Indiana University Bloomington Political Thought What is wrong with simple government, according to Chalmers, and why is the democratic form of simple gove

Indiana University Bloomington Political Thought What is wrong with simple government, according to Chalmers, and why is the democratic form of simple government particularly unsuitable for British colonists in North America?Submit your answer through the Assignment listing on Canvas by 5pm on September 23rd. The assignment is worth 8 points. Your submission will be evaluated on the basis of how well you demonstrate a complete understanding of Chalmers’s argument.Your submission should not exceed 150 carefully chosen words. Submission exceeding this limit will be penalized. Any quotations will require reference to the source material, and those references will not count towards the word count.Late submissions will receive a zero. If you experience technical difficulties with Canvas, then you must submit your answer by email to the instructor on time to provide proof of completion within the time limit. 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 …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment