A Response to Cato
Thomas Paine
[An open letter signed by
The Forester, Pennsylvania Journal, 10 April, 1776]
Before I enter on the more immediate purpose of this letter, I
think it necessary, once for all, to endeavour to settle as clearly
as I can, the following point, viz: How far personality is concerned
in any political debate. The general maxim is, that measures and not
men are the thing in question, and the maxim is undeniably just when
rightly understood. Cato as a refuge for himself, hath quoted the
author of Common Sense who in his preface says, "That the
object for attention is the doctrine itself not the man, "that
is, not the rank or condition of the man. For whether he is with
those whose fortune is already made, or with those whose fortune is
yet to make, or among those who seldom think or care whether they
make any, is a matter wholly out of the question and entirely
confined to himself. But the political characters, political
dependencies, and political connections of men, being of a public
nature, differ exceedingly from the circumstances of private life;
and are in many instances so nearly related to the measures they
propose, that to prevent our being deceived by the last, we must be
acquainted with the first. A total ignorance of men lays us under
the danger of mistaking plausibility for principle. Could the wolf
bleat like the lamb the flock would soon be enticed into ruin;
wherefore to prevent the mischief, he ought to be seen as well as
heard. There never was nor ever will be, nor ever ought to be, any
important political debate carried on, in which a total separation
in all cases between men and measures could be admitted with
sufficient safety. When hypocrisy shall be banished from the earth,
the knowledge of men will be unnecessary, because their measures
cannot then be fraudulent; but until that time come (which never
will come) they ought, under proper limitations, to go together. We
have already too much secrecy in some things and too little in
others. Were men more known, and measures more concealed, we should
have fewer hypocrites and more security.
As the chief design of these letters is to detect and expose the
falsehoods and fallacious reasonings of Cato, he must not expect
(when detected) to be treated like one who had debated fairly; for I
will be bold to say and to prove, that a grosser violation of truth
and reason scarcely ever came from the pen of a writer; and the
explanations which he hath endeavoured to impose on the passages
which he hath quoted from Common Sense, are such as never
existed in the mind of the author, nor can they be drawn from the
words themselves. Neither must Cato expect to be spared where his
carelessness of expression, and visible want of compassion and
sentiment, shall give occasion to raise any moral or philosophical
reflection thereon. These things being premised, I now proceed to
review the latter part of Cato's second letter.
In this place Cato begins his first attack on Common Sense,
but as he only discovers his ill will, and neither offers any
arguments against it, nor makes any quotations from it, I should in
this place pass him by, were it not for the following strange
assertion: "If little notice," says Cato (little
opposition he means) "has yet been taken of the publications
concerning Independance, it is neither owing to the popularity of
the doctrine, the unanswerable nature of the arguments, nor the fear
of opposing them, as the vanity of the author would suggest."
As Cato has given us the negative reasons, he ought to have given us
the real ones, for as he positively tells what it was not owing to,
he undoubtedly knows what it was owing to that he delayed his
answers so long; but instead of telling us that, (which perhaps is
not proper to be told) he flies from the argument with the following
plump declarations, "Nine tenths of the people of Pennsylvania,"
says he, "yet abhor the doctrine." But stop, Cato! not
quite so fast, friend! If this be true, how came they, so late as
the second of March last, to elect for a Burgess of this city, a
gentleman of known Independant Principles, and one of the very few
to whom the author of Common Sense shewed some part thereof while in
manuscript.1
Cato is just as unfortunate in the following paragraph. "Those,"
says he, "who made the appeal (that is, published the pamphlet)
have but little cause to triumph in its success. Of this they seem
sensible: and, like true quacks, are constantly pestering us with
additional doses till the stomachs of their patients begin wholly to
revolt." It is Cato's hard fate to be always detected: for
perhaps there never was a pamphlet, since the use of letters were
known, about which so little pains were taken, and of which so great
a number went off in so short a time; I am certain that I am within
compass when I say one hundred and twenty thousand. The book was
turned upon the world like an orphan to shift for itself; no plan
was formed to support it, neither hath the author ever published a
syllable on the subject, from that time till after the appearance of
Cato's fourth letter; wherefore what Cato says of additional doses
administered by the author is an absolute falsity; besides which, it
comes with an ill grace from one, who frequently publishes two
letters in a week, and often puts them both into one paper-Cato
here, Cato there, look where you will.
At the distance of a few lines from the above quotations, Cato
presents us with a retrospective view of our former state, in which,
says he, "we considered our connection with Great Britain as
our chief happiness-we flourished, grew rich, and populous to a
degree not to be paralleled in history." This assertion is
truly of the legerdemain kind, appearing at once both right and
wrong. All writers on Cato's side have used the same argument and
conceived themselves invincible; nevertheless, a single expression
properly placed dissolves the charm, for the cheat lies in putting
the time for the cause. For the cheat lies in putting the
consequence for the cause; for had we not flourished the connection
had never existed or never been regarded, and this is fully proved
by the neglect shewn to the first settlers who had every difficulty
to struggle with, unnoticed and unassisted by the British Court.
Cato proceeds very industriously to sum up the former declarations
of Congress and other public bodies, some of which were made upwards
of a year ago, to prove, that the doctrine of Independance hath no
sanction from them. To this I shall give Cato one general answer
which is, that had he produced a thousand more such authorities they
would now amount to nothing, they are out of date; times and things
are altered; the true character of the King was but little known
among the body of the poeple of America a year ago; willing to
believe him good, they fondly called him so, but have since found
that Cato's Royal Sovereign, is a Royal Savage.
Cato hath introduced the above-mentioned long quotation of
authorities against independance, with the following curious
preface. "Nor have many weeks," says he, "yet elapsed
since the first open proposition for independance was published to
the world. By what men of consequence this scheme is supported or
whether by any, may possibly be the subject of future enquiry.
Certainly it hath no countenance from the Congress, to whose
sentiments we look up with reverence. On the contrary, it is
directly repugnant to every declaration of that respectable body."
Now Cato, thou hast nailed thyself with a witness! Directly
repugnant to every declaration of that respectable body! Mind that,
Cato, and mark what follows. It appears by an extract from the
resolves of the Congress, printed in the front of the oration
delivered by Dr. Smith, in honor of that brave man General
Montgomery, that he, the Doctor, was appointed by that honorable
body to compose and deliver the same; in the execution of which, the
orator exclaimed loudly against the doctrine of independance; but
when a motion was afterwards made in Congress, (according to former
usage) to return the orator thanks, and request a copy for the
press, the motion was rejected from every part of the house and
thrown out without a division.1
I now proceed to Cato's third letter, in the opening of which he
deserts the subject of independance, and renews his attack on the
Committee.1 Cato's manner of writing has as much order in it as the
motion of a squirrel. He frequently writes as if he knew not what to
write next, just as the other jumps about, only because it cannot
stand still. Though I am sometimes angry with him for his
unprincipled method of writing and reasoning, I cannot help laughing
at other times for his want of ingenuity: One instance of which he
gives us in kindly warning us against "the foul pages of
interested writers, and strangers intermedling in our affairs. "Were
I to reply seriously my answer would be this: Thou seemest then
ignorant, Cato, of that ancient and numerous order which are related
to each other in all and every part of the globe-with whom the
kindred is not formed by place or accident, but in principle and
sentiment. A freeman, Cato, is a stranger nowhere-a slave,
everywhere. But were I disposed to answer merrily, I should tell
him, that as his notions of friendship were so very narrow and
local, he obliges me to understand, that when he addresses the
people with the tender title of "my dear countrymen "which
frequently occurs in his letters, he particularly means the long
list of Macs published in Donald M'Donald's Commission.2
In this letter Cato recommends the pamphlet called Plain Truth,
a performance which hath withered away like a sickly unnoticed weed,
and which even its advocates are displeased at, and the author
ashamed to own.3 About the middle of this third letter, Cato gives
notice of his being ready to take the field. "I now proceed,"
says he, "to give my reasons." How Cato hath managed the
attack we are now to examine; and the first remark I shall offer on
his conduct is, that he hath most unluckily entered the list on the
wrong side, and discharged his first fire among the tories.
