum, of
theft, trespass, &c. and are as careful to guard private property from
invasion, by laws and penalties, as any civilized people. The laws of the
Creeks, the Cherokees, the Six Nations, &c. with regard to these and many
other crimes, in point of reason and equity, stand on a footing with those of
the most civilized nations; and in point of execution and observance, their
administration would do honor to any government. Among most savage
nations there is a kind of monarchy which is efficient in administration; and
among those tribes which have had no intercourse with civilized nations,
and which have not been deceived by the tricks of traders; the common arts
of cheating, by which millions of enlightened people get a living or a
fortune, are wholly unknown. This is an incontrovertible fact. I lately
became acquainted with a lad of about twelve years old, who was taken
captiv by the Indians in 1778, while a child, and had continued with them
till about ten years old. He had no recollection of the time when he was
taken, and consequently his mind could not have been corrupted among the
English. When he was restored, agreeable to the treaty, he was a perfect
savage; but what I relate the circumstance for, is this; the lad was not
addicted to a single vice. He was instant and cheerful in obeying
commands; having not even a disposition to refuse or evade a compliance.
He had no inclination to lie or steal; on the other hand, he was always
surprised to find a person saying one thing and meaning another. In short,
he knew not any thing but honesty and undisguised frankness and integrity.
A single instance does not indeed establish a general rule; but those who are
acquainted with the nativs of America can testify that this is the general
character of savages who are not corrupted by the vices of civilized nations.

But it is said savages are revengeful; their hatred is hereditary and
perpetual. How does this differ from the hatred of civilized nations? I
question much whether the principle of revenge is not as perfect in
enlightened nations, as in savages. The difference is this; a savage hunts the
man who has offended him, like a wild beast, and assassinates him
wherever he finds him; the gentleman pursues his enemy or his rival with as
much rancor as a savage, and even stoops to notice little affronts, that a
savage would overlook; but he does not stab him privately; he hazards his
own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very honorably
murdered. The principle of revenge is equally activ in both cases; but its
operation is regulated by certain arbitrary customs. A savage is open and
avows his revenge, and kills privately; the polite and well bred take revenge
in a more honorable way, when life is to be the price of satisfaction; but in
cases of small affronts, they are content with privately stabbing the
reputation or ruining the fortunes of their enemies. In short, the passions of
a savage are under no restraint; the passions of enlightened people are
restrained and regulated by a thousand civil laws and accidental
circumstances of society.
But it will be objected, if savages understood principles of morality, they
would lay such passions under restraint. Not at all: Civil and political
regulations are not made, because the things prohibited are in their own
nature wrong; but because they produce inconveniencies to society. The
most enlightened nations do not found their laws and penalties on an
abstract regard to wrong; nor has government any concern with that which
has no influence on the peace and safety of society. If savages, therefore,
leave every man to take his own revenge, it is a proof that they judge it the
best mode of preventing the necessity of it; that is, they think their society
and government safer under such a license, than under regulations which
should control the passions of individuals. They may have their ideas of the
nature of revenge independent of society; but it will be extremely difficult
to prove, that, abstracted from a regard to a Deity and to society, there is
such a thing as right and wrong. I consider morality merely as it respects
society; for if we superadd the obligations of a divine command, we blend it
with religion; an article in which Christians have an infinit advantage over
savages.

Considering moral duties as founded solely on the constitution of society,
and as having for their sole end the happiness of social beings, many of
them will vary in their nature and extent, according to the particular state
and circumstances of any society.
Among the ancient Britons, a singular custom prevailed; which was, a
community of wives by common consent. Every man married one woman;
but a number, perhaps ten or twelve, relations or neighbors, agreed to
possess their wives in common. Every woman's children were accounted
the children of her husband; but every man had a share in the common
defence and care of this little community.[65] Was this any breach of
morality? Not in the least. A British woman, in the time of Severus, having
become intimate with Julia Augusta, and other ladies, at the court of Rome,
had observed what passed behind the curtain; and being one day reproached
for this custom of the Britons, as infamous in the women, and barbarous in
the men; she replied, "We do that openly with the best of our men, which
you do privately with the worst of yours." This custom, so far from being
infamous or barbarous, originated in public and private convenience. It
prevented jealousy and the injuries of adultery, in a state where private
wrongs could not easily be prevented or redressed. It might be an excellent
substitute for penal laws and a regular administration of justice. But there is
a better reason for the custom, which writers seem to have overlooked; and
this is, that a community multiplied the chances of subsistence and security.
In a savage life, subsistence is precarious, for it depends on contingent
supplies by hunting and fishing. If every individual, therefore, should
depend solely on his own good luck, and fail of success, his family must
starve. But in a community of twelve, the probability that some one would
procure provisions is increased as twelve to one. Hence the community of
provisions among most savage nations.[66]
The Britons, when the Romans first visited their island, did not attend much
to the cultivation of the earth. "Interiores plerique," says Cæsar, "frumenta
non serunt, sed lacte et carne vivunt." By establishing a community of
goods, they secured themselves against the hazard of want; and by a
community of wives and offspring, they confirmed the obligations of each
to superintend the whole; or rather, changed into a natural obligation what
might otherwise depend on the feebler force of positiv compact. Besides, it
is very possible that personal safety from the invasion of tribes or

