CRISIS DOT PEACE

DESPOTS VS DEMO

2011-03-21T00:03:00.000-07:00

Posted Monday, March 21 2011 at 00:00

The United Nations Security Council has rejected requests by the African Union (AU) High Level Ad-hoc Committee on Libya (AHCL) to fly to Tripoli to mediate between President Muammar Gaddafi and pro-democracy protesters fighting to end his 42-year rule.

A communiqué of the committee issued yesterday after its meeting in Mauritania said, “The committee, in conformity with resolution 1973(2011) of the United Nations Security Council, requested for the required permission for the flight carrying its members to Libya in order to fulfill their mandate. The committee was denied permission.”

No way
Uganda ministers Sam Kutesa (Foreign Affairs) and Amama Mbabazi (Security), who represented President Museveni, were part of the delegation.
Ambassador James Mugume, the foreign affairs permanent secretary, said the committee would proceed with its mission once the international coalition is done with disabling Col. Gaddafi’s air defences.

Related Stories

* Gaddafi must stop killings - Kutesa
* Uganda peace team to Libya departs Saturday

The committee was formed on March 10 during a meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council in Addis- Ababa to stop the escalation of the Libyan crisis. The request to go to Libya was made on Saturday after a meeting in Nouakchott, Mauritania.

The ad-hoc team comprises AU Commission chairperson Jean Ping, Presidents Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz of Mauritania (host), Dennis Sessou Ngueso (Republic of Congo), Amadou Toumani Toure (Mali), Jacob Zuma (South Africa) and Mr Museveni.

Museveni’s idea
The formation of the committee was informed by President Museveni’s proposal that the Libya crisis was “an African problem” that called for an “AU solution” with the assistance of the wider international community.

However, the AU effort was nipped in the bud following the March 17 passing of a UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone on Libya to “end intolerable civilian deaths” that were being occasioned by Col. Gaddafi’s military fire power, especially aerial bombardment.

The resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, which Col. Gaddafi said he was observing but his critics said he violated. On Saturday, the French and British military, later followed by Americans, Canadians, and Danish started both aerial and naval bombardment of Libyan air-defences, citing continued killings of civilians by Gaddafi’s forces in Bengazhi, the second biggest city of about two million people.

The AU committee’s communiqué yesterday expressed “regret of not being able, as they had envisaged to travel to Libya, on March 20, to meet with the parties both of which had agreed to deal with it.”

More resolutions
The Mauritania meeting, the communiqué said, agreed to formally communicate to both parties in Libya an urgent appeal to immediately end hostilities and take comprehensive measures to end civilian deaths and also present a road map aimed at reaching comprehensive reforms that would defuse the tensions that led to the current crisis.

Also proposed is that AU foreign ministers meet with representatives of Libya’s neighbours to discuss the regional implications of the crisis and map out efforts for regional stability.

The meeting called on member states to facilitate migrant workers trapped in the Libya conflict to return home or integrate in the Libya community and that the AU Commission convenes resource mobilisation conference to cater for emerging problems.

What the AU says

It is committed to fulfill its mission in the face of worrying developments.

Will not spare any effort in facilitating a peaceful solution, duly taking into consideration the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people

It will act in consistence with the UN resolution and seeks unreserved support of the international community.

An emergency meeting of the AU be convened in Addis Ababa with representatives of the Arab League, the OIC and the UN to map out ways of an early resolution to the conflict.

Election 2011 Images Around Uganda

2011-03-10T23:04:00.000-08:00

Gaddafi’s media strategy backfires

2011-02-28T23:07:00.000-08:00

Libya has never been a friendly place for foreign journalists. A media ban kept reporters away as the uprising against strongman Muammar Gaddafi began on Feb. 17, and officials of the Gaddafi regime blasted journalists entering opposition-controlled areas last week as "outlaws" and al-Qaeda sympathizers.

Such hardball tactics, along with rambling speeches aired on Libyan state television, haven't helped Gaddafi in the court of public opinion. So the regime is now trying to make its case though the western media, claiming the government hasn't brutally cracked down on protesters (which it has) and that Gaddafi is firmly in control of the North African country (which he isn't).

On Monday, Gaddafi made such arguments to ABC News' Christine Amanpour--no stranger to dealing with authoritarian leaders--and journalists from the Times of London and BBC. "All my people love me," Gadhafi insisted. "They would die to protect me."Despite the government's attempt to get in front of the story, journalists arriving in Tripoli since Saturday aren't reporting back a story that matches Gaddafi's rhetoric.

New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, in the lead article in Sunday's paper, described how Gaddafi's media ploy backfired as "foreign journalists he invited to the capital discovered blocks of the city in open defiance of his authority." The government tried to sanitize the appearance of destabilizing unrest, and even picked the drivers who shuttled around the media. But that didn't work.

"In some ways, the mixed results of Colonel Gaddafi's theatrical gamble—opening the curtains to the world with great fanfare, even though the stage is in near-chaotic disarray—are an apt metaphor for the increasingly untenable situation in the country," Kirkpatrick noted.

NBC's Jim Maceda had a similar take. On Monday's "Today" show, Maceda noted the "irony" in finally allowing western journalists in the country only to have them see the opposition taking control just 30 miles outside Tripoli.

"That strategy completely backfired," Maceda said, adding that the images now being broadcast to the world make "Gadhafi look even weaker and more cornered" than before.

HomeNews News Schools adopt dirty tricks to cheat in national exams

2011-02-28T23:03:00.000-08:00

Candidates have invented new dirty tricks of cheating in Form Four national examination whose results were released on Monday.

Some schools recruited university students and former Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) qualifiers to resit exams with the aim of boosting their performance index.

Other candidates collected money with the intention of buying examination papers while some school heads arranged for other people to impersonate their candidates.

