Chapter 6 Note

Since the first edition of this pamphlet appeared, or rather on the day it was published, the King's Speech in Parliament has appeared in this city (Philadelphia).Had the divine spirit of prophecy ever grasped the production of this work, it would never have published it at a more opportune moment or at a more necessary time. Bloodlust on the one hand justifies the necessity of a definite course on the other.One sees it all in terms of revenge.Far from intimidating, the King's speech paved the way for a decisive principle of independence. The observance of propriety, or even silence, whatever the motives, has a pernicious tendency in the slightest acquiescence to vile and vicious conduct; so, if the maxim can be admitted, it follows naturally that the King of England His speeches, being so diabolical, deserved, and all the more deserved, the general curse of Parliament and the people.But as the domestic peace of a country depends chiefly on that simplicity which may well be called "national grace," it is often better to pass things lightly with contempt than to use that which may well be called "national grace." A new way of expressing abhorrence with a transformative effect on our guardian of peace and security.Perhaps it is largely due to this scrupulousness that the King's speech has so far escaped public condemnation.That speech, if it may be called a speech, was at best a wanton and deliberate slander of truth, public happiness, and human existence; a formal and dignified method of sacrificing humanity to an insolent tyrant.But this mass murder of men is a prerogative and a certain corollary of kings; for since nature knows them not, neither do they know nature, and though they are men of our own making, they Know not us, and be the God of their Creator.One good thing about that speech is that the King did not intend to deceive us by it, and we cannot be deceived by it even if we wanted to.Brutality and tyranny stand out on paper.It does not allow us to be confused: even as we read it, every line convinces us that the naked and savage Indian hunting in the woods is not so savage as the King of England.

John Dalrymple, hypocritically known as the presumed author of the sinister and whining work of The People of England to the Inhabitants of North America, may have taken it for granted that the people here could be frightened by his boast and description of a king , and thus talked (although he was very unintelligent on his part) about the real character of the current national jade. "But," says the author, "if you wish to praise a government against which we have no displeasure (meaning the cabinet of the Lord of Rockingham, who repealed the Stamp Act), it would be unjust for you not to praise the King. Yes, because they are only allowed to do anything with his consent." This is pure royalism!There is even unabashed fetishism here.

Anyone who can listen to and tolerate such claims with indifference has lost the right to discern reason - a traitor to the personality - and should be considered not only to have abandoned the due dignity of human beings, but to have fallen into the trap of animals. Under the status, crawling despicably in the world like a caterpillar. Now, however, what the King of England has done is irrelevant: he has broken every moral obligation of mankind, has trampled on nature and good conscience, and has brought upon himself universal hate.Now the top priority of the North American continent is to find a way out for itself.It already has a large young family and its duty is to take care of the family, not to generously give away property to support a regime that dishonors the reputation of human beings and Christians - your duty is to abide by the morals of a nation principles, obeying the moral principles of the sect or sect to which you belong, and at the same time you are more directly the guardians of public liberties, and you must secretly desire independence if you wish to preserve your lands from the corruption of Europe.But, leaving aside the moral part, the Lord of Rockingham was the leader of the Liberal wing of the Whig Party. - translator

Let everyone think about it, I will mainly make a few more explanations on the following issues: First, independence from Great Britain is in the interests of the North American continent. Second, reconciliation or independence, which one is the easiest and most practical?Here are some necessary notes. In favor of reconciliation, I can speak, if I am not mistaken, of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent.Their position on the issue has not been publicly announced.In fact this opinion is self-evident, for no country can ever rise to a position of importance while it is subordinate to a foreign country, with its commerce restricted, and its legislative power fettered.The North American continent does not yet know what affluence is, and although its development is unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is still in its infancy compared with what it can achieve, and if it is as With the legislative powers in their hands as they should be, that achievement is quite achievable.England is now coveting with complacency what would do her no good if she got her wish, while the North American Continent is hesitating on a question which, if neglected, will eventually lead to its ruin.It is the commerce of North America, not the conquest, which England can profit from, and this commercial relation would probably have continued had the two countries been as independent as France and Spain: for, in many articles, any Neither side could find a better market.The independence of this country from England, or from any other country, is the chief and only question now debatable, and it, like all other truths which must be discovered, will grow clearer and stronger.