individuals, might be another motiv for establishing these singular
communities. At any rate, we must suppose that the Britons had good civil
or political reasons for this custom; for even savages do not act without
reason. And if they found society more safe and happy, with such a custom
than without it, it was most undoubtedly right.
Should it be said, that a community is prohibited by divine command; I
would answer that it is not presumable that the old Britons had any positiv
revelation; and I do not know that the law of nature will decide against their
practice. The commands given to the Jews were positiv injunctions; but
they by no means extend to all nations, farther than as they are founded on
immutable principles of right and wrong in all societies. Many of the
Mosaic precepts are of this kind; they are unlimited in their extent, because
they stand on principles which are unlimited in their operation.
Adultery is forbidden in the Jewish laws; and so it is in the codes of other
nations. But adultery may be defined differently by different nations; and
the criminality of it depends on the particular positiv institutions, or
accidental circumstances of a nation. The same reasons that would render a
similar custom in civilized modern nations highly criminal, might render it
innocent and even necessary among the old Britons. A prohibition to gather
sticks on the Sabbath, under a penalty of death for disobedience, might be
founded on good reasons among the ancient Jews; but it would be hard to
prove that a modern law of the same kind, would be warrantable in any
nation.

No. XXI.
NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

A LETTER from a LADY, with REMARKS.
s i r,

As you have, in your writings, discovered that you take a particular interest
in the happiness of ladies, I hope you will not deem it a deviation from
delicacy, if one of them offers you her grateful acknowlegements, and
requests you to giv your sentiments upon what will be here related.
About four years ago, I was visited by a gentleman who professed an
unalterable attachment for me. He being a genteel, sensible and handsome
man, I thought myself justifiable in treating him with complacency. After I
was convinced by his constant attention and frequent professions, that I was
a favorite, he used frequently to upbraid me, for being so silent and
reserved: It shewed, he said, a want of confidence in him; for I must be
sensible he derived the greatest pleasure imaginable in my conversation,
and why would I then deprive him of the greatest happiness by absenting
myself, when he paid a visit, refusing to chat with my usual freedom. Tho
he professed himself to be an admirer of candor, and a strict adherer to the
rules of honor, still I could not but doubt his sincerity from the extravagance
of his expressions. This he considered as an affront, saying that no man of
honor would express sentiments that were not genuine. I found myself
unwilling to say any thing that should be disagreeable, and disposed to
make him understand by an attention that I supposed him entitled to, that he
was prefered to any other person. He continued his visits in this manner for
about eighteen months, conducting himself with the greatest delicacy,
affection and respect. During this time, he never expressed a wish to be
united, which made me uneasy, as I knew that all my friends thought us
engaged. At last I told him his attention was too particular; I knew not what
construction to put upon it. He replied that I was too particular in my ideas;
it was a convincing proof to him, with my resenting trifling liberties, that I
had not an affection for him, and that he was not the man I wished to be

connected with; therefore he would not trouble me any longer with his
company, and wished me a good night.
This, Sir, you must suppose, distressed me greatly; I viewed myself injured
and trifled with, but knew not how to obtain redress. My attachment and
pride were so great that I would not allow my friends to call him to an
account for his behavior; tho I now despise his conduct, and would refuse
him the hand of which he has proved himself unworthy, still I feel hurt at
the treatment I have received. You, Sir, as a friend to our sex, and one who
wishes to preserve the peace of mind of unsuspecting girls, will do them an
essential service, by your animadversions on these facts, and guarding our
sex from similar impositions.
These circumstances would not have been related, were I not rendered
discontented and wretched at home, in consequence of refusing the offers of
three other gentlemen; either of whom would doubtless have been
acceptable, had not my affections been preengaged to one who has proved
himself worthless. Their characters and situations in life are equal to my
wishes; but I cannot do them so much injustice and myself so much injury,
as to giv my hand unaccompanied with my heart. In consulting my own
inclinations I have incurred the displeasure of all my family; they treat me
with great inattention, and are continually reflecting on my want of spirit
and resolution. I am confident, Sir, that every generous mind will pity your
unhappy and distressed friend,
CONSTANTIA.
To CONSTANTIA.
While I acknowlege myself honored by your correspondence, and happy in
an opportunity of rendering you or your sex the least service, permit me, in
compliance with your request, which shall be to me a sacred law, to offer
my sentiments with a frankness, corresponding with that which marks the
relation of your misfortunes. For altho I feel the warmest indignation at
every species of deception, and particularly at that long continued
inexplicitness which is deliberate deception, and which is the cause of your
wretchedness, candor and truth require that censure should fall where it is
due.

