Description
evaluate what the American Revolution meant to at least three different actors and whether or not it was, in your estimation, overall a “radical” event. Choose at least three primary documents to complete this assignment. You will want to examine them to determine how different people (including, for instance, colonial politicians, farmers, slaves, women, male revolutionaries, monarchists, etc.) from the period perceived the Revolution and its meaning. What were their concerns, their experiences, their values, and their biases? Your answer needs to show a clear understanding of how each of these perspectives fit within their political and social context by using the textbook, videos, and other readings to understand where each voice was coming from.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Unit 3 Primary Sources
Declarations of the Stamp Act Congress in New York, 1765
Taking the lead from Massachusetts, representatives of nine colonies met in 1765
in Manhattan to protest the new tax measures being advocated by Parliament. This
would not be the last time in which colonial legislatures asserted a right to meet
and confer in order to challenge parliamentary authority over the colonies
The members of this congress…with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the
present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on the continent…make
the following declarations…respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the
colonists…
2. That his Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent
rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the Kingdom of Great
Britain.
3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted
right of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own
consent, given personally, by their representatives….
6. That…it is unreasonable that the people of Great Britain [should] grant to his
Majesty the property of the colonists…
7. That the late act of Parliament entitled, an act for granting and applying certain
Stamp Duties…by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies…by
extending the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty [courts without juries]…have a
manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberty of the colonists….
12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend upon the
full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great
Britain, mutually affectionate and advantageous….
Lastly…it is the indispensable duty of these colonies to the best of sovereigns…to
procure the repeal of the Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties…and
of the other late Acts for the restriction of American commerce.
British Parliament Debates How to Respond to Colonial Tax Revolt, 1775
Although the vote in parliament favor of the Coercive Acts (which closed the Port
of Boston and eliminated popular government in Massachusetts) was not close , it
is important to understand that there were those in parliament who saw things in
similar fashion as the Americans.
General Conway: The consequence of this bill will be very important and
dangerous. Parliament cannot take away a right without hearing the parties. The
question then simply, is this- Have they been heard? What! Because the papers say
a murder had been committed, does it follow they have proved it?…. Gentlemen
will consider, that this is not only the charter of Boston, or of any particular port,
but the charter of ALL America. Are the Americans not to be heard?…I do think,
and it is my sincere opinion, that we are the Aggressors and Innovators, and not the
Colonies. We have irritated and forced upon them for these six or seven years past.
We have enacted such a variety of laws, with these new taxes, together with a
refusal to repeal the trifling duty on tea: all these things have served no other
purpose but to distress and perplex….Have you not a legislative right over Ireland?
And yet no one will dare say we have a right to tax. These acts respecting America,
will involve this country and its ministers in misfortunes, and I wish I may not add,
in ruin…
Mr. Rigby: I think this country has a right to tax America; but I do not say that I
would put any new tax on at this particular crisis; but when things are returned to a
peaceable state, I would then begin to exercise it. And I am free to declare my
opinion that I think we have a right to tax Ireland, if there was a necessity to do so,
in order to help the mother country. If Ireland was to rebel and resist our laws, I
would tax it. The mother country has an undoubted right and control over the
whole of its colonies. Again, sir, a great deal has been said concerning requisition.
Pray, in what manner is it to be obtained? Is the king to demand it, or are we, the
legislative power of this country to send a very civil, polite gentlemen over to treat
with their assemblies?…Is he to tell the speaker that we have been extremely ill
used by our neighbors the French. That they have attacked us in several quarters;
that the finances of this country are in a bad state; and therefore we desire you will
be kind enough to assist us, and give us some money? Is this to be the language of
this country to that; and are we thus to go cap in hand?
Mr. C. Fox: I believe America is wrong in resisting against this country, with
regard to legislative authority….But, sir, there has been a constant conduct
practiced in this country, consisting of violence and weakness: I wish those
measures may not continue, nor can I think that the stamp-act would have been
submitted to without resistance, if the administration had not been changed; the
present bill before you…irritates the minds of the people, but does not correct the
deficiencies of [our] government [in the colonies]….
Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter, relative to the government of America,
from a governor in America, to the Board of Trade, shewing that, at the most quiet
of times [formerly] the dispositions to oppose the laws of this country were
strongly ingrafted in them, and that all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for
independence. If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has
none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ. I do believe it, and it is my firm opinion,
that the opposition to the measures of the legislature of this country, is a
determined prepossession of the idea of total independence.
Thomas Paine Encourages Independence, 1776
Born in Britain, Thomas Paine had failed at several different careers before
receiving a letter of recommendation from Benjamin Franklin to go and live in
Philadelphia in 1774 where he became the editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine. In
1776 Paine anonymously wrote Common Sense, which supposedly sold over
100,000 copies and helped to push the colonists toward independence.
Alas, we have long been led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices
to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without
considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us
from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her account….Much
has been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction
they might bid defiance to the world. But…this continent would never suffer itself
to be drained of inhabitants, to the support the British arms in either Asia, Africa,
or Europe. Besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our
plan is commerce, and that, well attended to will use the peace and friendship of all
of Europe, because it is the interest of all Europe to have in America a free port….I
challenge the warmest advocate of reconciliation to shew a single advantage…by
being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage
is derived….
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant,
stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath
been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her- Europe
regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O!
receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
Abigail and John Adams Debate Meaning (and Limits) of Independence, 1776
In these letters, Abigail Adams tries to convince her husband John to include the
rights of women in the possible document favoring independence from Britain,
which was supported by many delegates, such as John. John’s response reveals the
fundamental social conservatism typical of many- though not all- of the founding
leaders of the United States.
I long to hear that you have declared an independency- and by the way in the new
Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire that
you would remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them
than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the
Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and
attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to have a rebellion….but [it
is hoped that men] will willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more
tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the
vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of
Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the slaves of your
Sex. Regard us then as Beings places by providence under your protection and in
imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
John Adams’ response: As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but
laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government
everywhere. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient- that schools and
Colleges were grown turbulent- that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes
grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another
Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.—
This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine
systems…[but] we have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this,
which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope
General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight….I begin to think the
[British] ministry as deep as they are wicked. After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers
[speculators], Trimmers [political opportunists], Bigots, Canadians, Indians,
Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholics, Scotch
Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated the [missing text] to demand new
Privileges and threaten to rebel.
Lemuel Haynes Talks about the Meaning of Revolution for African-Americans,
1776
To affirm, that an Englishmen has a right to his Liberty, is a truth which has Been
so clearly Evinced, Especially of Late, that to spend time illustrating [it]…would
be superfluous….But I query, whether Liberty is so contracted a principle as to be
confined to any nation under Heaven; nay, I think it not hyperbolical to affirm, that
Even an African, has Equally as good a right to his Liberty in common with
Englishmen…
It hath pleased god to ‘make of one Blood all nations of men, for to dwell upon the
face of the Earth….’ Those privileges that are granted to us By the Divine Being,
no one has the Least right to take them from us without our consent; and there is
Not the Least precept or practice, in the Sacred Scriptures, that constitutes a Black
man a Slave, any more than a white one….. [therefore] Break these intolerable
yokes…least they be [placed] on your own necks, and you Sink under them, for
god will not hold you guiltless.
Unit 3 Lecture: Contested Revolutions, 1775-1800
The signing of the Declaration of Independence, in July 1776, occurred against a
backdrop of crisis and division in the former mainland British colonies. The British military, this
time under William and John Howe, began a new, wider assault on the colonies by occupying
New York City in 1776; word had also come of the offer made by the Virginia royal governor,
Lord Dunmore, to arm slaves for actions against the patriot “traitors.” On top of this the nagging
concern confronted Americans regarding how to create and sustain an independent government,
both at the level of the states, as well as at the level of Congress, which would soon be termed a
Confederation. Given the deep suspicion of the colonists toward central authority (since they
were fighting a war against it), it is not hard to understand why the first state constitutions
favored the lower houses, and otherwise tried to thwart any attempt to give any one man too
much power in the office of governor. In addition, these states dragged their feet when it came to
approving any sort of document affirming new powers to Congress, or to the Confederation.
