THOMAS CHALMERS, PLAIN TRUTH (THE LOYALIST RESPONSE TO COMMON SENSE) PLAIN TRUTH by James Chalmers (Candidus) 1727-1806 An abridged edition of the March 1776 pamphlet written as a response to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." Chalmers was a loyalist from the Eastern Shore of Maryland. [While Patriots consult Paine for their final arguments, Loyalists should rebut Paine using Chalmers, who attacks Paine on every point noted above.] INTRODUCTION. IF indignant at the Doctrine contained in the Pamphlet, entitled COMMON SENSE: I have expressed myself, in the following Observations, with some ardor; I entreat the Reader to impute my indignation, to honest zeal against the Author’s Insidious Tenets. Animated and impelled by every inducement of the Human Heart; I love, and (if I dare so express myself,) I adore my Country. Passionately devoted to true Liberty; I glow with the purest flame of Patriotism. Silver’d with age as I am, if I know myself, my humble Sword shall not be wanting to my Country; (if the most Honorable Terms are not tendered by the British Nation) to whose Sacred Cause, I am most fervently devoted. The judicious Reader, will not impute my honest, tho’ bold Remarks, to unfriendly designs against my Children ---- against my Country; but to abhorrence of Independency; which if effected, would inevitably plunge our once preeminently envied Country into Ruin, Horror, and Desolation. PLAIN TRUTH; CONTAINING, REMARKS ON A LATE PAMPHLET, ENTITLED COMMON SENSE. I HAVE now before me the Pamphlet, entitled COMMON SENSE; on which I shall remark with freedom and candour. His [Paine’s] first indecent attack is against the English constitution; which with all its imperfections, is, and ever will be the pride and envy of mankind. To this panegyric involuntarily our author subscribes, by granting individuals to be safer in England, than in any other part of Europe. He indeed insidiously attributes this pre-eminent excellency, to the constitution of the people, rather than to our excellent constitution. To such contemptible subterfuge is our Author reduced. I would ask him, why did not the constitution of the people afford them superior safety, in the reign of Richard the Third, Henry the Eighth, and other tyrannic princes? Many pages might indeed be filled with encomiums bestowed on our excellent constitution, by illustrious authors of different nations. This beautiful system (according to MONTESQUIEU) our constitution is a compound of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. But it is often said, that the Sovereign, by honours and appointments, influences the Commons. The profound and elegant HUME agitating this question, thinks, to this circumstance, we are in part indebted for our supreme felicity; since without such controul in the Crown, our Constitution would immediately degenerate into Democracy; a Government, which in the sequel, I hope to prove ineligible. Were I asked marks of the best government, and the purpose of political society, I would reply, the encrease, preservation, and prosperity of its members, in no quarter of the Globe, are those marks so certainly to be found, as in Great Britain, and her dependencies. After our Author has employed several pages, to break the mounds of society by debasing Monarchs: He says, “The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English Monarchy will not bear looking into.” HUME treating of the original contract, has the following melancholy, but sensible observation, “Yet reason tells us, that there is no property in durable objects, such as lands, and houses, when carefully examined, in passing from hand to hand, but must in some period, have been founded in fraud and injustice. The necessities of human society, neither in private or public life, will allow of such an accurate enquiry; and there is no virtue or moral duty, but what may, with facility, be refined away, if we indulge a false philosophy, in sifting and scrutinizing, by every captious rule of logic, in every light or position in which it may be placed.” I will humbly attempt to describe good Kings by the following unerring rule. The best Princes are constantly calumniated by the envenomed tongues and pens of the most worthless of their subjects. For this melancholy truth, do I appeal to the testimony of impartial historians, and long experience. The many unmerited insults offered to our gracious Sovereign; by the unprincipled [John] Wilkes, and others down to this late Author; will forever disgrace humanity. For he says, “that monarchy was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. It is the pride of Kings which throws mankind into confusion: In short, continues this Author, monarchy and succession, have laid not this or that kingdom only, but the world in blood and ashes.” How deplorably wretched the condition of mankind, could they believe such execrable flagitious jargon. Unhappily indeed, mankind in every age are susceptible of delusion; but surely our Author’s poison carries its antidote with it. Attentive to the spirit of his publication, we fancy ourselves in the barbarous fifteenth century: in which period our Author would have figured with his “Common Sense ---- and blood will attend it.” After his terrible anathema against our venerable constitution, and monarchy; let us briefly examine a democratical state; and see whether of not it is a government less sanguinary. This government is extremely plausible, and indeed flattering to the pride of mankind. The demagogues therefore, to seduce the people into their criminal designs ever hold up democracy to them: although conscious it never did, nor ever will answer in practice. If we believe a great Author, “There never existed, nor ever will exist a real democracy in the World.” If we examine the republics of Greece and Rome, we ever find them in a state of war domestic or foreign. Our Author therefore makes no mention of these ancient States. The excellent Montesquieu declares, “that a democracy supposes the concurrence of a number of circumstances rarely united. In the first place, it is requisite that the state itself should be of small extent; so that the people might be easily assembled and personally known to each other. Secondly, the simplicity of their manners, should be such as to prevent a multiplicity of affairs, and perplexity in discussing them: And thirdly, there should subsist a great degree of equality between them, in point of right and authority: Lastly, there should be little or no luxury, for luxury must either be the effect of wealth, or it must make it necessary. It corrupts at once, both rich and poor: The one, by the possession, and the other, by the want of it.” To this may be added continues the same Author, “that no government is so subject to CIVIL WARS, and INTESTINE COMMOTIONS, as that of the democratical or popular form; because, no other tends so strongly and so constantly to alter, nor requires so much vigilance, and fortitude to preserve it from alteration. It is indeed, in such a constitution, particularly, that a Citizen should always be armed with fortitude, constancy; and should every day, in the sincerity of his heart, guard against corruption, arising either from selfishness in himself, or in his compatriots; for if it once enters into public transactions, to root it out afterwards would be miraculous. . . [Here Chalmers discusses the problems with an armed resistance, and in the next paragraph, with the difficulties inherent in getting foreign aid.] I shall humbly endeavour to shew, that our author shamefully misrepresents facts, is ignorant of the true state of Great Britain and her Colonies, utterly unqualified for the arduous task, he has presumptuously assumed; and ardently intent on seducing us to that precipice on which himself stands trembling. To elucidate my strictures, I must with fidelity expose the circumstances of Great Britain and her colonies. If therefore, in the energy of description, I unfold certain bold and honest truths with simplicity, the judicious reader will remember, that true knowledge of our situation, is as essential to our safety, as ignorance thereof may endanger it. In the English provinces, exclusive of negroe and other slaves, we have one hundred and sixty thousand; or one hundred and seventy thousand men capable of bearing arms. If we deduct the people called Quakers, Anabaptists, and other religionists averse to arms; a considerable part of the emigrants, and those having a grateful predilection for the ancient constitution and parent state, we shall certainly reduce the first number to sixty or seventy thousand men. Now admitting those equal to the Roman legions, can we suppose them capable of defending against the power of Britain, a country nearly twelve hundred miles extending on the ocean. Suppose our troops assembled in New England, if the Britons see not fit to assail them, they haste to and desolate our other provinces, which eventually would reduce New England. If by dividing our forces, we pretend to defend our provinces, we also are infallibly undone. Our most fertile provinces, filled with unnumbered domestic enemies, slaves, intersected by navigable rivers, every where accessible to the fleets and armies of Britain, can make no defence. If without the medium of passion and prejudice, we view our other provinces, half armed, destitute of money and a navy: We must confess, that no power ever engaged such POTENT ANTAGONISTS, under such peculiar circumstances of infelicity. In the better days of Rome, she permitted no regular troops to defend her. Men destitute of property she admitted not into her militia, (her only army). I have been extremely concerned at the separation of the Connecticut men from our army. It augur’d not an ardent enthusiasm for liberty and glory. We still have an army before Boston, and I should be extremely happy to hear substantial proofs of their glory. I am still hopeful of great things from our army before Boston, when joined by the regiments now forming, which WANT OF BREAD will probably soon fill. Notwithstanding the predilection I have for my countrymen, I remark with grief, that hitherto our troops have displayed but few marks of Spartan or Roman enthusiasm. In the sincerity of my heart, I adjure the reader to believe, that no person is more sensibly afflicted by hearing the enemies of America remark, that no General ever fell singly and so ingloriously unrevenged before the inauspicious affair of Quebec. I am under no doubt, however, that we shall become as famed for martial courage, as any nation ever the sun beheld. With the utmost deference to the honorable Congress, I do not view the most distant gleam of aid from foreign powers. The princes alone, capable of succouring us, are the Sovereigns of France and Spain. If according to our Author, we possess an eighth part of the habitable globe, and actually have a check on the West India commerce of England; the French indigo and other valuable West India commodities, and the Spanish galeons, are in great jeopardy from our power. The French and Spaniards are therefore wretched politicians, if they do not assist England, in reducing her colonies to obedience. ----Pleasantry apart! Can we be so deluded, to expect aid from those princes, which inspiring their subjects with a relish for liberty, might eventually shake their arbitrary thrones.--Natural avowed enemies to our sacred cause: Will they cherish, will they support the flame of liberty in America? Ardently intent on extinguishing its latent dying sparks in their respective dominions. Can we believe that those princes will offer an example so dangerous to their subjects and colonies, by aiding those provinces to independence? If independent, aggrandized by infinite numbers from every part of Europe, this Continent would rapidly attain power astonishing to imagination. Soon, very soon would we be conditioned to conquer Mexico, and all their West India settlements, which to annoy, or possess, we indeed are most happily situated. Simple and obvious as these truths are, can they be unknown to the people and princes of Europe? Say, ye friends of liberty and mankind, would no danger accrue from an army of French and Spaniards in the bosom of America? Let us now briefly view the pre-eminently envied state of Great Britain. If we regard the power of Britain, unembarrassed with Continental connections, and the political balance, we may justly pronounce her what our author does, AMERICA; -- “A match for all Europe.” Amazing were the efforts of England, in the war of Queen Ann, when little benefitted by colony commerce, and e’er she had availed herself of the courage, good sense, and numbers of the people of Scotland and Ireland. That England then prescribed laws to Europe, will be long remembered. Last war, her glory was, if possible, more eminently exalted; in every quarter of the globe did victory hover round her armies and navies, and her fame re-echoed from pole to pole. At present Great Britain is the umpire of Europe. [It is unreasonable to expect Great Britain to merely give up.] Can a reasonable being for a moment believe that Great Britain, whose political existence depends on our constitutional obedience, who but yesterday made such prodigious efforts to save us from France, will not exert herself as powerfully to preserve us from our frantic schemes of independency. Can we a moment doubt, that the Sovereign of Great Britain and his ministers, whose glory as well as personal safety depends on our obedience, will not exert every nerve of the British power, to save themselves and us from ruin. I am perfectly satisfied, that we are in no condition to set the world at defiance, that commerce and the protection of Great Britain will secure us peace, and the friendship of all Europe; but I deny it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free-port, unless they are desirous of depopulating their dominions. His assertions, that barrenness of gold and silver will secure us from invaders, is indeed highly pleasant. Have we not a much better security from invasions, viz. the most numerous and best disciplined army under heaven; or has our author already disbanded it. Pray how much gold and silver do the mine of Flanders produce? And what country so often has seen its unhappy fields drenched with blood, and fertilized with human gore. The princes of Europe have long dreaded the migration of their subjects to America; and we are sensible, that the king of Prussia is said more than once to have hanged Newlanders, or those who seduced his subjects to emigrate. I also humbly apprehend, that Britain is a part of Europe. Now, old gentleman, as you have clearly shewn, that we have a check upon her West India trade, is it her interest to give us a greater check upon it, by permitting America (as you express it,) to become a free port. Can we suppose it to be her interest to lose her valuable commerce to the Colonies, which effectually she would do, by giving up America to become your free port. If therefore it is the interest of all Europe, to have America a free port: The people of Britain are extremely simple to expend so many millions sterling to prevent it. “It is repugnant to the nature of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose that this Continent can long remain subject to any external power.” Antiquity affords us no eclaricisement respecting the future government of America. I see no reason to doubt, that Great Britain, may not long retain us in constitutional obedience. Time, the destroyer of human affairs, may indeed, end her political life by a gentle decay. Like Rome, she may be constrained to defend herself from the Huns, and Alaricks of the North. Ingratefully should we endeavour to precipitate her political demise, she will devise every