If the slightest blame can fall on you, it is that you indulged the visits of a
gentleman for eighteen months without an explicit and honorable
declaration of his intention. A delicate, affectionate and respectful attention
to a lady, for one quarter of that period, is sufficient to make an impression
on her mind, and decide her choice: At the same time, it might not render an
attachment on her part, so strong as to make a separation very painful; it
might not giv the world an opinion that an engagement exists, or subject the
lady to the necessity of dismissing other suitors. It is therefore prudent at
least for a lady to conduct herself in such a manner as to bring her admirer
to an explicit declaration of his designs. A man of real honor and principle
would not wait for a stratagem on the part of the lady, or for a frank demand
of an explanation of his conduct. A tolerable acquaintance with the human
heart would enable him to discover when a declaration would be agreeable
to the lady, and after this discovery, he would not keep her a moment in
suspense. A man of generous feelings, who has a lively attachment, looks
with anxiety for some proof that his addresses are agreeable, and that a
declaration of his intentions will be well received. No sooner does he find
this proof, than he hastens to unbosom himself to the dear object of his
wishes, and communicate the happiness he so ardently desires to receive.
When therefore a man neglects such a declaration, after he has had
convincing proofs that his offers would be well received, it may and should
be taken for granted that his intentions are not honorable, and the lady
should treat him accordingly. If therefore, my unhappy friend, you deserve
the least degree of censure, it is because you delayed too long to take
measures for undeceiving yourself. Yet this delay is a proof of your
unsuspecting confidence and sincere attachment; and faults, proceeding
from such amiable causes, are almost changed to virtues; in your sex, they
entitle the sufferer to forgivness and to love.
You inform me, Constantia, that the man who has injured you, professed to
adhere to the rules of honor. Never, Constantia, trust a man who deals
largely in that hackneyed virtue, honor. Honor, in the fashionable sense of
the word, is but another name for villany. The man of honor would not be
guilty of the least impropriety in public company; he would not for the
world neglect the least punctilio of the customary etiquette, but he would,
without hesitation or remorse, blow out the brains of a friend, for treading
on his toe, or rob an amiable woman of her reputation and happiness to
gratify his vanity.

If a man talks too much of his honor, he is to be avoided, like the midnight
ruffian. He that really possesses a virtue never boasts of it, for he does not
suspect the world think him destitute of it. Numerous professions are
commonly mere substitutes for what is professed.
The man, who has given you so much uneasiness, never deserved the
confidence he won; he must be destitute of principle, of virtue, and of
attachment to you. His deliberate ill usage proves him to be callous to every
tender emotion, and to deserve your contempt. Will not a generous pride
and detestation expel the least sentiment of respect for him from your
breast? Can you not forget that you have been misled, and will not your
innocence buoy you above misfortunes? That you have refused good offers,
is to be regretted; but your friends, if they know the reason, as they ought,
will not pain you by disingenuous reflections. On the other hand, they will
assist you in finding objects to amuse you and dissipate your own
melancholy reflections. Smile away the anxiety that shuts your heart against
other impressions. Base as men are, there may be some found who despise
the character of him who has given even an hour's pain; there may be one
who knows your worth, and may be disposed to reward your constancy.
It is a mortifying reflection to an honest mind, that bad hearts are so often
suffered to giv pain to the good; that the trifling and the base of our sex are
not constrained, by necessity, to associate only with the trifling and the base
of yours, and that the good, the generous and the constant should be
exposed to the abuses of the fickle and designing. But such is the
constitution of society, and for the evils of it, we have no remedy, but
cautious circumspection to prevent, or patient fortitude to support the
adverse events of our conditions.
No man can entertain a more cordial detestation of the smallest disposition
to annoy the peace of mind and disturb the tranquillity of mankind, than
myself; the design of existence here is to sooth the evils, and multiply the
felicities of each other, and he must be a villain indeed, who can
deliberately attempt to poison the sources of pleasure, by crossing and
disappointing the social passions.
To your sex, Constantia, permit me to giv a word of caution; never to make
any inquiries about a man's family, fortune or accomplishments, till you
know whether he is a man of principle. By principle, I mean, a disposition

of heart to conduct with strict propriety, both as a moral being and as a
member of civil society; that is, a disposition to increase the happiness of
all around him. If he appears to wish for his own gratification, at the
expense even of a servant's happiness, he is an unsocial being, he is not a fit
associate for men, much less for amiable women. If he is a man of
principle, then proceed to inquire into his standing in life. With principle he
may make a woman happy in almost any circumstances; without it, birth,
fortune and education serve but to render his worthlessness the more
conspicuous. With sentiments of esteem, I am your obliged friend, and
humble servant,
E.

No. XXII.
NEW YORK, JULY, 1788.

A LETTER to the AUTHOR, with REMARKS.
s i r,

I beg leave to relate to you a few circumstances respecting the conduct of a
young friend of mine in this city, and to request your own remarks and
advice on the occasion. Should any other person similarly situated, be
disposed to receive benefit from the advice, I shall be much gratified, and
my design more than answered.
This young friend to whom I allude, has been till within a few years, under
the watchful eyes of very attentiv parents; from whom he received much
better advice and much more of it, than the generality of parents in this city
are wont to bestow on their children; they taught him to regard truth with a
steady attachment; in short his education, till their deaths, was such as
might with propriety have been called rigidly virtuous. Since that instructiv
period, he has been under the guidance of no one but himself; his former
associates with whom he grew up, and for whom he still feels a degree of
schoolmate attachment, are almost universally debauched characters. The
force of example is great, and let it be mentioned to his honor, that in
general he has had sufficient virtue to resist their importunities, and to
follow a line of conduct directly contrary to the one they would gladly have
marked out for his pursuance. He possesses many of the social virtues, and
is warmly attached to the amiable part of the female world. This attachment
has preserved him from the fashionable vices of the age, and given him a
relish for domestic happiness, which I think he will never lose. A young
gentleman so capable of making himself agreeable to good and virtuous
characters, ought not, in my opinion, to indulge himself in any practices,
that shall tend in the least to depreciate his general merit. The practices I
would mention, are few and not very considerable; still I think he should
dismiss them entirely, or at least not indulge them to his disadvantage. He
sings a good song, and he knows it tolerably well; he is often urged into

company on that account; he can make himself agreeable withal, and is
really a musical companion; he pays so much attention to learning and
singing songs, that he has but little leisure time on his hands; he reads part
of the day, but he reads principally novels or song books. I would not be
understood to consider singing songs as criminal; far from it; I am often
delighted with a song from him; but the query with me is, whether he ought
not to devote part of the time which he now employs about what may be
called genteel trifling, to the improvement of his mind in a manner that may
be of lasting benefit to him; I wish you to giv him your advice, and direct
him what books to read. He has another fault, which, altho it originates in
the benevolence of his disposition, may still be called a fault. He has a very
susceptible heart, and opens it with a generous freedom, so much so that he
sometimes forgets himself, and opens it where he ought not to do. A
stranger with a specious outside might easily impose on him. I just throw
out these hints, that he may be on his guard against those whose business it
is to deceive. There are several smaller faults dependant upon, or rather
consequent to, those I have mentioned, which I at first intended to have
enumerated, but if the first are amended, the others will forsake him of
course.
The ANSWER.
s i r,

By the description you have given of your young friend, it appears that he is
rather trifling and inconsiderate than profligate. His faults are, his spending
too much time in learning and singing songs; and too much frankness of
heart, which exposes him to impositions. But you have not, Sir, informed
me whether he was bred to business; and by his character, I judge that he
was not. He has had good precepts indeed; but of how little weight are
precepts to young people! Advice to the young sometimes does good; but
perhaps never, except good habits have been previously formed by correct
discipline in manners, or by a mechanical attention to honest employments.
The truth is, advice or serious council is commonly lavished where it does
no good, upon the young, the gay, the thoughtless; whose passions are
strong, before reason begins to have the smallest influence. I am young
myself, but from the observations I have hitherto made, I venture to affirm,
that grave advice never yet conquered a passion, and rarely has restrained
one so as to render a sprightly youth, in any degree serious. How should it?