And, on a related note, the states proved completely inept or unwilling to properly fund
Washington’s Continental Army, which was the only real example of a national institution,
especially during the 1770s. In spite of these challenges, however, the patriots demonstrated a
determination to prosecute a guerilla war, especially in the areas away from the seacoasts and
from redcoat control, which countered the constant threat of Washington’s Army falling apart.
With the escalation of the war to the New York/New Jersey area by the fall of 1776,
Washington purposefully placed his fragile army in harms way in order to rally patriot support,
and was lucky that General Howe proved to be more willing to try to reestablish colonial loyalty
than in pursuing Washington’s army. Howe essentially let Washington retreat from Brooklyn,
just east of the main city of New York on Manhattan, all the way north to Peekskill, New York
where Washington crossed the Hudson and retreated back south, parallel to New York city, and
into New Jersey. There he mounted a surprise offensive at Trenton and at Princeton, around New
Years 1777, which further revealed that Washington could keep the Continental Army together,
as well as challenge British redcoats. This was true even as the British occupied New York City
and were about to occupy the colonial capital at Philadelphia. But these facts did not matter to
many Americans supportive of revolution: the important point was that Washington’s Army did
not lose its resolve. The patriots also kept their resolve in spite of the loss of their capital,
Philadelphia, in the fall of 1777. In European warfare, to capture your enemy’s capital was
everything. But in the sparsely populated, non-urban United States, the loss of their capital was
more of an embarrassed inconvenience for the Americans. Congress simply moved to New
Jersey.
In addition, the redcoats, while succeeding at taking port cities, were no match for the
deep forests of the mainland interior. In the fall of 1777, the British failed miserably under John
Burgoyne to defeat American forces in upstate New York. Burgoyne, who did not coordinate his
movements with Howe so that Howe might bring him necessary reinforcements, found his long
supply lines cut by colonial militia under John Stark. Burgoyne also lost Hessians and natives
along the way. In October of 1777, Burgoyne ended up surrendering his entire army of more than
6,000 men to the forces of Continental Army General Horatio Gates. This victory not only
revealed to Americans the weakness of the British when trying to subdue areas away from the
seacoasts, but proved to be the tipping point that caused the French to ally with the Americans.
This was no small achievement, since in addition to men and money, the French would also
mobilize their navy on behalf of the American patriots. With their navy, the French could distract
the British all over the world, in addition to cutting off supplies and reinforcements to the British
in the United States (this is in fact what happened at the final battle of Yorktown in 1781). By
supporting the Americans, the French hoped to win territory back from the British, or at least
damage their inveterate foe; however, in hindsight, the Americans gained far more from this
alliance than did the French.
Now that the war had escalated to the point of a global conflict, there was little
restraining the British from trying to incite domestic insurrections within their rebellious colonies
so as to destroy the resilience of the patriot cause. It was not that difficult to convince native
tribes that the Americans were their enemy, since colonists had been aggressively moving in on
tribal land in the Ohio valley and Kentucky since the late 1760s. Most natives- if they chose to
support a side in the Revolution- chose the British, but many natives understood that there would
be no winners if and when warfare came to the frontier. But the war came by 1778, with
Burgoyne’s penetration into upstate New York, and the resulting mobilization of natives in
support of Britain. With the help of tribal leaders such as Joseph Brant, the frontier regions of
western New York and of Pennsylvania were now subject to native attacks. The same was true in
the Ohio valley, where in 1779 the patriot officer George Rogers Clark mounted a successful
offensive against tribes such as the Delaware, Creek, and Shawnee (who were often though not
always acting as British agents), only to have the Americans routed by 1782. “Indian hating,” as
it has been termed by historians, became a normal fact of life on the frontier, as the Americans
were all too happy to use native support for the British as an excuse to exterminate native
peoples. Infamously, at Gnaddenhutten, in the Ohio territory, American forces outright
massacred a hundred unarmed Christian women and children, many of whom were praying as
the onslaught occurred.
