Chapter 3 Ⅲ Zhiketu

Ketu's henchmen might say I was in a rage, but I don't think so.There are also those who have not enough justice to make them angry; this is probably Ketu's crime.Those who dare not offend others are certainly not honest people.Having thus returned my tribute, I shall turn to Ketu's fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh letters.This letter does not contain many things, and I intend to settle them in an informal and informal way. His fourth letter begins with a playful solo—Ketou's ownership of the solo is indisputable; for no one wants to join him.However, he denies that he wrote it alone, and assures his readers that it "was indeed put into his hands."I always think that this attempt to prove a point is to betray a doubt about oneself; here, the above statement is equivalent to Ketu saying: "You know my shortcomings, gentlemen, but I now treat you It's really telling the truth."Well, be that as it may, Ketu; you can have all the credit you ask for; as to when, where, and how you got that passage, who was the original author, and who gave it to you, I don't know. I don't pursue it; for judging by the poetic value of the play performed, I am convinced that the author, though he may be of the type of Allen, is by no means a poet of the type of Ramsay.So much for the monologue; and if this gentle reprimand prevents Ketu or his colleagues from mixing up their witty nonsense with the serious matter of which the present subject is of such a serious nature, then It also achieves one of the purposes of the author's original intention.

The greater part of Ketu's fourth and fifth letters is based on a fabricated meaning which he impudently imposes on a passage which he quotes from it. On this point, the author of that pamphlet was entitled to demand the usual concessions from Ketu.I shall quote the whole passage, with what Ketu added, and the inferences he draws therefrom. He begins by saying, "In my remarks on the pamphlet before me, I shall consider first those arguments which he (the author) evidently emphasizes the most: these are summarized in his conclusions in four Under these headings, one of them is, 'It is an international practice that when any two nations are at war, other nations which have nothing to do with the dispute act as mediators to mediate and lead to preparations for peace; But when America claims to be a vassal of Great Britain, no country, no matter how willing it may be to mediate, cannot do so.'” The meaning contained in this verse is very clear, and it is in very common and common terms It is simply impossible to make it clearer.I am sure that anyone can only understand that, while we continue to call ourselves British subjects, the quarrel between us can only be called a family quarrel, in which any other country comes to advise, or To intervene in any respect, even with a suggestion of mediation, is as inappropriate as a third person intervening in a dispute between husband and wife.If, on the other hand, we were to use that natural right, as all other nations have done before us, to form a government of our own, and to stand firm and independent, then such quarrels would no longer be called family quarrels, but English A formal war between the two regimes of the United States is no different from the war fought between Britain and France.In such a case of separation of powers, the neutral nations could well-meaningly propose mediation (as they have always done) and lead to preparations for peace—not preparations for amalgamation,1 as this article is likely to fall into the In the hands of some readers who do not understand the meaning of "monologue", the meaning of the word is now specially annotated here.That is, "speak to yourself" for their reference. ——Author ② Allen was an opponent of a well-known independence movement in Philadelphia. ——The original editor ③Vinland Ransey is a famous Scottish poet full of real wit and sense of humor. - Author Ketu, that's a whole other story.But Ketu does not understand it in this obvious sense; on the contrary, he goes down the wrong line, blaming the author for suggesting foreign assistance.With this deliberate lie, he yelled aimlessly.His wild, inexplicable remark begins thus: "Is it," he said (referring to the passage quoted above), "common sense or nonsense? Indeed, peace with Great Britain is not would be the goal of this author, since he has described the people of that country as terrible people, and has told us that to reconcile with them is to destroy oneself. The second half of this passage, though contradictory to the first, is Seems to make the first part clearer, for these mediators are said to intervene not to mediate the dispute, but to support us in a declaration—a declaration that we are not subjects of Great Britain—and to widen the dispute. This, It's a really new job for a mediator. But this"

Ketu continued, "leading us directly to the main question: —Which foreign regime can give us such support?" What support, Ketu?In the verse you cite, neither a word is said nor a hint is made about supporting the tier:—it speaks only of the pseudo-neighborhood of neutral nations acting as mediators between belligerents. function; and said that it was the custom of European courts to do so.Ketu had already honored the delegates as ambassadors; but how he could turn mediators into warriors, and mediation into military alliances, was a most curious question.Read that passage again, Ketu; if you find that I have misjudged you, and can point it out, I promise