Instructions are transient; they seldom touch the heart, and they generally
oppose passions that are vigorous, and which are incessantly urging for
indulgence.
I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine
of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain
direction, by blowing it with a bellows. The way to regulate the growth of a
vegetable is to confine it to the proposed direction. The only effectual
method perhaps is to keep young persons from childhood busy in some
employment of use and reputation. It is very immaterial what that
employment is; the mind will grow in the direction given it at first; it will
bend and attach itself to the business, and will not easily lose that bent or
attachment afterwards: The mind will attach itself to something; its natural
disposition is to pleasure and amusement. This disposition may be changed
or overcome by keeping the mind, from early life, busy in some useful
occupation, and perhaps by nothing else. Advice will not produce the effect.
I suspect, Sir, that your young friend has been bred a trifler; that he has had
money to support him without the labor of acquiring it; that he has never
been anxious about his future subsistence. If so, his education must be
pronounced erroneous. Whether worth twenty pounds or twenty thousand, it
should make no difference in his attention to business while young. We are
the creatures of habit; a habit of acquiring property should always precede
the use of it, otherwise it will not be used with credit and advantage.
Besides, business is almost the only security we have for moral rectitude
and for consequence in society. It keeps a young person out of vicious
company; it operates as a constant check upon the passions, and while it
does not destroy them, it restrains their intemperance; it strengthens the
mind by exercise, and puts a young person upon exerting his reasoning
faculties. In short, a man bred to business loves society, and feels the
importance of the principles that support it. On the other hand, mankind
respect him; and whatever your young friend may think of the assertion, it
is true that the ladies uniformly despise a man who is always dangling at
their apron strings, and whose principal excellence consists in singing a
good song.
If, Sir, your friend is still so young, as to undergo the discipline of a
professional or other employment, his habits of trifling may be changed by
this means; but if he is so far the gentleman as to disdain business, his

friends have only to whistle advice in his ears, and wait till old age,
experience, and the death of his passions, shall change the man.
Accept of my thanks, Sir, for this communication, and be assured that my
opinion on any subject of this kind will always be at your service.
E.

No. XXIII.
BOSTON, MARCH, 1789.

An Enquiry into the Origin of the Words DOMESDAY, PARISH,
PARLIAMENT, PEER, BARON; with Remarks, New and
Interesting.
In the course of my etymological investigations, I hav been led to suspect
that all the writers on the laws and constitution of England, hav mistaken
the origin and primitiv signification of several words of high antiquity, and
in consequence of the mistake, hav adopted some erroneous opinions,
respecting the history of parliaments and trial by peers. Whether my own
opinions are wel supported by history and etymology, must be hereafter
decided by able and impartial judges of this subject.
Dome book, or domesday book, iz a word wel understood by English
lawyers. Dome book, or dom bec, az it waz formerly spelt, waz the name
given to the Saxon code of laws compiled by Alfred. Some other codes of
local customs or laws were also denominated dom becs, but theze are all
lost. After the conquest, a general survey of all the lands in England, except
a few counties, waz made by order of William, and recorded in a volum
which iz stil extant, and called domesday. This survey waz begun by five
justices assigned for the purpose in each county, in the year 1081 and
completed 1086.
Our pious ancestors were not a little frightened at the name of this book,
which iz usually pronounced doomsday; supposing it to hav some reference
to the final doom, or day of judgement. In order to quiet such
apprehensions, lawyers of less credulity undertook to refute the common
opinion. Jacob, after Cowel, very gravely asserts, that the termination day in
this word does not allude to the general judgement. "The addition of day to
this dome book, waz not ment with any allusion to the final day of
judgement, az most persons hav conceeved, but waz to strengthen and
confirm it, and signifieth the judicial decisiv record, or book of dooming

judgement and justice."[67] The same author defines domesmen to be judges,
or men appointed to doom.
Cowel, a compiler of considerable authority, says, "day or dey," (for dey iz
the true spelling) "does not augment the sense, but only doubles and
confirms the same meening. It does not, in this composition, really signify
the mesure of time, but the administration of justice; so that domesday iz
more emphatically the judicial decisiv record, the book of dooming
judgement."[68] According to this author, then, domesday iz a judgement of
judgements, for he quotes Dr. Hammond to proov that day, dies, ημερα, in
all idioms, signifies judgement. However tru this may be, I beleev our
Saxon forefathers could find a better name for a code of laws, than a
judgement of judgements.
"Domesday," says Coke, "dies judicii," day of judgement.[69] Such is the
influence of sounds upon credulous, superstitious minds.
The truth seems to be this; domesday is a compound of dom, judgement,
decree or authority; and dey, a law or rule.[70] Or domes, in the plural, may
signify judges. The name of the book then will signify, ether the rules of
judging, or deciding, in questions relating to the real property of England;
or what is more probable, the rules and determinations of the judges who
surveyed the lands in the kingdom.
That dom had the signification here explained iz capable of proof. The
homager's oath, in the black book of Hereford, fol. 46, ends thus, "So helpe
me God at his holy dome (judgement) and by my trowthe," (troth, that is
truth.)[71] This explanation coincides with the meening of the same syllable
in other languages, and confirms the hypothesis of the common origin of
the languages of Europe, laid down in the Notes to my Dissertations on the
English Tung. We see the syllable in the Greek δαμαω, the Latin dominus,
(domo) and in the English word tame; az also in doom, deem, king dom.[72]
In all theze words we observe one primitiv and several derivativ
significations. Its primitiv sense is that of power or authority, az in Greek
and Latin. In English, it stands for jurisdiction, a judge, or a sentence. In
deem, it denotes the act of the mind in judging, or forming its
determinations.
The other syllable dey iz probably the same word az ley, law, with a
different prepositiv article; for etymologists tel us, that the radical syllable

