American History Essay

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles. 

I think it no difficult matter to point out many advantages which will certainly attend our reconciliation and connection with Great Britain on a firm constitutional plan. I shall select a few of these; and that their importance may be more clearly discerned, I shall afterwards point out some of the evils which inevitably must attend our separating from Britain and declaring for independency. On each article I shall study brevity. 1. By a reconciliation with Britain, a period [end] would be put to the present calamitous war by which so many lives have been lost, and so many more must be lost if it continues. This alone is an advantage devoutly to he wished for. This author says “The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘’Tis time to part.’” I think they cry just the reverse. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries It is time to be reconciled. It is time to lay aside those animosities which have pushed on Britons to shed the blood of Britons. It is high time that those who are connected by the endearing ties of religion, kindred and country should resume their former friendship and be united in the bond of mutual affection, as their interests are inseparably united. 2. By a Reconciliation with Great Britain, peace that fairest offspring and gift of Heaven will be restored. In one respect, peace is like health: we do not sufficiently know its value but by its absence. What uneasiness and anxiety, what evils has this short interruption of peace with the parent state brought on the whole British empire! Let every man only consult his feelings I except my antagonist3 and it will require no great force of rhetoric to convince him that a removal of those evils and a restoration of peace would be a singular advantage and blessing. 3 I.e., every man but Paine. “I cannot persuade myself that such fire and fury are genuine marks of patriotism.” National Humanities Center “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmasked, 1776, selections__ 3 3. Agriculture, commerce, and industry would resume their wonted vigor. At present, they languish and droop, both here and in Britain, and must continue to do so while this unhappy contest remains unsettled. 4. By a connection with Great Britain, our trade would still have the protection of the greatest naval power in the world. England has the advantage in this respect of every other state, whether of ancient or modern times. Her insular situation, her nurseries [training] for seamen, the superiority of those seamen above others these circumstances, to mention no other, combine to make her the first maritime power in the universe. Such exactly is the power whose protection we want for our commerce. To suppose, with our author, that we should have no war were we to revolt from England is too absurd to deserve a confutation. I could just as soon set about refuting the reveries of some brain-sick enthusiast. Past experience shows that Britain is able to defend our commerce and our coasts, and we have no reason to doubt of her being able to do so for the future. 5. The protection of our trade, while connected with Britain, will not cost a fiftieth part of what it must cost were we ourselves to raise a naval force sufficient for the purpose. 6. Whilst connected with Great Britain, we have a bounty on almost every article of exportation, and we may be better supplied with goods by her than we could elsewhere. What our author says is true “that our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will” but we may buy them dearer [at more cost] and of worse quality in one place than another. The manufactures of Great Britain confessedly surpass any in the world particularly those in every kind of metal which we want [lack] most, and no country can afford linens and woolens of equal quality cheaper. 7. When a Reconciliation is effected, and things return into the old channel, a few years of peace will restore everything to its pristine state. Emigrants will flow in as usual from the different parts of Europe. Population will advance with the same rapid progress as formerly, and our lands will rise in value. These advantages are not imaginary but real. They are such as we have already experienced; and such as we may derive from a connection with Great Britain for ages to come. Each of these might easily be enlarged on and others added to them; but I only mean to suggest a few hints to the reader. Let us now, if you please, take a view of the other side of the question. Suppose we were to revolt from Great Britain, declare ourselves independent, and set up a Republic of our own what would the consequences be? I stand aghast at the prospect my blood runs chill when I think of the calamities, the complicated evils that must ensue, and may be clearly foreseen. It is impossible for any man to foresee them all. 1. All our property throughout the continent would be unhinged. The greatest confusion and most violent convulsions would take place. It would not be here as it was in England at the Revolution in 1688. That revolution was not brought about by a defeasance4 or disannulling the right of succession. James II, by abdicating the throne, left it vacant for the next in succession; accordingly his eldest daughter and her husband stepped in. Every other matter went on in the usual regular way, and the constitution,5 instead of being dissolved, was strengthened. But in case of our revolt, the old constitution would be totally subverted. The common bond that tied us together, and by which our property was secured, would be snapped asunder. It is not to be doubted but our Congress would endeavor to apply some remedy for those evils; but with all deference to that respectable body, I do 4 Defeasance: annulment, forfeiture. 5 English constitution of 1688. “Suppose we were to revolt from Great Britain, declare ourselves independent, and set up a Republic of our own what would the consequences be? I stand aghast at the prospect my blood runs chill when I think of the calamities, the complicated evils that must ensue, and may be clearly foreseen.” National Humanities Center “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmasked, 1776, selections__ 4 not apprehend that any remedy in their power would be adequate, at least for some time. I do not choose to be more explicit; but l am able to support my opinion. 2. What a horrid situation would thousands be reduced to who have taken the oath of allegiance to the King: yet contrary to their oath, as well as inclination, must be compelled to renounce that allegiance or abandon all their property in America! How many thousands more would be reduced to a similar situation; who, although they took not that oath, yet would think it inconsistent with their duty and a good conscience to renounce their sovereign. I dare say these will appear trifling difficulties to our author; but whatever he may think, there are thousands and thousands who would sooner lose all they had in the world, nay life itself, than thus wound their conscience. 