The author of the newspaper must publicly apologize to you under his signature; but if the error is on your side, then the subsequent concession will be your duty.Although I am fully convinced that Ketu did not believe half of what he himself wrote, he took great pains to frighten his readers into believing them all.To them he described the foreign armies that ravaged and ravaged our land (suppose we recruited them); Clean up."Even if they did come, Ketu, which no one but yourself ever dreamed of (for thank God, we don't want them), they would not be able to surpass or even match that of the British Army in the East Indies. An atrocity: binding men to the muzzles of guns and "bombing them out" was never done by anyone but an English general, never sanctioned by anyone but an English court.Go to the records of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

Ketu passed from worldly fears to religious fears, and asked, full of false panic, "Whose hands will Pennsylvania fall--its most devout Patriarchal king, or its most devout Protestant king?" ? I admit," he went on, "these questions make me dizzy." I'm not surprised to hear that, Ketu. — I am glad to know that some regret has taken over you, that you have begun to feel "burdened."You've come a long way, and even the strongest heart will have to fail eventually. Finding that the lie in his fourth letter had not been condemned, Ketu boldly began a fifth letter, in which he continued to expand the same bluff he had at hand.He said: "In my last letter, attention was drawn to the dangerous initiative of the authors to rely on foreign assistance."

When will Ketu learn to tell the truth!The assistance we want from France is not troops (we don't want troops), but arms and ammunition.In this state alone we have received nearly two hundred tons of nitrate and powder, as well as rifles.We could indeed continue to have good dealings with him, if there hadn't been a vicious man like Ketu slandering the matter.It is a strange thing at such a time that the only country that has supplied what we urgently need under the terms of defense should not learn to speak of peace and union in such a barrage of gunfire. ——Author ① Lord Clive, the head of the Eastern Raiders, was once thanked by Parliament for "his glorious actions in the East Indies". —the author scolds—as he does in his fourth and fifth letters, is not only rude, but ill-advised, and I am afraid dangerous.

After spending almost two letters to overthrow an idol that he had only raised up, Ketu congratulated himself for his failure, and after leaving a statement like the following, turned in another direction.Ketu said: "Having dealt so quickly with his (author's) main arguments in defense of independence - which are grounded in the need to invite foreign assistance - I will begin to examine his writings certain other parts of the country." Not a word in any part of the pamphlet mentions the question of inviting foreign assistance or even forming military alliances.Ketu, this dream is entirely your own and directly contradicts the letter and spirit of every page of this work.

The idea that has always been supported is to never participate in European politics.The pamphlet said, "Since Europe is our trading market, we should have no political relations with any part of it. It is in America's real interest to avoid all controversy in Europe. "As for its proposal to send a proclamation to foreign courts (and it is high time to do so), it is only to announce to them that it is no longer possible for us to go on under the British Government, and that To "assure these courts that peace may be had with them and a desire to trade with them. "If you learn to be an honest man, Ketu, you won't be exposed like this.—I especially want to expose Ketu here, because he installed his air-made batteries against independence in this place. Above the blister—what a poor foundation! A prick with the point of a needle, or, if you prefer, the point of a pen, can burst it, and bury the burly Ketu among the ruins of the blister down.

From this part of his fifth letter to the end of his seventh, he completely drops the subject of independence, and places the majestic standard of the monarch before the republic.My comments on this section will be general and concise. In this part of the debate, Ketu mainly concealed himself in the quotations of other authors, and he himself did not argue much;1 I now send him a long list of maxims and reflections in reply; these words of mine All are deduced from the nature of things, not borrowed from anyone.Ketu may have noticed that I almost never use other people's words; the reason is that I always use my brain.But let’s get down to business.

Regime should always be seen as a matter of service, not of rights. The Bible does not prescribe any particular form of government, but protests against monarchy; and when there are but two alternatives, and we must choose one, denying the one is tantamount to affirming the other . The monarchy was originally established by the heathen, and Almighty God sent them to adopt this government in order to punish the Jews. "In my anger I gave you a king." -Hosea 13, verse 11. A republic embodies the state of nature, while a monarchy embodies unequal power.In a republic the leader of the people, if he is incompetent, may be removed by a vote, but the king can only be removed by force; In one case, if the attempt fails, it is death.Strange to say, what is our right in one case is our ruin in another.From this reflection, I came to ① the following is an example of Ketu's method of argument: "It is said that if hereditary succession (referring to the succession of the king's government) could indeed guarantee a good and intelligent race, it would have the stamp of divine authority;" said Ketu, "and here we find that he has put the stamp of heaven with his own hand on that which he told us was invented by the devil and protested by Almighty God." Seven letters.