waz often found in the muther tung ey. Cowel informs us it waz not day, but
dey; and another author writes it d'ey. The word daysman, or az it ought to
be spelt deysman, stil used both in England and America, is composed of
dey and man, and signifies an arbitrator or judge, appointed to reconcile
differences. In this country I hav often heerd it applied to our Savior, az
mediator between God and man.
The ancient lawyers translate the Saxon dom bec and domesdey by liber
judicialis; words which seem not to convey the ful meening of the original.
I should translate them, liber judicum, the Judges book; or lex judicum, the
Judges law or rule.
The old Saxon word ley, before mentioned, waz, in different dialects, or at
different periods, written ley, lah, lage, laga. It iz doubtless from the same
root az the Latin lex, lege; and it is remarkable, that the same word
anciently signified peeple; and from this are derived lay and laity, the
peeple as opposed to the clergy.[73] It iz probable that the primitiv sense of
the word, in remote antiquity, waz people; and az the peeple made the laws
in general assembly, so their orders or decrees came to be called by the
same name. This conjecture iz not groundless, and is no trifling proof of the
ancient freedom of our Gothic ancestors. Tacitus says expressly of the
Germans, "De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus omnes."
De Mor Germ. 11. The princes deliberate upon small matters, or perhaps
decide private controverses of small moment; but laws of general concern
are enacted in an assembly of all the peeple.
The origin of Parishes haz puzzled all the lawyers and antiquaries of the
English nation. Johnson, after his usual manner, recurs to the Greek, and
derives the word from παροικια, accolarum conventus, an assemblage or
collection of peeple in a naborhood. Others content themselves with
deriving it from the Latin parochia or French paroisse. These etymologies
do not satisfy me. It is improbable that our ancestors went to the Greek for
names of places or divisions of territory, that existed in England az erly az
the Heptarchy; especially az the Greek word before mentioned waz never
used in the sense of parish. Parochia cannot be the origin of parish; for it
waz not a Roman word; on the other hand, it is merely a Gothic or Saxon
word latinized by the erly writers on law; and to derive parish from the
French paroisse is trifling; for we might as well derive paroisse from
parish, which iz at leest az ancient.

"It iz uncertain at what time England waz divided into parishes," say most
of the law writers. Camden, in hiz Britannia, page 104, says, the kingdom
waz first divided into parishes by Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury, in
636. This opinion iz controverted. Sir Henry Hobart thinks parishes were
erected by the council of Lateran, in 1179. Selden, followed by Blackstone,
supposes both to be rong, and shows that the clergy lived in common,
without any distinction of parishes, long after the time mentioned by
Camden; and it appeers by the Saxon laws, that parishes were known long
before the council of Lateran.[74]
The truth probably iz, the kingdom was not divided into parishes at any one
time, but the original ecclesiastical division grew, in a great measure, out of
a prior civil division. Parish iz the most ancient division of the
ecclesiastical state, and originally denoted the jurisdiction of a bishop, or
what iz now called a diocese. For this opinion, we hav the authority of the
Saxon laws and charters. "Ego Cealwulfus, dei gratia rex Merciorum,
rogatus a Werfritho, Episcopo Hwicciorum, istam libertatem donavi, ut tota
parochia Hwicciorum a pastu equorum, regis et eorum qui eos ducunt,
libera sit, &c." Charta Cealwulfi regis, Anno 872. "Episcopus, congregatis
omnibus clericis totius parochiæ, &c." in a passage quoted by Cowel tit.
parish. Here the bishoprick iz explicitly called a parish, parochia; and
Blackstone remarks, "it is agreed on all hands, that in the erly ages of
christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at leest signified the
same az a diocese does now." Com. Vol. I. 112.
This, being a settled point, wil perhaps furnish a clue by which we may find
the true origin of the word and of the division.
It iz certain that there waz an ancient word among the Gothic nations, and
probably among the Celtic, which signified originally a man, afterwards a
freeman, or landholder, in opposition to that class of men who had no real
property. This word waz spelt by the Romans vir, and signified a man, by
way of eminence, az distinguished from homo; az also a husband or
householder. It answered to the ανηρ of the Greeks, az distinguished from
ανθροπος, a word denoting the human race in general. The same word in
the Gothic or ancient German waz spelt bar;[75] and probably in some
dialects par, for the convertibility of b with p iz obvious to every
etymologist.[76] In the Erse language, az Mc Pherson testifies, bar signifies
a man. The word iz also pronounced fer or fear, which approaches nearer to

the Latin vir: Fergus or Ferguth signifies a man of word or command. In
modern Welsh, which iz the purest relict of the old Celtic, bar is a son, and
barn a judge. In the ancient Irish, brehon or barhon, which iz merely baron
with an aspirate, signified a judge. See Lhuyd, Mc Pherson, Ossian, p. 4.
and Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. I.
This word iz the root of the modern word baron; for in ancient manuscripts,
it iz sometimes spelt viron, denoting its derivation from vir. For this we hav
the authority of Camden and Du Cange under the word baron.
So far we tred on sure ground. That theze words hav existed or do stil exist
in the sense above explained, wil not be denied; and it iz almost certain that
they all had a common origin.
The word Baron iz evidently derived from the German bar or par, and
under the feudal system, came to signify the proprietors of large tracts of
land, or thoze vassals of the Lord Paramount, who held lands by honorable
service.[77]
I shall hereafter attempt to proov that several modern words are derived
from the same root; at present I confine my remarks to the word parish,
which, I conjecture, iz a compound of par, a landholder, and rick or rich,
which haz been explained, az denoting territory or jurisdiction: Parick or
parich, the jurisdiction of a par or baron. It iz true the words baron and
parliament seem not to hav been used among the Saxons before the
conquest; but they were used by most of the nations of the same original, on
the continent; az in Germany, Burgundy, Sweden and Normandy: And the
use of the word parochia in England, before the conquest, or at leest by the
first lawyers and translators of the Saxon laws, iz to me the strongest proof
that some such word az parick existed among the erly Saxons, or which
waz latinized by thoze writers. Even if we suppose the word borrowed from
nations on the continent, my supposition of the existence of such a word iz
equally wel founded, for they all spoke dialects of the same tung.
The first knowlege we hav of the word parish or rather parochia, iz in the
Saxon laws, copied and translated into Latin by thoze erly writers, Bracton,
Britlon, Fleta, or others of an erlier date. In that erly period, parochia waz a
diocese or bishoprick.

I suspect the jurisdiction of the bishop waz originally limited by an erldom,
county shire, or territory of a great lord. This waz probably the general
division; for sometimes a clergyman or bishop, in the zerude ages, had cure
of souls in two or more adjoining lordships; and it often happened that a
lord had much waste land on hiz demesne, which waz not comprehended in
the original parish, and thus came, in later times, to be called
extraparochial. But whatever particular exceptions there might be, the
remark az a general one, will hold true, with respect to the original
jurisdiction of a bishop.
The number of counties in England iz at present forty, and that of the
dioceses, twenty four; but the number of counties haz been different at
different times; and some changes, both in the civil and ecclesiastical state,
hav doubtless, in a course of a thousand years, destroyed the primitiv
division. It iz however some proof of my hypothesis, that most of the
bishops in England are stil called by the names of counties, or of cities
which are shires of themselves; az the bishop of Durham, of Worcester, of
London, of Norwich, &c. or by the names of the cheef towns in counties; az
bishop of Winchester, of Chichester, &c.
Selden's account of the ancient divisions of the kingdom, confirms this
opinion. See Bacon's Selden, ch. 11. The province or jurisdiction of an
archbishop, waz prior to the origin of diocesses or parishes. Selden haz
given an account of a division of diocesses by archbishop Theodore in the
seventh century; by which it appears, that in some instances, a diocese or
parish waz one shire or county; and in others, a parochia covered two, three,
or more shires: But in almost every instance, the limits of a parish were the
limits of a shire or shires. And however strange the reader may think it, the
word church and shire are radically the same. The Saxon word waz cyrick
or cyrk;[78] and the Scotch pronounce and write it kirk. It iz, like shire,
derived from the Saxon Sciran, cir, or seyre, to divide. The church or kirk
waz the ecclesiastical division, answering to shire, and come to signify the
jurisdiction of the cathedral church; the primaria ecclesia or mother church;
and hence the Saxon term cyrick sceate, church scot or fees, paid by the
whole diocese.
In later times, the original parochia or diocese was divided or extended by
the Mickle-mote, Witenagemote or national assembly, by advice of the
bishops, nobles, and cheef men.