One, because sooner or later it will produce such results. Second, because the longer the delay, the more difficult it will be to complete. I have often enjoyed attending public and private gatherings, and quietly noticing the plausible fallacies of those who speak without thinking.Among the many fallacies I have heard, the following opinion seems to be the most common, namely, that the North American Continent would be better able to escape the subordination it is in if this rupture had occurred forty or fifty years later than it is now.To this opinion I can answer that our present military skill, which arose from the experience gained in the last war,1 will fail completely in another forty or fifty years.There will then be no general or even an officer left on this continent; and we, or our heirs, will be as ignorant in military matters as the Indians of old.This argument alone, if closely heeded, will prove beyond dispute that the present time is more favorable than all other times.So the argument goes like this: at the end of the last war we had experience but not enough numbers, after forty or fifty years we will have enough numbers and no experience; Somewhere between the ends, at this point, both due to sufficient experience, and a considerable increase in the number of people.And that moment is now.

Forgive me, the reader, for these digressions, which do not follow directly from the question with which I first began, and I return to it with the proposition that, in case our rift with England is temporarily healed, it will Retaining dominion and sovereignty over North America (which, as things are now going, North America is abandoning the argument altogether), we deprive ourselves of the means of paying our debts or of borrowing them again.The value of the outlying districts (which in some provinces have been secretly lost by the unreasonable extension of Canada's borders) was only five pounds per hundred acres, amounting to more than twenty-five million Pennsylvania dollars; In pennies, two million a year.

By selling these lands, debts can be settled without involving anyone; the reservation of land refers to the struggle of the British colonists against the French and Indians in the Ohio Valley from 1754 to 1760. - translator In ①, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act, annexing the entire Northwest Territory west of the Alcon Mountains in North America to Quebec (belonging to Canada), the purpose of which was to ensure that the United States won the support of landowners and Catholic monks. - translator The exempt tax will often be lightened, and sooner or later fully finance the annual expenditure of the government.The period for repaying the debt does not matter much, as long as the land sold can be used to repay the debt. All these matters will be entrusted to the Congress by the mainland for the time being.Let me now turn to the second question, which is the easiest and most practical solution, reconciliation or independence; and I will make some explanations along the way.He who takes the natural course of things as his guide to action is not easily refuted, and on this ground I answer in general: the only simple course of independent reality lies with me; and reconciliation is a very Intricate problems, in which a treacherous and capricious court must intervene, can only then have one solution.

The state of affairs in North America appears to every thinking person to be serious indeed.There is no law, no government, no power of any kind but that which is based upon and conferred by grace.It is united by an unprecedented unity of feeling, but this feeling is susceptible to change, and every hidden enemy is trying to unravel it.We have legislation without laws, wisdom without schemes, polity without names, and, most astonishingly, complete independence desperately trying to be subordinate.The situation is unprecedented, it has never existed before, and who can say what its outcome will be?In the present state of unrestraint, no one's property is secure.The psychology of the masses is left alone, and because they cannot see a definite goal ahead, they are pursuing the direction pointed out by fantasy or rumor.There is nothing criminal, there is no such thing as treason; so everyone thinks he can do as he pleases, as he pleases.The Tories would not have dared to gather together aggressively if they knew that such an action would cost them their lives before the law of the land.A line should be drawn between British soldiers captured in battle and North American residents captured with arms.The former is a captive, while the latter is a traitor.One wants to deprive him of his liberty, the other wants to chop off his head.

Notwithstanding our intellect, in some of our actions there is evidently a weakness of indecision which encourages differences of opinion. The "belt of the Continent" is buckled too loosely; if measures are not taken in time, there will be too little time to do anything, and we will be in a situation where neither reconciliation nor independence can be achieved.The king and his insignificant followers are busy repeating the old trick of dividing the continent, and there are no shortage of printers among us who are willing to bustle about spreading lies that seem to be true.That treacherously hypocritical letter published some months ago in two New York papers, as well as two others, proves that some men are both ignorant and dishonest.

It is easy to hide in corners and holes and talk about reconciliation.But have such people seriously considered how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it would be if the continent were torn apart?Have they looked to the various classes of persons whose circumstances and circumstances, as well as their own, should be taken into account in this connection?Did they ever put themselves in the shoes of the victims who had lost everything, the soldiers who gave it all up to defend their country?If their muddled soundness suits their own personal circumstances, and ignores those of others, it ends up leading them to believe that "they have taken their own decisions."

Some say, put us back where we were in 1763.To this I reply that this demand is not something that Great Britain can now agree to, nor will it make; Questioner: How can such a corrupt and heartless court fulfill its obligations?Another Parliament, nay, even the present one, will in the future use the excuse that this obligation was imposed on him by force, before the Treaty of Paris in 1763, by which France lost its colonies and the English gained theirs. Full possession of the vast area of ​​North America. - translator or that it was foolish to agree, and decide to cancel it; in that case, how can we find out what is right?Nations cannot be sued: the cannon is lawyer to kings; it is not judicial power that decides suits, but force.To go back to the relationship of 1763, it is not enough to put the laws in the same state, but our surroundings; our burned and destroyed cities should be rebuilt, our private Our losses should be compensated, and the public debts which we have borrowed for defense should be paid; otherwise we shall be a million times worse off than in that enviable period.If such a request had been realized a year ago, it might have satisfied the wishes of the mainland people, but it is too late now. "Things have gotten to the point of no return." Moreover, the use of force merely to persist in the annulment of a financial decree seems as outrageous to the divine law, and as contrary to human nature, as it is to enforce such a decree by force.In neither of these things should the means be used to achieve the end; for human life is too precious to be wasted on such trifles.What is done to us and what threatens us is violence; the destruction of our property by armed forces; the aggression of our country by means of burning and killing.This situation makes us feel in good conscience that we need to take up arms.As soon as such self-defense becomes necessary, all our obedience to Great Britain ceases, and the era of North American independence should be considered to have begun and heralded by the first bullet fired against it.This line was consistent; it was neither drawn arbitrarily nor extended by ambition, but was produced by a succession of events which in no way arose from the colonies. I'll end my review with these well-timed and well-meaning comments below.We should understand that there are three different methods by which independence can be brought about this year, any one of which will decide the fate of North America sooner or later; whether by the legitimate voice of the people in Parliament, by military force, or by the uprising.But our soldiers are not always citizens, and our crowds are not always a collection of sane men; virtue, as I have already shown, is not hereditary, nor immutable.Had the independence of the nation been attained by the first of these three means, we would have every opportunity and every encouragement to establish the noblest and purest government in the world.We have the power to start rebuilding the world.Nothing like this has happened since the prehistoric times.The birth of a new world is not far off, and perhaps a new generation as large as the population of Europe will get its share of freedom from the events of a few months.This thought is serious, and from this point of view, how insignificant and ridiculous the trivial accusations of a few cowardly or selfish people are compared with this world-worthy enterprise. If we ignore the favorable and favorable period of the present day, and adopt any other method to introduce independence, it will be we who will be responsible for the consequences, or rather those who often oppose the measure without study or reflection. The narrow-minded people.There are many reasons that can be cited in favor of independence that should be thought of in private rather than discussed in public.We should not now be debating the question of whether we will be independent, but should be trying by all means to achieve independence on solid, secure and legitimate grounds, and be disturbed that we have not yet begun.Every day convinces us of the need for independence.Even the Tories (if there are any among us) should be promoted more zealously than others: for, as the initial establishment of committees protected them from popular resentment, so a rational and well established polity, will be the only sure way of furthering their security.Therefore, if their virtues were not enough to make them Independents, they should be reasonable enough to wish for independence. In short, independence is the only bond that holds and unites us.We shall then see that our aim① refers to the Committee of Correspondence established in 1772-1774, consisting of the revolutionary local authorities of the thirteen British colonies in North America. - translator Our ears will not fall for the intrigues of a cunning and cruel enemy. And we shall then be on the right side of England; for we may reasonably assert that the British Crown negotiated terms of peace with the Commonwealth of America more than it negotiated terms of settlement with those it called Traitors. In terms of self-esteem, there will be less damage.Our delay in confronting Japan on the question of independence encourages her desire to conquer us, and our indecision only serves to prolong the war.Now that we've vented our grievances by ineffectively stopping our trade, we might as well try another independent method of alleviating our grievances and then automatically open up trade.The merchants and sensible men of England will still be with us, for peace with business is better than war without trade.If this proposal is not accepted, we can make it to other courts. I base the solution of the problem on these foundations.Since no comments have been made to refute the claims contained in previous editions of this pamphlet, it may be argued that the claims are irrefutable, or that the number of people in favor of them is too large to be valid. against it.Therefore, let us not look at each other with suspicion or doubt, but each of us should extend the hand of sincere friendship to our neighbors to draw a line together. This line, like the amnesty, will not pursue the past All kinds of disputes. Let the names of Independents and Tories perish; let the names one hear among us only belong to good citizens, outspoken and strong friends, brave champions of human rights and liberties and an independent Commonwealth of North America.