As the British war effort escalated and intensified, slaves were also mobilized by the
British, though unlike the natives, they were not nearly as one-sided in their support for the King.
But it remains the case that the British were the first to offer freedom to male slaves who joined
the British military, with Lord Dunmore’s offer to slaves in late 1775. Dunmore formed his
“African brigade,” and when he lost power, simply removed them to the British loyalist
stronghold of New York city in 1777. It has been said that hundreds of blacks tried to reach
Manhattan island by ferry, and that the British had to shut it down for fear of too many
“indigent” blacks. But elsewhere in the colonies the British welcomed American slaves into their
ranks: in late 1777 slaves fled to Howe’s army as he took Philadelphia, and by 1781, Lord
Cornwalis was in the possession of hundreds of American slaves as he made preparation for the
final battle at Yorktown. But as a reminder of the pervasive racism of the eighteenth century,
when supplies ran low for his troops during the patriot siege of Yorktown, Cornwalis chased his
African-American troops away into the line of fire, and they were predictably mowed down by
patriot shelling. Therefore, if you were an African-American in the Revolutionary War, you
would not automatically assume the British to really be your friends, but rather that they were
opportunistically taking advantage of your labor. This may explain why several thousand former
slaves fought for the patriot cause, though it should also be noted that in New England, white
patriots began to support emancipation efforts during the drafting of state constitutions in the late
1770s. In any event, it has been said that both in the Continental Army, as well as in the
individual militias, that many of the Revolutionary War units were as racially integrated as any
in American history prior to World War II. As a result of fighting for either side, as well as
because of the dislocations of battle which allowed for slaves to escape, it has been estimated
that 10,000 slaves were freed during the war itself, and this number represented approximately
6% of the total number of African-Americans enslaved before the war. Of more importance for
the patriot war effort, the British use of black slaves (which probably did not amount to more
than the single thousands) did not make up for the determination of patriots to expel a foreign
occupying force. Slaves- not unlike native Americans- could not be relied upon by the British to
win the war.
The violence of war freed several thousands of slaves, and these freedmen could work on
the consciences of many whites (particularly in New England and in the Quaker strongholds
around Philadelphia) to free other bondspeople. Also in the North, gradual emancipation laws
slowly came into existence, as can be seen in some of the new state constitutions. While hardly
freeing all slaves at once, such laws laid the framework whereby eight states would be free of
slavery by the early 1800s. “Enlightenment” ideals regarding human freedom did make some
headway among some Revolutionaries, and would lay the foundations for later abolitionist
movements. And yet, slavery not only was not abolished at the Constitutional Convention of
1787, but rather was recognized as a legitimate form of private property in the Federal
Constitution. It would prove difficult even for free blacks to attain voting rights in the new
American republic, and slavery itself would spread west with the development of the cotton gin
in the early 1800s. Most white Americans did not and could not see African-Americans as equals
until the necessity of war made emancipation feasible in the 1860s, during another war (the Civil
War) which in many ways proved to be more revolutionary than the actual Revolution.
Although white women fared better than slaves in the young United States, a similarly
ambivalent legacy can be seen for the Revolution when it came to gender. The Revolution did
nothing to immediately change divorce law, or property law- both of which worked to the
detriment of women. Anglo-American law operated under the assumption that a women’s legal
identity was literally merged into that of her husbands, so that she was not even considered a
person, in many respects. These laws existed in addition to the lack of voting rights, or the lack
of employment options in the male-dominated world of the professions of law, medicine,
education, or the religious ministry. Yet as was the case with African-Americans, the Revolution
allowed women to take small steps toward realizing a greater sphere of influence and
responsibility within the republic. During the imperial protests against Britain in the 1760s and
1770s, for example, women signed documents pledging their families’ support for the boycott,
and during the war, several elite women published articles in newspapers or ran charity drives for
the support of troops. Some women even accompanied Washington’s army into battle. In these
ways and in others, women were politicized. Indeed the logic of a republic, where the leaders of
polity can be no more moral nor educated than the citizens they lead also mandated that women
receive some sort of education if only for the benefit of the sons who were then responsible for
being mature citizens or political leaders. It should not be surprising, then, that beginning in the
late 1700s, several female academies came into existence, which offered some women (usually
elite ones) a better education than had been available earlier. The fact that American women
eventually embraced all sorts of reform efforts in the nineteenth century- including even a
woman’s rights movement whose founding document echoed the Declaration of Independenceall speak to the longer term challenges to patriarchy originating with the Revolutionary
generation’s assault on entrenched privilege.
However, there was one group who benefitted little from all of the “rights talk” of the
Revolutionary era: Native Americans. Subject to white disease, land fraud, and often addicted to
commodities sold them at ridiculously high prices by whites, natives repeatedly found
themselves pushed to the margins (or worse) within the new American polity. And unlike for the
minority of free African-Americans living in northeastern towns and cities, it seemed that
assimilation was never an option for the indigenous tribes. Beginning in the 1780s and 1790s, a
determined American power decided to back up its western settlers with military force to clear
away large sections of the Ohio Valley and lower Mississippi Valley for white settlement. As
will be discussed in the following chapter, the 1780s and 1790s saw an increase in so-called
“Indian hating” in the trans-Appalachian west, best associated with the career and ideas of “mad”
Anthony Wayne. The constitution made no reference to natives, but did restrict naturalization for
citizenship to white males. This simple reference to race, made almost as an afterthought,
revealed the cultural and racial limitations of a republic that would be built in large part by
expropriating slave labor and native land.
Unit 2 Primary Source Documents
Richard Ligon on Barbados, 1657
Richard Ligon was a hapless merchant who took the risk of going to Barbados to
try to regain his fortune lost in business difficulties in England in the 1640s.
Unfortunately, all that he acquired in the Caribbean was bad health from fevers,
and this forced Ligon to return to England in the 1650s, where he died not long
after having served time in debtor’s prison.
I can name a planter here that feeds daily two hundred mouths [meaning black
slaves], and keeps them in such order, as there are no mutinies among them; and
yet of several nations from Africa. The first work to be considered is
weeding…after which comes the planting [of the sugar cane]…The next thing he is
to consider is his factory…[consisting] of the Boiling-house…the filling room, the
Still house, and Curing House; and in all these there are great casualties [among
the slaves]..by, for example, the violence of the heat from the Furnaces….
Now to recruit these Cattle, Horse, Camels, and Negroes…Merchants must be
consulted, supports provided, and competent Cargo of goods adventured [in
Africa]…A Master of a ship, and a man accounted both able, stout, and honest,
having transported goods of several kinds from England to a part of Africa…and
there exchanged his Commodities for Negroes…and did not, as the manner is,
shackle one to another, and them secure, but thinking them honest and
faithful…and the slaves being double the number of those on the ship, found their
advantage, got weapons in their hands, and fell upon the sailors…cutting their
throats so fast, that all were lost…before they even got out of the river [Gambia in
Africa]….
But…I will let you see how much the land here hath been advanced with profit
[between 1647-1654]…I have a seen a plantation of five hundred acres, which
could have been purchased for four hundred pounds sterling; and now half of this
Plantation…was sold for seven thousand pounds sterling….with time I believe that
two thirds of the island will be fir for Plantations of Sugar, which will make it one
of richest Spots of earth under the Sun….
Edmund Randolph, 1699
Edward Randolph, an English official, was employed to inform Parliament
through the Board of Trade regarding the state of the new colony of Carolina. This
excerpt reveals how foreign competition was often on the minds both of settlers as
well as those British officials representing colonial authority
The Province [of Carolina] has 4 Negroes to every white man, and not above 1100
white families, English and French…Their main city is Charlestown…..In the year
1686, one hundred Spaniards with Negroes and Indians landed 50 miles to the
southwest of Charlestown, where they murdered the brother in law of the Governor
of the Province…They also fell upon a settlement of Scotchmen at Port Royal
where there was not above 25 men in health to oppose them…I find the inhabitants
greatly alarmed upon the news that the French continue their resolution to make a
settling on the Mississippi river, from where they may come over to the Ashley
River without opposition…The great improvement made in this province is wholly
owing to the industry of the Inhabitants…they are set upon making Pitch, tar and
Turpentine and planting rice and can send over great quantities yearly if they had
the encouragement from England to make it, having about 5,000 Slaves to be
employed in that service…but they have lost many of their vessels [by] the way
war with the French and some lately by the Spaniards….
James Oglethorpe writing about Georgia, 1732
James Oglethorpe, a British military officer and member of Parliament, was the
main leader of a business enterprise to settle former debtors in Georgia. However,
within a decade, plantation agriculture, and not anti-slavery yeoman farming,
came to typify the colony of Georgia.
Having thus described…the pitiable Condition of the better sort of the
Indigent, an Objection arises against their Removal…It may be asked, if they can’t
get Bread here [in England] for their Labour, how will their Condition be mended
in Georgia? The Answer is easy: They have Land there for nothing; and that Land
[in Georgia] is so fertile that…they receive an Hundred fold increase for taking
very little Pains [of improving a wilderness]…
The Legislature is only able to take a proper Course for the Transportation of small
offenders, if it shall seem best…The manners and Habits of very young Offenders
would meliorate in a Country not populous enough to encourage a profligate
Course of Life, but a Country where Discipline will easily be preserv’d. These
[whites] might supply the Place of Negroes, and yet (because their servitude is
only to be temporary) they might upon Occasion be found useful against the
French, or Spaniards; indeed as the Proportion of Negroes now stands, that
Country would be in great Danger of being lost, in Case of a War with either of
those Powers. The present Wealth of the Planters in their slaves too probably
threatens their future Ruin, if proper Measures be not taken to strengthen their
Neighborhood with larges Supplies of Free-men.
Benjamin Franklin on the British Colonies in 1755
Benjamin Franklin, the noted publisher and inventor, who was later involved in
American independence, wrote this essay both out of an interest in what we would
call demography, but also as an attempt to influence British trade and tax policy
when he was still fiercely loyal to Britain.
Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a laboring man, that
understands husbandry, can in a short time save money enough to purchase a piece
of new land sufficient for a plantation whereon he may subsist a family, such as
not afraid to marry. For even if they look far enough forward to consider how their
children, when they grow up, are to be provided for, they see that more land is to
be had at rates equally easy, all circumstances considered….
Hence, marriages in America are more general, and more generally early
than in Europe…And if in Europe they have but four births per marriage, here
were have eight….But notwithstanding this increase, so vast is the territory of
North America, that it will require many ages to settle it fully. And till it is fully
settled, labour will never be cheap here, where no man continues long a labourer
for others, but gets a plantation of his own [and] no man continues long a
journeyman to a trade, but goes among those new settlers, and sets up for himself.
Hence labor is no cheaper now in Pennsylvania than it was thirty years ago, though
so many thousands of laboring people have been imported….
The legislator that makes effectual laws for promoting trade, increasing
employment, improving land by more or better tillage…and the man that invents
new trades, arts, or manufacturing, or new improvements in husbandry, may be
properly called the father of their nation….Britain should not too much restrain
Manufactures in her Colonies: a wise and good Mother will not do it. To distress,
is to weaken, and weakening the Children weakens the whole family….
The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as
at present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end
no increase of people, unless the newcomers have more industry and frugality than
the natives. And they will provide more subsistence and increase in the country,
but they will generally eat the natives out. Nor it is necessary to bring in foreigners
to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country, for such vacancy (if the laws are
good) will soon be filled by natural generation…And since detachments of English
from Britain sent to America will have their places at home so soon supplied, and
increase so largely here, why should the Palatine boors [meaning poor Germans]
be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their
language and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania,
founded by the English, become a colony of aliens?….Which leads me to one
remark: that the number of purely white people in the world is proportionally very
small. All Africa is black or tawny. Native Americans chiefly so. And in Europe
the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes are generally of what we call
a swarthy complexion, as are the Germans- the Saxons only excepted, w