3. By a declaration for independency, every avenue to an accommodation with Great Britain would be closed. The sword only could then decide the quarrel, and the sword would not be sheathed till one had conquered the other. The importance of these colonies to Britain need not be enlarged on; it is a thing so universally known. The greater their importance is to her, so much the more obstinate will her struggle be not to lose them. The independency of America would, in the end, deprive her of the West Indies, shake her empire to the foundation, and reduce her to a state of the most mortifying insignificance. Great Britain therefore must, for her own preservation, risk every thing, and exert her whole strength to prevent such an event from taking place. This being the case 4. Devastation and ruin must mark the progress of this war along the sea coast of America. Hitherto, Britain has not exerted her power. Her number of troops and ships of war here at present is very little more than she judged expedient in time of peace the former does not amount to 12,000 men nor the latter to 40 ships, including frigates. Both she, and the colonies, hoped for and expected an accommodation. Neither of them has lost sight of that desirable object. The seas have been open to our ships, and although some skirmishes have unfortunately happened, yet a ray of hope still cheered both sides that peace was not distant. But as soon as we declare for independency, every prospect of this kind must vanish. Ruthless war, with all its aggravated horrors, will ravage our once happy land our seacoasts and ports will be ruined, and our ships taken. Torrents of blood will be spilt, and thousands reduced to beggary and wretchedness. This melancholy contest would last till one side conquered. Supposing Britain to be victorious; however high my opinion is of British generosity, I should be exceedingly sorry to receive terms from her in the haughty tone of a conqueror. Or supposing such a failure of her manufactures, commerce, and strength that victory should incline to the side of America; yet who can say in that case what extremities her sense of resentment and self-preservation will drive Great Britain to? For my part, I should not in the least be surprised if, on such a prospect as the independency of America, she would parcel out this continent to the different European powers. Canada might be restored to France, Florida to Spain, with additions to each. Other states also might come in for a portion. Let no man think this chimerical or improbable. The independency of America would be so fatal to Britain that she would leave nothing in her power undone to prevent it. I believe as firmly as I do my own existence that, if every other method failed, she would try some such expedient as this to disconcert American Antiquarian Society/NL Plain Truth, another Loyalist rebuttal to Paine’s Common Sense,was published in 1776 by James Chalmers under the pseudonym Candidus. National Humanities Center “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmasked, 1776, selections__ 5 our scheme of independency; and let any man figure to himself the situation of these British colonies if only Canada were restored to France! 5. But supposing once more that we were able to cut off every regiment that Britain can spare or hire, and to destroy every ship she can send that we could beat off any other European power that would presume to intrude upon this continent: Yet, a republican form of government would neither suit the genius of the people nor the extent of America. In nothing is the wisdom of a legislator more conspicuous than in adapting his government to the genius, manners, disposition and other circumstances of the people with whom he is concerned. If this important point is overlooked, confusion will ensue. His system will sink into neglect and ruin. Whatever check or barriers may be interposed, nature will always surmount them and finally prevail. It was chiefly by attention to this circumstance that Lycurgus and Solon6 were so much celebrated and that their respective republics rose afterwards to such eminence and acquired such stability. The Americans are properly Britons. They have the manners, habits, and ideas of Britons, and have been accustomed to a similar form of government. But Britons never could bear the extremes either of monarchy or republicanism. Some of their kings have aimed at despotism but always failed. Repeated efforts have been made towards democracy, and they equally failed. Once indeed republicanism triumphed over the constitution; the despotism of one person7 ensued: both were finally expelled. The inhabitants of Great Britain were quite anxious for the restoration of royalty in 1660, as they were for its expulsion in 1642 and for some succeeding years. If we may judge of future events by past transactions in similar circumstances, this would most probably be the case if America were a republican form of government adopted in our present ferment. After much blood was shed, those confusions would terminate in the despotism of some one successful adventurer; and should the Americans be so fortunate as to emancipate themselves from that thraldom, perhaps the whole would end in a limited monarchy after shedding as much more blood. Limited monarchy is the form of government which is most favorable to liberty which is best adapted to the genius and temper of Britons; although here and there among us a crack-brained zealot for democracy or absolute monarchy may be sometimes found. Besides the unsuitableness of the republican form to the genius of the people, America is too extensive for it. That form may do well enough for a single city, or small territory; but would be utterly improper for such a continent as this. America is too unwieldy for the feeble, dilatory administration of democracy. Rome had the most extensive dominions of any ancient republic. But it should be remembered that, very soon after the spirit of conquest carried the Romans beyond the limits that were proportioned to their constitution, they fell under a despotic yoke. A very few years had elapsed from the time of their conquering Greece and first entering Asia, till the battle of Pharsalia where Julius Caesar put an end to the liberties of his country. . . . 6. In fine [summary]. Let us for a moment imagine that an American republic is formed, every obstacle having been surmounted, yet a very serious article still remains to be inquired into, viz. [namely], the expense necessary to support it. It behooves those who have any property to think of this part of the business. As for our author, it is more than probable he has nothing to lose and, like others in the same predicament, is willing to trust to the chapter of accidents and chances for something in the 6 In ancient Greece, the creators of the Spartan and Athenian legal systems. 7 Oliver Cromwell, who established a brief republic in England in the mid 1650s, after the execution of King Charles I, but exercised tyrannical authority. “Limited monarchy is the form of government which is most favorable to liberty  which is best adapted to the genius and temper of Britons; although here and there among us a crack-brained zealot for democracy or absolute monarchy may be sometimes found.” National Humanities Center “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmasked, 1776, selections__ 6 I am fully, firmly, and conscientiously persuaded that our author’s scheme of independence and republicanism is big with ruin with inevitable ruin to America. Against this scheme, therefore, as an honest man, as a friend to human nature, I must and will bear testimony. scramble. He cannot lose, but may possible gain. His own maxim is certainly true “The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture,” and vice versa, say I. . .