Junius Unmasked Part 21

There is not, among the dregs or sc.u.mmings of human nature, a character so false and vile as to write that, and then do as Francis did, or do as the king of England did, if he believed him to be Junius. Nature rebels at such an argument, founded on the facts of the case. It is by a species of subterfuge, or literary legerdemain, exhibiting some facts and hiding others, calling the attention to some trifling thing, and then concealing the truth of the matter, is all that has ever rendered the argument in favor of Francis of any consequence with the public.

There is more, for example, in the one word _Lord_, placed just in front of Macaulay, than in any argument he may give on the subject. In fact, that word imposes on the mind an authority not easily resisted. It obscures the reason, quiets investigation, destroys the desire to search, beguiles thought, puts the mind to sleep, and the reader, like a young bird with eyes closed and mouth open, takes the food from out the old one's mouth, gulps it down, and goes to sleep. It is thus the student and the professor take, on authority, what they have no business to, and do what they never would do, did their own souls not bow basely at the shrine of some literary Baal. It is thus in politics, religion, history, law, philosophy, criticism, belles-lettres, science--whichever way we turn we find the false G.o.d and his worshipers. When the student and the professor come to find Mr. Macaulay to be a man of much talent in a certain direction, but by no means a literary G.o.d to be worshiped as infallible, they will lose faith in his a.s.sertions which come without proof.

It had been my intention to throw a few hints into the Introduction upon external and internal evidence, as it is called, but I concluded to defer it till now, because the remarks and the ill.u.s.trations would then be thrown together.

In a criticism of this kind, but little confidence can be placed in external evidence, because it all comes within the realm of _art_ or _accident_, and any scientific truth can not be founded thereon. For example, Macaulay says: "The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised." Handwriting is an _art_, just like chopping wood or playing on the piano. And to tell who wrote an article by the "peculiar" handwriting, is about as safe as to hazard an opinion upon who is chopping wood by the "peculiar" swing of the ax.

Nor does the same individual always write in the same style or manner.

Such proof is good for nothing. And this is the nature of all external evidence, and is the cause of the endless litigation in our courts. A man may go on the stand and swear to a lie. I have known men do it. Then we draw inferences from the a.s.sociations of men, which the real facts of the case might not warrant. The accidents of place and position, of friendships and age, of times and circ.u.mstances, and even of existence, all may or may not, in a world full of men, have bearing on the facts which form the opinion of an outside spectator. For example, Francis, _it is said_, "did not _deny_ that he was Junius." If he had denied or affirmed he was, it would have proved just the same. It belongs to the most worthless kind of external evidence. A naturalist does not ask his horse whether or not he is a horse. If the horse could speak and say to his master, "I am a jacka.s.s," the master would be a fool to believe him.

It is thus persons often put on a character in a word or two which does not belong to them, but nature takes care to always reveal the true character, if they say much. Now if we could get within the meaning of the words, get behind them to the spirit of their author, we would be getting at the very soul of evidence. This would be true, and we could found a scientific conclusion upon it, because _natural_ and not _artificial_. This is internal evidence. At present, this kind of evidence is known only in such a criticism as this, for the soul of the author shines out of his work, I care not who he is. We may, for aught I know, write our history on all we touch. If so, science will some day give the world a knowledge of it. It is then external evidence will have ceased.

In a work of this kind, it is inc.u.mbent on the critic to ascertain, first, the spirit and object of the work, and then to see if it be inconsistent with itself. If it is not, then the character he finds will be true to nature, and he can not go wrong in his conclusions. There is a pa.s.sage in Letter 53 on this very point. Junius is speaking of the Rev. Mr. Horne, and says: "He repeatedly affirms, or intimates, at least, that he knows the author of these Letters. With what color of truth, then, can he pretend 'that I am nowhere to be encountered but in a newspaper?' I shall leave him to his suspicions. It is not necessary that I should confide in the honor and discretion of a man who always seems to hate me with as much rancor as if I had formerly been his friend. But he a.s.serts that he has traced me through a variety of signatures. To make the discovery of any importance to his purpose, he should have proved either that the fict.i.tious character of Junius has not been consistently supported, or that the author has maintained different principles under different signatures. I can not recall to my memory the numberless trifles I have written; _but I rely on the consciousness of my own_ INTEGRITY, and defy him to fix any colorable charge of _inconsistency_ upon me."

Now, what have I shown? It is that the character of Thomas Paine, as found in his writings (not in what people say about him), is the very same character, with all its shades and coloring, which is found in the LETTERS OF JUNIUS. This is shown by the best and strongest evidence under the sun, _internal_ evidence. I have purposely avoided all external evidence, from the mere fact of its worthlessness, inasmuch as it is that kind of evidence which itself needs proof. If, for example, Thomas Paine had said to some one: "I wrote Junius," it would be no evidence to me, and would weigh just the same as if he had said: "I did not write Junius." It is external evidence, and may be a lie, for lying is common to mankind. It is that kind of evidence which needs proof. But nature never makes two great characters alike, nor at the same time. She is prodigal of varieties. And if two characters seem alike, it is because of their insignificance; the orbit of their life is so small it can not be measured. But when a Paine, or a Parker, or a Luther, or a Jesus, is let loose on earth, they each describe an orbit so large and peculiar there is no mistaking it for any thing else the world ever exhibits among men. And in their earthly pilgrimage, however seemingly erratic in their course, nature holds them true to her purposes, and holds up no lie therein to deceive the senses. She is true, also, to _herself_, in giving to us these world's redeemers.

