Marginalia in a Pamphlet by Josiah Tucker
ms notations in the margins of a copy in the Library of Congress of [Josiah
Tucker,] A Series of Answers to Certain Popular Objections, against
Separating from the Rebellious Colonies, and Discarding Them Entirely; Being
the Concluding Tract of the Dean of Gloucester, on the Subject of American
Affairs (Gloucester, 1776).
[On or after December 22, 1776]
Objection I: How will British merchants and
manfacturers recover their property and debts
in the event of a separation?
Answer 1: In that event the debtors, who now
blame the English government for their
troubles, will have to blame their one.
Answer 2: English creditors have always had
more trouble in recovering in America than
anywhere else in the world.
[Cropped] Sir,
and the Necessity[?]
on the
part of the British
Creditors[?]
to prevent[?]
American Commerce
[cropped]
full[?] Prooff
thereof.
Answer 3: After separation each colony will
become “independent, and a jealous Rival, of
its Neighbour. No common Cause or common
Interest will unite them together,” and because
of their commercial competition each will have
an incentive for honest dealing.
A groundless
Supposition
Answer 4: If any state should fail “to do Justice
to the English Merchant or Creditor, a few
small Ships or War sent to their Coasts, not to
make Conquest, but Reprisals according to the
Law of Nations, would soon teach them to be
more observant of the Rules of Justice and good
faith, than they are disposed to be. And the
other Provinces, their Neighbours and Rivals,
instead of arming in their Defence, would rejoice
at their Chastisement.”
Ridiculous. He
confutes this
Nonsense Himself.
[p.]28
Objection II: How can the West Indies be preserved
from American conquest in case of
separation?
Answer 1: The northern and southern colonies
hate each other. “And nothing prevents this
from breaking out into Action even at present,
but the Apprehension of common Danger. Remove,
therefore, this Apprehension, and then
there will remain no central Attraction uniting
them in one common League or general Association.”
Without such a league they cannot
make the conquest.
How idotic[?]
these Remarks!
[The] Existence
of [the] continental
[Con]gress is
full[?] Evidence
[to] the Contrary.
Answer 2: If some of them should confederate,
the others would oppose them and call for aid
from Britain, which would hold the balance of
power.
Answer 3: Even if they all confederated, other
areas would attract them more.
Answer 4: The loss of the West Indies would
only force British merchants to look elsewhere
for sugar, and might put an end to slavery in
the islands.
Objection III: How can the colonies, when independent,
be kept from becoming a major naval
power?
Answer 1: We can prevent any of the states
from swallowing the rest.
Answer 2: The American coast south of the
Chesapeake is not fit for large ships of war,
and north of it has few good harbors.
Answer 3: The inhabitants of the coastal regions,
which are less fruitful than the interior,
will have their hands full in maintaining their
authority over the increasing population of the
back country.
Answer 4: Even if America should become
powerful at sea, its interests would lie in not
provoking Britain.
Objection IV: Will not the animosity of the
war prevent future Anglo-American trade?
Answer 1: If so, the sooner the separation the
better; our victory would only produce another
revolt and another war, as has been
pointed out by the authors of Common Sense,
“supposed to be Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams.”
Answer 2: The merchant’s universal rule is that
“self Interest needs no Reconciliation: For Trade
is not carried on for the Sake of Friendship,
but of Interest.” The mother country has never
been able to prevent colonies from trading
wherever they can to advantage. “We have now
the whole Force of the British Empire collected
together: We have also as much Assistance
as our Money can procure from foreign
Powers: All our Men of War, Frigates, and
Tenders; and most of our Transport-Ships are
completely armed: All of them are stationed
on the Coasts of America, in order to prevent
the Colonists from carrying on any Trade of
any Sort to our Detriment.” Yet they trade almost
wherever they please. “How then shall we
be able to restrain their Commerce and Navigation,
when this great and formidable Armament shall
be removed?”
P. 17 for apparent
Contradiction
to all
which is here
asserted.
See p. 17.
Answer 3: The Americans demonstrated “the
Easiness of a Pacification with public Enemies,
where private Interest is concerned on the opposite
Side. For notwithstanding all their doleful
Lamentations against Spanish Depredations,
Spanish Cruelty, and French Incursions,
they reconciled it to their Consciences to trade
with those very French and Spaniards, when it
was their private Intetest so to do, during the
hottest of the War; and even to furnish them
with Ammunition and warlike Stores for the
Destruction of the English, their only Protectors
and Benefactors in that very War.”
Childish.
Answer 4: Past experience shows that animosities
fade fast after a war. “No sooner had the
Dutch and Spaniards separated peaceably from
each other, than they became mutual good
Customers.” A few years later they even allied
against the French.
That is, When
the Spaniards
recognized their
Independence.
Answer 5: Anglo-American trade rests on the
abundance of British capital and credit; the
Americans have enjoyed this advantage more
than any others, and in time they will “find by
Experience, that in quarrelling with the English,
they have quarrelled with their best
Friends. Let them therefore go wherever they
please, and try all the Nations on the Globe.
When they have done, they will suppliantly
return to Great Britain, and entreat to be admitted
into the Number of our Customers, not
for ours, but for their own Sakes.”
Why entreat,
When according
to our Author,
Self Interest
needs no
Reconciliation?
See p. 28.
Objection V: If we lose the northern colonies,
where shall we procure naval stores?
Answer 1: Where else will those colonies sell
their stores? “Were we to withdraw our Bounties,
it would be an exceeding difficult Matter
for the Colonies to find any vent at all for these
Articles.”
Nothing can be
more Ridiculus
than this Assertion.
The past
Price of Naval
Stores is a
prooff thereof.
Answer 2: Other mercantile nations “are supplied
with all these Articles at a moderate Price,
and without Bounties. What therefore should
prevent the English from being supplied from
the same Source, and on as good Terms?”
But Where are
they so supplied?
Surely by
the Americans.
Answer. They
must be supplied
by the Allies
of North
America.
Answer 3: “The English Navy receives much
greater, and more necessary supplies from the
Northern States of Europe than from the
Northern Colonies of America.” Oak planking
“is chiefly imported...from Germany, Dantzick,
and the other Ports of the Baltic: The Iron
(if any wanted besides our own) is brought
from Sweden and Russia; and the Hemp almost
altogether from Russia, and its conquered
Provinces. Yet we have most absurdly
and impoliticly loaded both the Iron, and Hemp
of those Countries with heavy, discouraging
Taxes, in order to favour the Iron and Hemp
or ungrateful America. As to Masts, Yards, and
Deals, they may in general be purchased cheaper
in Norway, Sweden, and in some Parts of Russia,
Quality for Quality, than in North-America,”
although their price on the English market
has been raised by ill-judged bounties.
Not true.
This is most
fallaciously
stated.
The Quantity
supplied by
America,
greatly lessened
the Price and
Quantity of Articles,
Which
Great Britain
bought of Russia,
Sweden,
&c. And Which
She must hereafter
be dependant
on these
Kingdoms for.
Most absurdly
erroneous.
Answer 4: Pitch and tar originally came from
Sweden. “But the Swedes were so impolitic as to
lay an exhorbitant Duty on the Exportation of
their Pitch and Tar, presuming that the English
could find no other Supplies.” Britain then, instead
of looking elsewhere in Europe, favored
the colonies by offering bounties.
Britain, by losing
the Affections
and Commerce
of the
Colonies, will
be reduced to
her former dependant
Situation
on Sweden
and other
Northern Powers
for Tar and
Pitch, and not
only at their
own Prices, But
Silver and
Gold, instead of
British Manufacturies,
(as
was the happy
Case of the
Trade with the
Colonies) must
be exported out
of the Kingdom
to pay for the
necessary Articles
of Pitch
and Tar.
Objection VI: In case of separation, where shall
we get lumber and supplies for the West Indies?
When Great
Britain or the
West India Islands
shall acknowledge
the
Independence
of the Colonies,
There can be
no Doubt but
They will plentifully
supply
them with Provisions,
and
Lumber. But
until such Recognition
is
made, The Islands
will be in
a very perilous
distressful Situation;
And must
be properly
supplied with
them from any
European Markets.
Answer 1: The Americans illegally supplied the
West Indian possessions of other powers even
in wartime. “Tell me therefore, why the North-Americans,
after a peaceable Separation, will refuse
to supply our Sugar Islands (whilst they
supply others) if they shall be as well, or better
paid for what they bring? And tell me also,
when did they supply them with any one Article
whatever, without being well paid for it?”
Answer 2: The inhabitants of the West Indies
“may still raise great Quantities of most Sorts
of Provisions within their own Plantations.”
Then They
must of Course
attend less to
the making
Sugar &c.
Answer 3: If these inhabitants have trouble “in
supplying themselves out of their own Plantations
with Flour, Bread, Biscuit, Beef, Pork, Salt-Fish,
Oats, Pease, and Beans, then Great-Britain
and Ireland can supply them will all these
Articles in great Abundance, either from their
own Stores, or from Stores imported.”
Salt Fish “out of
their Own
Plantations,”
(i.e. the West
India Plantations)
is rather
curious.
They may supply
Them in
Degree, with
these Articles;
But the Prices
would be so exhorbitant
as to
ruin the West
India Platns.
Objection VII: In case of separation, where shall
we get rice and tobacco?
They will certainly
Never
permit British
Merchants to
deprive Them,
as heretofore,
of the greater
part of the
Price, Tobacco
usually sold for.
They will send
their Tobacco to
the several
Ports in Europe,
Where
the British Merchants
used to
send it, and
They will exchange
it for or
lay out the Proceeds
of it, in
the purchase of
Linens, Woollens
&c, at much
cheaper Prices
Than British
Merchants formerly
were accustomed
to
make Them
pay.
Answer 1: The question rests on two suppositions,
that “the Virginians and Carolinians will
not sell Tobacco and Rice to English Merchants
for a good Price, and ready Money,” and that
Tobacco can be grown nowhere else. Will any
man in his senses affirm either of these?
Answer 2: Almost any country in Europe could
grow sufficient tobacco ‘if permitted by its respective
Legislatures so to do.” In England itself
there were once extensive and increasing
plantations of tobacco, but the government
forebade them by acts of Parliament in order
to favor the colonies.
The respective
European States
will certainly
never permit
the Land necessary
to raise
Corn for the
Subsistence of
their Subjects,
to be applied to
the Culture of
Tobacco. The
General Scarcity
of Corn in
Europe for
many years, undoubtedly
confirms
this Supposition,
and
more especially,
as America,
when in an independant
Situation,
can abundantly
supply
all the European
Govents
(except England)
with Tobacco.
Answer 3: As for rice, much of “the swampy
Coast of Guinea” would produce it in abundance
if the inhabitants were encouraged to do
so instead of being sold into slavery; they would
also consume at least four times as much British
manufacturers as they do as slaves.
This is too
whimsical to require
a Serious
Answer.
627257 = 023-069b.html