expedient to retain our obedience; and rather than fail, will participate those provinces amongst the potent states of Europe. “Every quiet method of peace has been ineffectual; our prayers have been rejected with disdain.” I do not indeed agree with the people of England in saying, that those, who so successfully laboured to widen the breach -- disired nothing less than peace. That they who shortly were to command the most numerous and best disciplined army under Heaven, and a navy fit to contend with the fleets of England, imagining the time had found us, disdained to be just. I highly venerate a majority of the Delegates. I have not indeed the honour of knowing all the worthy members; however, I wish the Gentlemen of the Congress, e’er they entered on their important charge, had been better acquainted with the strength of our friends in parliament. I sincerely lament, that the King did not receive the last excellent petition from the Congress; and I as sincerely wish, the Gentlemen of the Congress had not addressed themselves at that juncture, to the people of Ireland. “As to government matters,” (continues our Author,) “it is not in the power of Britain to do this Continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so very distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. The difference between Pennsylavania, and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shews the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.” Until the present unhappy period, Great Britain has afforded to all mankind, the most perfect proof of her wise, lenient, and magnanimous government of the Colonies -- The proofs to which we already have alluded, viz. Our supreme felicity, and amazing increase. . . Innumerable are the advantages of our connection with Britain; and a just dependence on her, is a sure way to avoid the horrors and calamities of war. Wars in Europe, will probably than heretofore become less frequent; religious rancour, which formerly animated princes to arms, is succeeded by a spirit of philosophy extremely friendly to peace. The princes of Europe are or ought to be convinced by sad experience, that the objects of conquest, are vastly inadequate to the immense charge of their armaments. Prudential motives, therefore, in future, will often dictate negociation, instead of war. Be it however admitted, that our speculations are nugatory, and that as usual, we are involved in war. In this case we really do not participate a twentieth part of the misery and hardships of war, experienced by the other subjects of the empire. As future wars will probably be carried on by Britain in her proper element, her success will hardly be doubtful, nor can this be thought audacity, if we remember the great things effected by Britain in her naval wars, then secondary objects to her Germanic connections, to which she now politically seems indifferent. Our sailors navigating our vessels to the West Indies during war, are exempted from impressment, and if our trade to any part of Europe is then stagnated, it flows with uncommon rapidity in the West Indies, nor is the object of captures inconsiderable. Our author surely forgets, that when independent, we cannot trade with Europe, without political connections, and that all treaties made by England or other commercial states are, or ought to be, ultimately subservient to their commerce. “But (says our author,) admitting that matters were made up, what would be the event? I answer the ruin of the Continent, and that for several reasons.” Reconciliation would conduct us to our former happy state. The happiness of the governed is without doubt the true interest of the governors, and if we aim not at independence, there cannot be a doubt, of receiving every advantage relative to laws and commerce that we can desire. This Continent fifty years hence, infallibly will be richer, and much better peopled than at present; consequently abler to effect a revolution. But alas! e’er that period, our author will forever be forgotten; impelled therefore by his villainous ambition, he would rashly precipitate his country into every species of horror, misery, and desolation, rather than forego his fancied protectorship. “But if you have, (says our author) and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are ye unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant, &c. To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores, instructs us to detest is madness and folly.” Ye that are not drunk with fanaticism answer me? Are these words dictated by peace, or base foul revenge, the constant attendant on cowards and sycophants? Does our author so perfectly versed in scripture, mean to conduct us to peace or desolation? or is he fit to legislate for men or devils? Nations after desolating each other, (happily for mankind,) forgive, forget, and reconcile; like individuals who quarrel, reconcile, and become friends. Following the laudable example of the CONGRESS; we lately have most readily shaken hands with our inveterate enemies the Canadians, who have scalped nearly as many of our people as the British troops have done: Why therefore may we not forgive and reconcile -By no means, it blasts our author’s ambitious purposes. The English and Scotch, since the first