From all I can collect respecting this subject, it appeers probable, that on the
first conversion of the Saxons to christianity, each earle, earlederman, or
erl, whoze manor or jurisdiction waz the origin of a county, had hiz
clergyman or chaplain to perform divine service. Hiz residence waz
probably in the vicinity of the erl; and this waz the origin of the cathedral,
or mother church, primaria ecclesia, to which the tenants of the whole
district or erldom afterwards paid tithes. On the first establishment of theze
churches, the tenants paid tithes where they choze; but fraud or delay on the
part of the tenant, and the encreasing power of the clergy, occasioned a law
of king Edgar, about the year 970, commanding all the tithes to be paid to
the mother church, to which the parish belonged.[79] This must hav
augmented the welth of the cathedral churches, and given them a superior
rank in the ecclesiastical state.
Previous, however, to this period, the thanes or inferior lords, had their
chaplains and private chapels; and it waz a rule, that if such chapel had a
consecrated cemetery or burying ground belonging to it, the lord might
appropriate one third of the tithes to the support of hiz private chaplain. The
clerks or bishops who belonged to the cathedral churches, and were the
officiating ministers of the erls or princes, at that time the first ranks of
noblemen, acquired an influence in proportion to their property and the
extent of their jurisdictions. Hence the powers of modern bishops in
superintending the clergy of their dioceses. In later times, they acquired
large tracts of land, ether by purchase, gift or devise, and in right of their
baronies gained a seet among the lords of the kingdom in parliament.
The inferior clergy were multiplied in proportion az the peeple wanted or
could support them, and the jurisdiction of an earl's chaplain, being limited
originally by his cure of souls, and being founded on a parrick or territory
of a lord, afterwards gave name to all the jurisdictions of the inferior clergy.
Hence the name of parish, as denoting the extent of a parson's[80]
ecclesiastical authority.
The jurisdiction of a bishop lost the name of parish, parochia, at a very erly
period; but stil the subordinate divisions of the ecclesiastical state continued
to be regulated by prior civil divisions. For this assertion, we hav an
indisputable authority, which confirms my opinion respecting the origin of
parishes. "It seems pretty clear and certain," says the learned and elegant
Blackstone, Com. vol. I, 114, "that the boundaries of parishes were

originally ascertained by thoze of a manor or manors; since it very seldom
happens that a manor extends itself over more parishes than one, tho there
are often many manors in one parish." This iz the present state of facts, for
originally the parish, like the modern diocese, covered many manors, or
estates of the inferior feudatories.
Parliament iz said to be derived from the French, parlement, which iz
composed of parler, to speak, and ment or mens, mind. Cowel tit.
Parliament.
"Parliament," says Johnson, "parliamentuns, law Latin; parlement, French."
Dict. fol. Edit.
"It is called parliament," says Coke Litt. p. 110. Ed. Lond. 1778, "because
every member of that court should sincerely and discretely parler le ment,"
(speek hiz mind) "for the general good of the commonwelth; which name it
also hath in Scotland; and this name before the conquest waz uzed in the
time of Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, &c. It waz anciently,
before the conquest, called michel-sinath,[81] michel-gemote; ealla, witena-
gemote; that is to say, the great court or meeting of the king and all the
wisemen; sometimes of the king, with the counsel of hiz bishops, nobles
and wisest of hiz peeple. This court, the French men call les estates; or
l'assemble des estates. In Germany it is called a diet. For thoze other courts
in France that are called parliaments, they are but ordinary courts of justice,
and az Paulus Jovius affirmeth, were first established with us."
The late editor of Cokes Institutes, remarks, in a note on this passage, that
the latter part of this etymology iz justly exploded, and apologizes for hiz
author by saying, "it iz to be found in preceding authors of eminence." He
discards the ment, and considers it, not az an essential, but an adventitious
part of the word; deeming it sufficient to derive the word from parler, to
speak. This opinion he receives from Lambard.
Such a definition, with great deference to theze venerable authorities, iz a
disgrace to etymology. Coke waz a great lawyer, and Johnson a good Latin
and Greek scholar; but neether of them waz versed in the Teutonic language
and institutions, where alone we should look for the origin of our laws and
the English constitution. Johnson indeed waz a mere compiler of other
mens etymologies, and Cowel, Selden, Junius and others from whom he
copied, tho deeply lerned, sometimes fell into very whimsical mistakes. I