—That is a curious argument, Ketu, or rather it is not an argument at all, since hereditary succession does not guarantee a good and wise race, and therefore has no seal of divine authority. —The following conclusion of the author: That form of government which turns our right into our ruin must not be a right form of government.Even if all human nature is corrupt, there is no need to establish a series of hereditary princes to strengthen this corruption-no matter how dirty they are, the people must still obey them.Because every move of the court will always affect the moral character of the people.There is more real majesty in a republic than in a king.To the mass of the people it is more in keeping with their liberty to have their ruler elected than to accept a ruler born to them, and on the part of the ruler to be a ruler elected by the people is more consistent with their liberty than to accept a ruler born by chance. The king of the royal family is far more noble.Every faithful representative of the people is more dignified than a king.Disturbances are inevitable in all nations, but they are most apt to occur under a monarchy because of the want of balance. "Since the Conquest, there have been nineteen rebellions and eight civil wars in England."In republics, whatever disturbances arise, are not the product of the republican spirit, but are created by those who seek to destroy it. A republic does not create its own destruction, it can only be destroyed.No people, in their sane mind, when they seriously consider the place God has placed them in, and the understanding endowed to them, will voluntarily give any one power over all; since the fall of man, , no one has ever been worthy of this trust; therefore we would be irrational if we entrusted this power to them; To sober us up by exercising authority has turned out to be to our great advantage.Nature seems to mock men at times, and give them kings of so many fools; at other times, she punishes their folly, and gives them tyrants; kind of punishment.Rousseau once suggested a plan for the establishment of a perpetual peace in Europe; namely, that every country in Europe should send ambassadors, and form a general council, which, when any dispute arose between two powers, would arbitrate it without appeal. Various armed forces.This would amount to a European republic; but the arrogance and predatory spirit of kings does not aim at peace.They do not consider human interests.They don't carry out that plan.And if we compare the history of creation side by side with the history of kings, this is the result--God made a world, and kings snatched it from him. But even putting aside all other arguments, this simple truth suffices to affirm the superiority of a republic over a monarchy: All men are born republicans, and become royalists only as the fashion of them.This is amply proved by the fact that the jury system, the great and almost the only remaining bulwark of the rights of man, is ardently celebrated by all; it is founded on a purely republican foundation.Here the king's rights are shut out.No royal veto would ever reach this court.The jury that reigns supreme here is a republic, a body of judges elected from among the people, that guarantees this freedom in England by a charter, not in government but in opposition!It is demanded by the people, not bestowed by the king, who in this respect has given nothing but renounced his past tyranny and vowed to reform in the future.It was a compromise by which the king made peace with the people; and this was the condition by which he was allowed to continue to rule. This is the end of my reply to all the letters signed by Ectau that have been published so far (seven in total).To his last two letters, which dealt exclusively with the constitution of government, I gave only general replies without any special comments.I noticed that in one place he reproached ① the conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy in 1066. - translator ②That is, the fall of mankind caused by Adam's sin as recorded in the Bible. - translator The author contradicts himself by saying that "before the terrible day of April 19th, 1775, there was no one who more ardently desired reconciliation than himself"! "That is (Cetus says) the reconciliation with the king's government." To this I reply that war should not be anyone's wish, nor should anyone, in his own opinion, make an Difficulty with government: "Form of government is an appropriate consideration only for countries that have yet to form a government" ( ).In reviewing the arguments I have dealt with in Ketu's letter (except where I have omitted), I would add the following specific charges against him: 1. He accuses the Commission in general terms, stating nothing, neither confirming nor attempting to prove anything. Note: The excuse of imputing the actions of a group as an individual is too unjustified to be condoned. Second, he fabricated words that restricted the freedom of the newspaper and complained to the public. 3. He once maliciously asserted that "some dawn of reconciliation has recently appeared before our eyes", thereby greatly deceiving the people. 4. He has hinted, as if he wanted the public to believe, that we have received "the greatest assurance of compensation for all our injuries, and adequate security against any future infringement of our just rights." 5. He spread a fake panic about bringing in foreign troops. 6. He turned the Bible into a laughing stock. Chapter 35 of Ezekiel. These lies, if not refuted, may be accepted as truth, and those who are not well-informed may be deeply disturbed by them.Our opinion can leave it alone, but truth based on facts must be strictly adhered to.It was this haunting consideration which attracted the inhabitants of the woods (quite automatically) to undertake the laborious work of writing three long letters, and to trouble the public to read them. Having concluded my correspondence with Ketu for the time being, I shall conclude this letter with a kind and affectionate address.