My argument, then, is, Nature would not be natural if Thomas Paine were not Junius, _a mere absurdity_. But let us suppose he is not. Then, to make out the case, strong evidence of the same _internal_ kind would have to be produced in favor of this supposition. But I have searched for a solitary fact which would even tend to contradict my hypothesis, and have not found it. And I frankly confess, had I found it, this book would not have been written. Reader, search for it yourself, and, when found, publish it to the world, for the world is suffering for the want of truth. And though my conclusions be false, if I have been the means of revealing the truth, I shall not have written in vain.

PART II.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

It is with painful feelings I now call your attention to the famous doc.u.ment which sets forth the political creed of the United States. More than once my pen has refused to set about this work, but I now ask: Who wrote the original Declaration of Independence? I answer boldly, Thomas Paine. To prove this, my method is the same as with Junius, and the prejudices of the united world shall not intimidate me.

It is not my purpose to revive the old and long-forgotten controversy about the authorship of this doc.u.ment. Enough to say, volumes have been written to prove that it was _not_ Jefferson's. But the method and object of a negative criticism I scorn. If it can not be shown to be some other man's, then let the claimant wear his honors; he certainly did not come by them meanly or dishonorably; they were forced upon him.

My evidence will be such as to exclude the possibility of even literary theft in Jefferson, and that it is, as a whole, the work of the author of Common Sense, and can not possibly be the work of any body else. This is a bold a.s.sertion, and a little out of my turn, but my object is to raise the strongest _doubt_ of the truth of what I a.s.sert in the mind of my reader, so as to enlist his attention, and hold me to the proof.

The method of my argument is as follows:

First, to show wherein this doc.u.ment is exactly like Mr. Paine; and,

Secondly, wherein it is entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson.

The points wherein they would agree are necessarily thrown out, and count nothing on either side. For example, the principles therein contained may be common to both, and can have no weight in an argument.

It is said, in defense of this paper being Mr. Jefferson's, that the "Summary View" of his submitted to, but not pa.s.sed by the Virginia Delegate Convention in 1774, contained the "_germs_" of the Declaration.

This I do not admit, but if it did, it would prove nothing, for so did the writings of John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams, and especially of James Otis. A thousand men in America had, perhaps, expressed the cardinal doctrine of equal rights, and that the British Parliament had usurped them. There is nothing peculiar nor individual in this; but when we find one man only who makes a specialty of the _Declaration_, it attracts attention, and must have great weight when supported by a mult.i.tude of other special facts, all pointing in the same direction. I, therefore, go to show:

First, Common Sense was written by Mr. Paine for the sole purpose of declaring independence, and, with this doc.u.ment in view. I have heretofore reviewed Common Sense, beginning on page 156 of this book. If it were practicable for the reader to read the whole of Common Sense at this time, it would render my labor much less; but as this may not be the case, I will now give the whole of the third division of that paper, being:

"THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

"In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put _on_, or rather that he will not put _off_ the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.

"Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed.

Arms, as the last resource, must decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.

"It has been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who, though an able minister, was not without his faults), that on his being attacked in the House of Commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied "_they will last my time_." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.

"The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent--of at least one-eighth part of the habitable globe.

'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and they will be more or less affected even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of continental union, faith, and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.

"By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, etc., prior to the nineteenth of April, _i. e._, to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of last year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.

Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a union with Great Britain. The only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first has failed, and the second has withdrawn her influence.

"As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath pa.s.sed away and left us as we were, it is but right that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with and dependent on Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependence, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.

"I have heard it a.s.serted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary toward her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well a.s.sert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The articles of commerce by which she has enriched herself, are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

"But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense, as well as her own, is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motives, viz., for the sake of trade and dominion.

"Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superst.i.tion. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering that her motive was _interest_, not _attachment_; and that she did not protect us from _our enemies_ on _our account_, but from _her enemies_ on _her own account_, from those who had no quarrel with us on any _other account_, and who will always be our enemies on the _same account_. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against connections.

"It hath lately been a.s.serted in Parliament that the colonies have no relation to each other, but through the parent country, _i.

e._, that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England. This is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it.

France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as _Americans_, but as our being the _subjects of Great Britain_.

"But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore, the a.s.sertion, if true, turns to her reproach. But it happens not to be true, or only partly so; and the phrase _parent_, or _mother country_ hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low, papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from _every part_ of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.

"In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles--the extent of England--and carry our friendship on a larger scale. We claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

"It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount local prejudices, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally a.s.sociate most with his fellow-parishioners--because their interests, in many cases, will be common--and distinguish him by the name of _neighbor_; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of _townsman_; if he travel out of the county, and meets him in any other, he forgets the minor division of street and town, and calls him _countryman_--_i. e._, _countyman_; but if, in their foreign excursions, they should a.s.sociate in France, or any other part of _Europe_, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of _Englishmen_. And, by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are _countrymen_; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller one--distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one-third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent, or mother country, applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.

"But, admitting that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and t.i.tle; and to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first King of England, of the present line--William the Conqueror--was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.

"Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies--that, in conjunction, they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to 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 secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe, because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a _free port_. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.

"I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge; not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will.

"But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that connection are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance, because any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.

As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do; while, by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.

"Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace; and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, _because of her connection with Britain_. The next war may not turn out like the last, and, should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because neutrality, in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man-of-war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of Nature, cries, '_'Tis time to part!_' Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one over the other was never the design of Heaven. The time, likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

"The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form of government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and positive conviction that what he calls 'the present const.i.tution,' is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that _this government_ is not sufficiently lasting to insure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity; and by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it--otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years further into life. That eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.

"Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation may be included within the following descriptions: