Monarchy -- Early works to 1800; Political science -- Early works to 1800; United States -- Politics and government -- 1775-1783
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the
opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this
continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly
known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a
state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped
and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any
material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and
although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the
history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what
she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have,
the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time,
proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish
it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her
final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of
America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a
great measure continue, were the countries as independant of each
other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go
to a better market. But it is the independance of this country of
Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy
of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by
necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to
accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies,
with silently remarking, the specious errors of those who speak
without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the
following seems the most general, viz. that had this rupture
happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent
would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To
which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from
the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty
years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would
not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer
left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as
ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single
position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the
present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus--
at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted
numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers,
without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be
some particular point between the two extremes, in which a
sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the
latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come
under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by
the following position, viz.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account