Edward’s time, have alternately slaughtered each other, (in the field of Bannockburn, more men fell, than are now in the New-England provinces) to the amount of several hundred thousand: And now view each other as subjects, despising the efforts of certain turbulent spirits, tending to rekindle the ancient animosity. Nations, like individuals, in the hour of passion attend to no mediation. But when heartily drubbed, and tired of war, are very readily reconciled, without the intervention of mediators; by whom, belligerents were never reconciled, until their interests or passions dictated the pacification. If we may use our author’s elegant language, mediation is “farsical.” I grant however, that the idea of our forcing England by arms to treat with us is brilliant. “It is unreasonable continues (our author) to suppose that France and Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.” Considering “we have the most numerous, and best disciplined army under Heaven; and a fleet fit to contend with the navy of Britain;” we must suppose our Author’s brain affected by dwelling constantly on his beloved independency, else he would not have the imbecility to require the assistance of France and Spain. The manner of his prevailing on France and Spain to assist us, is also a strong proof of his insanity. Did those powers, hesitate to succour the Scotch rebels in 1745, because they did not declare themselves independent. It then was their interest to create a diversion, alas! too serious in the sequel for the deluded rebels in that kingdom; and were they now interested in aiding us, they undoubtedly would do it in spite of quibbles. In such case, e’er this time, their armies and navies had joined us without interruption: For we must confess, that the efforts of Britain hitherto, would not have precluded the republic of Genoa from aiding us. Suppose our author, had a son or an apprentice eloped to his intimate acquaintance, and desired to enter into his service: If this person replied to the youth; I know your apprenticeship is unexpired, notwithstanding declare yourself a freeman, and I will hire and protect you. I demand, would such odious, ridiculous duplicity, render our supposed person, less criminal in the eyes of our Author, or render the example less dangerous to his own apprentice. “Were a manifesto (says our author) dispatched to foreign courts, &c.” This also is a conclusive proof of our author’s maniacum delirium. Our author “challenges the warmest advocate for reconciliation to shew a single advantage this Continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived: Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe:” Were the author’s assertions respecting our power, as real as delusive, a reconciliation on liberal principles with Great Britain, would be most excellent policy. I wave similarity of manners, laws, and customs, most friendly indeed to perpetual alliance. The greatest part of our plank, staves, shingles, hoops, corn, beef, pork herrings, and many other articles, could find no vent, but in the English Islands. The demand for our flour would also be considerably lessened. The Spaniards have no demand for these articles; and the French little or none. Britain would be a principal mart for our lumber, part of our grain, naval stores, tobacco, and many other articles, which perhaps are not generally wanted in any kingdom in Europe. Notwithstanding our Author’s fine words about toleration: Ye sons of peace and true christainity; believe me, it were folly supreme, madness, to expect angelic toleration from New-England, where she has constantly been detested, persecuted and execrated. Even in vain would our Author: or our CROMWELL cherish toleration; for the people of New-England, not yet arrived in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, would reprobate her.-- It is more than probable to suppose, that the New-England governments would have no objection to an Agrarian law; nor is it unreasonable to suppose, that such division of property would be very agreeable to the soldiers. Indeed their General could not perhaps with safety to his existence as a General, refute them so reasonable a gratification, particularly, as he will have more than one occasion for their services. Let us however admit that our General and troops, contradicting the experience of ages; do not assume the sovereignty. Released from foreign war; we would probably be plunged into all the misery of anarchy and intestine war. Can we suppose that the people of the south, would submit to have the seat of Empire at Philadelphia, or in New England; or that the people oppressed by a change of government, contrasting their misery with their former happy state, would not invite Britain to reassume the sovereignty. Volumes were insufficient to describe the horror, misery and desolation, awaiting the people at large in the Syren form of American independence. In short, I affirm that it would be most excellent policy in those who wish for TRUE LIBERTY to submit by an advantageous reconciliation to the authority of Great Britain; “to accomplish in the long run, what they cannot do by hypocrisy, fraud and force in the short one.” INDEPENDENCE AND SLAVERY ARE SYNONYMOUS TERMS. FINIS
Purchase answer to see full attachment