A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings

Let it not be thought that this is a trifling subject; a matter of no consequence. Mankind are governed by opinion; and while we flatter ourselves that we enjoy independence, because no foreign power can impose laws upon us, we are groaning beneath the tyranny of opinion; a tyranny more severe than the laws of monarchs; a dominion voluntary indeed, but for that reason, more effectual; an authority of manners which commands our services, and sweeps away the fruits of our labor.

I repeat the sentiment with which I began; the revolution of America is yet incomplete. We are now in a situation to answer all the purposes of the European nations; independent in government, and dependent in manners. They give us their fashions, they direct our taste to make a market for their commodities; they engross the profits of our industry, without the hazard of defending us, or the expense of supporting our civil government. A situation more favorable to their interest, or more repugnant to our own, they could not have chosen for us, nor we embraced.

If such is the state of facts, and if the influence of foreign manners does actually defeat the purposes of the revolution; if our implicit submission to the prevailing taste of European courts, involves individuals and the public in unnecessary expenses, it is in the power of a few influential characters in each of our commercial cities to remedy the whole evil. And in a reformation of this kind, the ladies would have no inconsiderable share.

It is really a matter of astonishment, that the pride of the Americans has so long submitted tamely to a foreign yoke. Aside of all regard to interest, we should expect that the idea of being a nation of apes would mortify minds accustomed to freedom of thought, and would prompt them to spurn their chains.

Have the ladies in America no ingenuity, no taste? Do they not understand what dresses are most convenient and elegant? What modes are best adapted to the climate, or other circumstances of this country? They most certainly do. Foreigners acknowlege that the nativ beauty and understanding of the American ladies are not excelled in any country, and equalled in very few. And one would imagin that the modes of embellishing so many personal charms ought not, in all cases, to be prescribed by the milliners and manteau makers on the other side of the Atlantic. A noble pride should forbid that ladies of birth and breeding should be wholly indebted to the taste of others, for the decorations of their beauty.

When the gentlemen in America shall exercise spirit enough to be their own judges of taste in dress: When they have wisdom to consult the circumstances of this country, and fortitude enough to retain a fashion as long as their own interest requires, instead of changing it when other nations direct: When the ladies shall exercise the rights of their sex, and say, we will give the laws of fashion to our own nation, instead of receiving them from another, we will perform our part of the revolution: When both sexes shall take more pride and pleasure in being their own standards, than in being the humble imitators of those who riot on the profits of our commerce; we shall realize a new species of independence; an independence flattering to generous minds, and more productive of wealth than all the laws of power, or the little arts of national policy. And in this revolution of manners, there needs not any sacrifice of real dress. I will venture to estimate, that the retrenching of superfluous articles; articles which constitute no part of dress, and serve but to disfigure an elegant person; articles that are made and sent to us to support the sixpenny day laborers of Europe; I say, a retrenching of these trifling articles only, would be an annual saving to America sufficient to pay one half of the interest of our federal debt. We can throw no blame on foreign nations; they are wise, and profit by our want of spirit and taste.

On the footing that all mankind are brethren, perhaps it is generous in us to assist foreigners, who are a part of the Great Family.

It is to be wished, however, that we might first discharge our honest debts: That the soldier, whose labor and blood have purchased our empire, and whose services have been repaid with a shadow of reward, might be indemnified by the justice of his country: That the widow and orphan might at least receive the stipulated satisfaction for losses which money cannot repair. Yes, let us first be just, and then generous. When we have no better use for our superfluous property, then let us bestow it upon our wretched brethren of the human race. They will repay our charity with gratitude, and bless God that he has peopled one half the world with a race of freemen, to enrich the tyrants, and support the vassals of the other.

In another particular, our dependence on nations farther advanced in society than ourselves, has a very unhappy effect.

I assume it as a fact, conceded by all philosophers and historians, that there has been, in every civilized nation, a particular period of time, peculiarly favorable to literary researches; and that in this period, language and taste arrive to purity; the best authors flourish, and genius is exerted to benefit mankind.

This period in Greece was the age of Themistocles, immediately after the invasion of Xerxes. In Rome, it was the reign of Augustus Cæsar, when a revolution had left the empire in a state of tranquillity. In France, the reign of Louis the XIVth was distinguished for the number and eminence of its authors, and the correctness of taste. The corresponding period of taste in England, commenced about the middle of the sixteenth century, and ended with the reign of George the IId. Scotland was later in improvement; but perhaps has now seen its meridian splendor.