In order to prove this, I shall give the paragraph entire:-"AGRICULTURE
and COMMERCE," says Cato, "have hitherto been the happy
employments, by which these middle colonies have risen into wealth
and importance. By them the face of the country has been changed
from a barren wilderness, into the hospitable abodes of peace and
plenty. Without them we had either never existed as Americans, or
existed only as savages. The oaks would still have possessed their
native spots of earth, and never have appeared in the form of ships
and houses. What are now well cultivated fields, or flourishing
cities, would have remained only the solitary haunts of wild beasts
or of men equally wild." The reader cannot help perceiving that
through this whole paragraph our connexion with Britain is left
entirely out of the question, and our present greatness attributed
to external causes, agriculture and commerce. This is a strange way,
Cato, of overturning Common Sense, which says, "I challenge the
warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew a single advantage
which this continent can reap by being connected with Great-Britain;
I repeat," says he, "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. "Cato
introduces his next paragraph with saying, "that much of our
former felicity was owing to the protection of England is not to be
denied. "Yes, Cato, I deny it wholly, and for the following
clear and simple reasons, viz., that our being connected with, and
submitting to be protected by her, made, and will still make, all
her enemies, our enemies, or as Common Sense says, "sets us at
variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship, and
against whom we have neither anger nor complaint."
The following passage is so glaringly absurd that I shall make but
a short comment upon it. "And if hereafter," says Cato, "in
the fulness of time, it shall be necessary to separate from the land
that gave birth to [some of] our ancestors, it will be in a state of
perfect manhood, when we can fully wield our own arms, and protect
our commerce and coasts by our own fleets. "But how are we to
come by fleets, Cato, while Britain hath the government of the
Continent? Unless we are to suppose, as you have hinted in the
former paragraph, that our oaks are to grow into ships, and be
launched self-built from their "native spots of earth." It
is Cato's misfortune as a writer, not to distinguish justly between
magic and imagination; while on the other hand there are many
passages in his letters so seriously and deliberately false, that
nothing but the most hardened effrontery, and a cast of mind
bordering upon impiety, would have uttered. He frequently forces me
out of the common track of civil language, in order to do him
justice; moderation and temper being really unequal to the task of
exposing him.
Cato, unless he meant to destroy the ground he stood upon, ought
not to have let the following paragraph be seen. "If our
present differences, "says he, "can be accommodated, there
is scarce a probability that Britain will ever renew her late fatal
system of policy, or attempt again to employ force against us."
How came Cato to admit the probability of our being brought again
into the same bloody and expensive situation? But it is worth
remarking, that those who write without principle, cannot help
sometimes blundering upon truth. Then there is no real security,
Cato, in this reconciliation of yours on constitutional principles?
It still amounts to nothing; and after all this expence of life and
wealth, we are to rest at last upon hope, hazard, and uncertainty.
Why then, by all that is sacred, "it is time to part."
But Cato, after admitting the probability of our being brought
again into the same situation, proceeds to tell us how we are to
conduct ourselves in the second quarrel; and that is, by the very
same methods we have done the present one, viz., to expend millions
of treasure, and thousands of lives, in order to patch up a second
union, that the way may be open for a third quarrel; and in this
endless and chequered round of blood and treacherous peace, hath
Cato disposed of the Continent of America. That I may not be thought
to do Cato injustice, I have quoted the whole passage: "But
should Britain be so infatuated," says he, "at any future
period, as to think of subjugating us, either by the arts of
corruption, or oppressive exertions of power, can we entertain a
doubt but we shall AGAIN, with a virtue equal to the present and
with the weapons of defence in our hands (when necessary) convince
her that we are willing by a constitutional connection with her, to
afford and receive reciprocal benefits; but although subjects of the
same King, we will not consent to be her slaves."-Come hither,
ye little ones, whom the poisonous hand of Cato is rearing for
destruction, and remember the page that warns ye of your ruin.
Cato, in many of his expressions, discovers all that calm command
over the passions and feelings which always distinguishes the man
who hath expelled them from his heart. Of this careless kind is the
before mentioned phrase, "our present differences," and
the same unpardonable negligence is conveyed in the following one: "Although
I consider her," says he, "as having in her late conduct
toward us, acted the part of a cruel stepdame." Wonderful
sensibility indeed! All the havoc and desolation of unnatural war;
the destruction of thousands; the burning and depopulating of towns
and cities; the ruin and separation of friends and families, are
just sufficient to extort from Cato, this one callous confession.
But the cold and creeping soul of Cato is a stranger to the manly
powers of sympathetic sorrow. He moves not, nor can he move in so
pure an element. Accustomed to lick the hand that hath made him
visible, and to breathe the gross atmosphere of servile and sordid
dependence, his soul would now starve on virtue, and suffocate in
the clear region of disinterested friendship.
Surely when Cato sat down to write, he either did not expect to be
called to an account, or was totally regardless of reputation,
otherwise he would not have endeavoured to persuade the public that
the doctrine of Independance was broached in a kind of seditious
manner, at a time "when, " says he, "some gleams of
reconciliation began first to break in upon us. "Come forth,
Cato, and prove the assertion! Where do these gleams of
reconciliation spring from? Are they to be found in the King's
speech, in the address of either House of Parliament, or in the act
which lets loose a whole kennel of pirates upon our property, and
commissions another set to insult with pardons the very men whom
their own measures had sought to ruin? Either prove the assertion,
Cato, or take the reward of it, for it is the part of an incendiary
to endeavour with specious falsehoods to mislead the credulity of
unwary readers. Cato likewise says, that, while we continue united,
and renounce all thoughts of Independance, "we have the utmost
assurance of obtaining a full redress of our grievances, and an
ample security against and future violation of our just rights. "If
Cato means to insinuate that we have received such an assurance, let
him read the conclusion of the preceeding paragraph again. The same
answer will serve for both.
Perhaps when we recollect the long and unabated cruelty of the
British court towards us, and remember the many prayers which we
have put up both to them and for them, the following piece of
declamation of Cato can hardly be equalled either for absurdity or
insanity: "If we now effect independance," says he, "we
must be considered as a faithless people in the sight of all
mankind, and could scarcely expect the confidence of any nation upon
earth, or look up to Heaven for its approving sentence. "Art
thou mad, Cato, or art thou foolish - or art thou both - or art thou
worse than both? In this passage thou hast fairly gone beyond me. I
have not language to bring thee back. Thou art safely intrenched
indeed! Rest therefore in thy stronghold till He who fortified thee
in it shall come and fetch thee out.
Cato seems to be possessed of that jesuitical cunning which always
endeavours to disgrace what it cannot disprove; and this he
sometimes effects, by unfairly introducing our terms into his
arguments, and thereby begets a monster which he sends round the
country for a show, and tells the good people that the name of it is
independance. Of this character are several passages in his fourth
and fifth letters, particularly when he quotes the term "foreign
assistance, "which he ungenerously explains into a surrender of
the Continent to France and Spain. Such an unfair and sophistical
reasoner doth not deserve the civility of good manners. He creates,
likewise, the same confusion by frequently using the word peace for
union, and thereby charges us falsely by representing us as being
determined to "reject all proposition of peace. "Whereas,
our wish is peace but not re-union; and though we would gladly
listen to the former, we are determined to resist every proposal for
the latter, come from where it will; being fully persuaded, that in
the present state of affairs separation of governments is the only
and best thing that can be done for both countries.
The following case is unjustly put. "There never was a war,"
says Cato, "so implacable, even among states naturally rivals
and enemies, or among savages themselves, as not to have peace for
its object as well as the end." But was there ever a war, Cato,
which had union for its object? No. What Cato means by states
naturally rivals and enemies, I shall not enquire into, but this I
know (for myself at least) that it was not in the power of France or
Spain, or all the other powers in Europe, to have given such a
wound, or raised us to such a mortal hatred as Britain hath done. We
feel the same kind of undescribed anger at her conduct, as we would
at the sight of an animal devouring its young; and this particular
species of anger is not generated in the transitory temper of the
man, but in the chaste and undefiled womb of nature.
Cato, towards the conclusion of his third letter,(at which place I
shall leave him for the present,) compares the state of Britain and
America to the quarrels of lovers, and from thence infers a
probability, that our affections will be renewed thereby. This I
cannot help looking on as one of the most unnatural and distorted
similes that can be drawn. Come hither ye that are lovers, or ye
that have been lovers, and decide the controversy between us! What
comparison is there between the soft murmurs of an heart mourning in
secret, and the loud horrors of war-between the silent tears of
pensive sorrow, and rivers of wasted blood - between the sweet
strife of affection, and the bitter strife of death-between the
curable calamities of pettish lovers, and the sad sight of a
thousand slain! "Get thee behind me," Cato, for thou hast
not the feelings of a man.
|
|
