DOCUMENT 6.2 | | | CHARLES INGLIS, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated (1776) |
Perhaps no other work in American history had the immediate impact of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. While it tilted many indecisive colonists to the side of independence, it also alienated those who wanted to remain a part of the British empire. The Reverend Charles Inglis, a British-born Anglican minister living in New York City, offered the following response to Paine’s pamphlet.
I think it no difficult matter to point out many advantages which will certainly attend our reconciliation and connection with Great-Britain, on a firm, constitutional plan. I shall select a few of these; and that their importance may be more clearly discerned. . . .
By a reconciliation with Britain, a period would be put to the present calamitous war, by which so many lives have been lost, and so many more must be lost, if it continues. This alone is an advantage devoutly to be wished for. This author [Thomas Paine] says—“The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’Tis time to part.” I think they cry just the reverse. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries—It is time to be reconciled; it is time to lay aside those animosities which have pushed on Britons to shed the blood of Britons; it is high time that those who are connected by the endearing ties of religion, kindred and country, should resume their former friendship, and be united in the bond of mutual affection, as their interests are inseparably united.
By a Reconciliation with Great-Britain, Peace—that fairest offspring and gift of Heaven—will be restored. In one respect Peace is like health; we do not sufficiently know its value but by its absence. What uneasiness and anxiety, what evils has this short interruption of peace with the parent-state brought on the whole British empire! . . .
Agriculture, commerce, and industry would resume their wonted vigor. At present they languish and droop, both here and in Britain; and must continue to do so while this unhappy contest remains unsettled.
By a connection with Great-Britain, our trade would still have the protection of the greatest naval power in the world. England has the advantage, in this respect, of every other state, whether of ancient or modern times. . . . To suppose, with our author, that we should have no war, were we to revolt from England, is too absurd to deserve a confutation. I could just as soon set about refuting the reveries of some brain-sick enthusiast. Past experience shews that Britain is able to defend our commerce, and our coasts; and we have no reason to doubt of her being able to do so for the future.
The protection of our trade, while connected with Britain, will not cost a fiftieth part of what it must cost, were we ourselves to raise a naval force sufficient for this purpose.
Whilst connected with Great-Britain, we have a bounty on almost every article of exportation; and we may be better supplied with goods by her, than we could elsewhere. What our author says is true—“that our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will”; but we may buy them dearer, and of worse quality, in one place than another. The manufactures of Great-Britain confessedly surpass any in the world—particularly those in every kind of metal, which we want most; and no country can afford linens and woollens, of equal quality cheaper.
When a Reconciliation is effected, and things return into the old channel, a few years of peace will restore everything to its pristine state. Emigrants will flow in as usual from the different parts of Europe. Population will advance with the same rapid progress as formerly, and our lands will rise in value.
Source: Charles Inglis, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated, in Certain Strictures on a Pamphlet Intitled [sic] Common Sense (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, 1776), 47–49.
Thinking through Sources forExploring American Histories, Volume 1Printed Page 39