There seems to be a certain point of improvement beyond which every step in refinement is corruption; moral sentiment is postponed to wit, and sense is sacrificed to sound. This has been the case in all nations, and is now true of England. The candid among the nation acknowlege and lament the decline of true taste and science. Very few valuable writings appear in the present age; plays, novels, farces, and compilations fill the catalogue of new publications; and the library of a man of fashion consists of Chesterfield's Letters, Tristram Shandy, and a few comedies.

A gentleman in high office in London, in a letter to an eminent literary character in America, which I had the honor to read, informs, "that so low is the taste of the nation, that were Milton's Poem to be now first published, it would not find purchasers: Music and painting are the only arts that have royal encouragement." He says further, "that there is a national combination to oppose the fame of every American art, production and character." I would hope that this account is an exaggeration of the truth; but we have the best testimony to convince us that every thing is sacrificed to amusement and pleasure.

We ought not therefore to form our taste after such models: In order to write, think and act with propriety, we should go back half a century, to the style and morality of Addison and his cotemporaries; there we may find the most perfect models.

By making the present taste of Europe our standards, we not only debase our own, but we check the attempts of genius in this country.

Eminence is sometimes apt to impose errors upon people, whose respect for the character may silence all scruple, and prevent them from examining into the grounds of his opinion. Such is the implicit confidence reposed in the opinions of certain celebrated writers, that when an American ventures to call in question a received principle or opinion of theirs, his countrymen charge him with arrogance, and exclaim, how should this man be as good a judge of the subject as a foreigner! Such false notions of the perfection of particular character, fetter the mind, and in concert with credulity and idleness, prepare it for the reception of any errors, however enormous.

This same veneration for eminent foreigners, and the bewitching charms of fashion, have led the Americans to adopt the modern corruptions of our language. Very seldom have men examined the structure of the language, to find reasons for their practice. The pronunciation and use of words have been subject to the same arbitrary or accidental changes, as the shape of their garments. My lord wears a hat of a certain size and shape; he pronounces a word in a certain manner; and both must be right, for he is a fashionable man. In Europe this is right in dress; and men who have not an opportunity of learning the just rules of our language, are in some degree excuseable for imitating those whom they consider as superiors. But in men of science, this imitation can hardly be excused.

Our language was spoken in purity about eighty years ago; since which time, great numbers of faults have crept into practice about the theater and court of London. An affected erroneous pronunciation has in many instances taken place of the true; and new words or modes of speech have succeeded the ancient correct English phrases.

Thus we have, in the modern English pronunciation, their natshures, conjunctshures, constitshutions, and tshumultshuous legislatshures; and a long catalogue of fashionable improprieties. These are a direct violation of the rules of analogy and harmony; they offend the ear, and embarrass the language. Time was, when these errors were unknown; they were little known in America before the revolution. I presume we may safely say, that our language has suffered more injurious changes in America, since the British army landed on our shores, than it had suffered before, in the period of three centuries. The bucks and bloods tell us that there is no proper standard in language; that it is all arbitrary. The assertion, however, serves but to show their ignorance. There are, in the language itself, decisive reasons for preferring one pronunciation to another; and men of science should be acquainted with these reasons. But if there were none, and every thing rested on practice, we should never change a general practice without substantial reasons: No change should be introduced, which is not an obvious improvement.

But our leading characters seem to pay no regard to rules, or their former practice. To know and embrace every change made in Great Britain, whether right or wrong, is the extent of their inquiries, and the height of their ambition. It is to this deference we may ascribe the long catalogue of errors in pronunciation and of false idioms which disfigure the language of our mighty fine speakers. And should this imitation continue, we shall be hurried down the stream of corruption, with older nations, and our language, with theirs, be lost in an ocean of perpetual changes. The only hope we can entertain is, that America, driven by the shock of a revolution, from the rapidity of the current, may glide along near the margin with a gentler stream, and sometimes be wafted back by an eddy.

The foregoing remarks suggest some of the causes which operate to defeat the true end of the revolution. Every man sees and feels our political embarrassments; the foes of the revolution ascribe them all to that event, and the friends charge them upon the enmity and resentment of our parent country. Both are wrong. The revolution is, and will ultimately prove, a happy event for us and for the world. The English, as a nation, are wise and respectable: As citizens of the world, we should esteem them: As a commercial people, we should cultivate a friendly intercourse with them; but as a foreign nation, whose political circumstances are very different from ours, we should not make them, in all cases, our standard. I repeat the declaration I before made: The independence of this country is incomplete: There has been a total change in government, with little or no change in the principles which give energy to the operations of government.

In the preceding remarks, I have endeavored to shew in what respect the revolution of America is yet incomplete, and that an independence of manners and opinion is necessary to give full effect to an independence of government. I propose now to make some remarks on government, to state the effects of the revolution on the morals of people, and the influence of money on mens' sense of justice and moral obligation.

It is perhaps a fundamental principle of government, that men are influenced more by habit, than by any abstract ideas of right and wrong. Few people examin into the propriety of particular usages or laws; or if they examin, few indeed are capable of comprehending their propriety. But every man knows what is a law or general practice, and he conforms to it, not because it is right or best, but because it has been the practice. It is for this reason that habits of obedience should not be disturbed. There are perhaps in every government, some laws and customs, which, when examined on theoretical principles, will be found unjust and even impolitic. But if the people acquiesce in those laws and customs, if they are attached to them by habit, it is wrong in the Legislature to attempt an innovation which shall alarm their apprehensions. There are multitudes of absurdities practised in society, in which people are evidently happy. Arraign those absurdities before the tribunal of examination; people may be convinced of their impropriety; they may even be convinced that better schemes may be projected; and yet it might be impossible to unite their opinions so as to establish different maxims. On the other hand, there are many good institutions, in which, however, there may be theoretical faults, which, if called into public view, and artfully represented, might shake the best government on earth.

Speculativ philosophers and historians have often described, and sometimes ridiculed the warmth with which nations have defended errors in religion and government. With the most profound deference for wise and respectable men, I must think they are guilty of a mistake; and that the errors which nations fight to defend, exist only in the heads of these theorists. Whatever speculation may tell us, experience and the peace of society, require us to consider every thing as right, which a nation believes to be so. Every institution, every custom, may be deemed just and proper, which does not produce inconveniencies that the bulk of mankind may see and feel. The tranquillity of society therefore should never be disturbed for a philosophical distinction.

It will perhaps be objected, that these doctrines, if practised, would prevent all improvements, in science, religion and government. By no means; but they point out the method in which all improvements should be made, when opinion and fixed habits are to be overthrown, or changed. They show that all reformation should be left to the natural progress of society, or to the conviction of the mind. They show the hazard and impracticability of making changes, before the minds of the body of the people are prepared for the innovation. I speak not of despotic governments, where the will of the prince is enforced by an army; and yet even absolute tyrants have been assassinated for not attending to the spirit and habits of their subjects.

In vain do rulers oppose the general opinion of the people. By such opposition, Philip IId, of Spain, kept one part of his subjects, for half a century, butchering the other, and in the end, lost one third of his dominions. By not regarding the change of habits in the nation, Charles Ist, of England, lost his head. By carrying his changes too far, Cromwell began to oppose the spirit of the nation, and had he lived to prosecute his system, that spirit would, in a few years, have brought his neck to the block. The general spirit of the nation restored to the throne, the son of the prince, whom that spirit had but a few years before arraigned and condemned. By opposing that spirit, James was obliged to leave his kingdom, and the sense of the nation still excludes the family which, by their own law of succession, has the best title to the throne. But there is no prescription against general opinion; no right that can enter the list against the sense of a nation; that sense, which after all our reasoning, will forever determin what is best.

The truth of these remarks is proved by examples in this country. An immense revenue might have been drawn from America without resistance, in almost any method but that which the British parliament adopted. But their first attempts were made upon articles of common necessity; the attempts were too visible; the people felt and resisted. Their apprehensions were alarmed; their fears, whether well founded or imaginary, were multiplied and confirmed by newspaper rhapsodies, and finally produced a combined opposition to all British taxation. Then Great Britain should have compounded; she did not; she opposed the general sense of three millions of her subjects, and lost the whole.

A dispute existed between Connecticut and Pensylvania, respecting a tract of land; a federal court decided the jurisdiction, or State claim, in favor of Pensylvania; five thousand inhabitants, seated on the lands, acknowlege the jurisdiction, but contend that their original purchase, and subsequent labor, entitle them to the lands. Notwithstanding the invalidity of their State claim, the settlers determin to maintain their lands. The question of right is at once suspended, and the only inquiry is, which is the best policy, to indemnify a few individuals by a pecuniary composition, or sacrifice five thousand subjects. This question, left to the commonwealth, would be decided by a great majority, in favor of the settlers, and against the very principles of right on which the State holds the jurisdiction.

I am not competent to judge of the merits of the dispute between New York and Vermont; but if the usurpation of Vermont were a conceded fact, and that usurpation to be defended by arms, and the question of granting them independence were left to the State of New York, I am confident that nine tenths of the people would decide for the independence of Vermont against their own rights.

Thus it often happens, that a general opinion, grounded on rational expediency, will, and ought to decide political questions, contrary to the strict principles of justice and equity.

I would, by no means, be understood to defend, by such doctrines, the insurrections of a neighboring State. I reprobate every thing that wears the least appearance of opposition to lawful authority. It is evident however, that the Legislature of Massachusetts were too inattentive to the general spirit of the State. The murmurs of the people were heard long before they broke out into rebellion, and were treated with too much neglect. They were a proof at least that something was wrong. This the Legislature acknowleged in their late acts, and the complaints of the populace might once have been silenced by such conciliatory measures.

But an opposition so violent must suddenly cease, or acquire system. In the latter case, the demands of the insurgents will rise in proportion to their strength; they will ask unreasonable concessions, and the sword must decide their claims. The insurgents took wrong steps to obtain redress; they should have rested their agrievances on petitions, and the event of an election; but one rash step leads to a second, and to a third. These fatal effects of popular discontent afford one useful lesson, that rulers should not attempt to carry a measure against the general voice of a people.35 But a question will arise, how far may the people be opposed, when their schemes are evidently pernicious? I answer, this can never happen thro design; and errors, even of the populace, may gradually be removed. If the people cannot be convinced, by reason and argument, of the impolicy or injustice of a favorite scheme, we have only to wait for the consequences to produce conviction. All people are not capable of just reasoning on the great scale of politics; but all can feel the inconveniencies of wrong measures, and evils of this kind generally furnish their own remedy. All popular Legislatures are liable to great mistakes. Many of the acts of the American Legislatures, respecting money and commerce, will, to future generations, appear incredible. After repeated experiments, people will be better informed, and astonished that their fathers could make such blunders in legislation.

If the people of this State36 are not already convinced, they certainly will be, that the addition of 150,000l. of paper, to the current specie of the State, did not increase the permanent value of circulating medium a single farthing. They were perhaps told that such a sum of paper would shut up the specie, or enable the merchant to export it; but their jealousy made them believe these the suggestions of interest; and nothing but the experiment could satisfy their wishes. Every man of reflection must regret that he is subject to the evils consequent on popular mistakes in judgement; but this is the price of our independence and our forms of government.

Let us attend to the immediate and necessary consequences of the American revolution.

So great an event as that of detaching millions of people from their parent nation, could not have been effected without the operation of powerful causes. Nothing but a series of real or imaginary evils could have shaken the habits by which we were governed, and produced a combined opposition against the power of Great Britain. I shall not enumerate any of these evils; but observe that such evils, by twenty years operation upon the fears or feelings of the Americans, had alienated their affections or weakened those habits of respect, by which they were predisposed to voluntary obedience. When a government has lost respect, it has lost the main pillar of its authority. Not even a military force can supply the want of respect among subjects. A change of sentiment prepares the way for a change of government, and when that change of sentiment had become general in America, nothing could have prevented a revolution.

But it is more easy to excite fears than to remove them. The jealousy raised in the minds of Americans against the British government, wrought a revolution; but the spirit did not then subside; it changed its object, and by the arts of designing men, and the real distresses consequent on such a political storm, was directed against our own governments. The restraints imposed by respect and habits of obedience were broken thro, and the licentious passions of men set afloat.

Nothing can be so fatal to morals and the peace of society, as a violent shock given to public opinion or fixed habits. Polemic disputes have often destroyed the friendship of a church, and filled it, not only with rancor, but with immorality. Public opinion therefore in religion and government, the great supports of society, should never be suddenly unhinged. The separation of America, however, from all dependence on European government, could not have been effected without previously attacking and changing opinion. It was an essential step, but the effects of it will not easily be repaired. That independence of spirit which preceded the commencement of hostilities, and which victory has strengthened; that love of dominion, inherent in the mind of man, which our forms of government are continually flattering; that licentiousness of inquiry which a jealousy of rights first produced and still preserves, cannot be controled and subdued, but by a long series of prudent and vigorous measures.

Perhaps the present age will hardly see the restoration of perfect tranquillity. But the spirit and principles, which wrought our separation from Great Britain, will mostly die with the present generation; the next generation will probably have new habits of obedience to our new governments; and habits will govern them, with very little support from law.

The force of habit in government is most strikingly illustrated by the example of Connecticut. Most of the laws, customs and institutions, which the people brought with them from England, or which they introduced, on their first settlement, remain to this day, with such small alterations only as would naturally be made in the progress of society and population.

The government of Connecticut had formerly little more than a nominal dependence on England; independence therefore required but a little change of the old constitution. The habits of the people have not been materially changed; their respect for the government has not been suspended nor diminished. It would therefore be extremely difficult to raise an insurrection in that State against their own government;37 for they have not been accustomed to dispute the propriety of their established maxims and laws. Whatever alterations in their constitution, a discerning Legislator might suggest, it would be highly impolitic to attempt any changes, which should disturb public opinion or alarm apprehension. When a law or custom becomes inconvenient, the people will feel the evil and apply a remedy.