Releasing the 2010 KCSE results on Monday, Education minister Sam Ongeri announced that results of 534 candidates were cancelled due to cheating. It was the least figure of cheating cases over the past 10 years. That was a drop from the 1,171 candidates whose results were nullified in 2009.

“This is an encouraging turn of events and I thank all those who have participated in the fight against this vice,” Prof Ongeri said of the reduction in cases of cheating.

He attributed the reduction to the involvement of the spy agency, National Security Intelligence Service, police and provincial administration.

“It is important that we continue in this spirit to win the war.”

But the minister spoke of disturbing cases of cheating involving candidates, parents and teachers.

Some candidates, he said, defied the school administration and “collected money in advance with the intention of purchasing examination papers”.

Some parents facilitated cheating by bringing mobile phones for their girls in boarding schools during the prayer days ahead of the start of the examinations.

He mentioned the headteacher of Ruiru St Triza Academy who allegedly entered an examination room without permission when the examination was in progress and placed a mathematical table with prepared notes on the desk of one of the candidates.

But the case was intercepted by the invigilator, Prof Ongeri said.

In another case, the proprietor of John Okongo Secondary School and principal, Kebaroti Secondary School organised for impersonation in their schools.

“This impersonation was organised so as to assist the daughter of the proprietor who was a candidate in the same school,” he said.

He said the headteacher of Rigoma Secondary School tried to bribe an official of the Kenya National Examinations Council but was apprehended by the police and charged in court.

“Such cases are very disturbing to me,” Prof Ongeri said, asking: “Why should adults go to such lengths to commit irregularities?”

He praised teachers and the public that passed useful information to Knec to give leads on the cheats.

Prof Ongeri said it was unfortunate that parents still flocked private schools that were ill-equipped leaving well equipped public schools at their doorstep.

“Some other institutions use unorthodox methods to attain good results,” he said. He said some schools paid university students or former KCSE candidates who performed well to re-sit so as to boost their performance index. These candidates were referred to as “boosters”.

He said severe disciplinary action would be taken against those involved.rof Ongeri also said some headteachers continued to register candidates with foreign qualifications without equating them to the Kenyan education system, which was against examination regulations.

He said results of 134 candidates would be withheld because their headteachers did not submit candidates’ foreign certificates for equation to the Kenyan system by the Knec.

“Any student seeking admission into our secondary schools should have had the required years of instruction for his/her foreign qualification to be considered as equivalent to our primary education system which is eight years,” he said.

UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions on Gaddafi

2011-02-28T22:54:00.000-08:00

The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposed travel and asset sanctions on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and close aides, ratcheting up pressure on him to quit before any more blood is shed in a popular revolt against his rule.
It also adopted an arms embargo and called for the deadly crackdown against anti-Gaddafi protesters to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation and possible prosecution of anyone responsible for killing civilians.

Is Gaddafi living up to his nickname of "mad dog of the Middle East"?
No Flash warning
To take advantage of all the features on FRANCE24.COM, please click here to download the latest version of Flash Player.
By Catherine VIETTE
The 15-nation council passed the resolution hours after Gaddafi's police abandoned parts of the capital Tripoli to the revolt that has swept Libya and the United States bluntly told him he must go.

In the oil-rich east around the second city of Benghazi, freed a week ago by a disparate coalition of people power and defecting military units, a former minister of Gaddafi announced the formation of an "interim government" to reunite the country.

To the west in Tripoli, the 68-year-old Brother Leader's redoubt was shrinking. Reuters correspondents found residents in some neighbourhoods of the capital barricading their streets and proclaiming open defiance after security forces melted away.

Western leaders, their rhetoric emboldened by evacuations that have sharply reduced the number of their citizens stranded in the oilfields and cities of the sprawling desert state, spoke out more clearly to say Gaddafi's 41-year rule must now end.

"When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now," an aide to U.S. President Barack Obama said of phone talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel over Libya.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the Security Council measures against Gaddafi and 15 other Libyans, including members of his family, were "biting sanctions" and that all those who committed crimes would be held to account.

"Those who slaughter civilians will be held personally accountable," Rice told the council after the vote. Speaking to reporters later, she praised the council's "unity of purpose".

The death toll from 10 days of violence in Libya is estimated by diplomats at about 2,000.

Talk of possible military action by foreign governments remained vague, however. It was unclear how long Gaddafi, with some thousands of loyalists -- including his tribesmen and military units commanded by his sons -- might hold out against rebel forces comprised of youthful gunmen and mutinous soldiers.

London-based Algerian lawyer Saad Djebbar, who knows a large number of Gaddafi's top officials, said that for Gaddafi staying in power had become impossible.

"It's about staying alive. (Gaddafi's) time is over," he said. "But how much damage he will cause before leaving is the question."

Tribal loyalties

One key element in the opposition's efforts to unseat him may be tribal loyalties, always a factor in the desert nation of six million and one which Gaddafi, despite official rhetoric to the contrary, tended to reinforce down the years.

His former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Ajleil, now gone over to the opposition in Benghazi, was quoted by the online edition of the Quryna newspaper as saying that an interim government, whose status remained unclear, would "forgive" his large Gaddadfa tribe for "crimes" committed by the leader.

Such declarations may be intended to erode Gaddafi's efforts to rally supporters into a do-or-die defence of the old guard.

Libya Timeline: looking back at two weeks of violence
No Flash warning
To take advantage of all the features on FRANCE24.COM, please click here to download the latest version of Flash Player.
By Nicholas RUSHWORTH
Some of those closest to Gaddafi have been deserting him and joining the opposition. On Saturday, Libya's envoy to the United States told Reuters he backed Abud Ajleil's caretaker team -- though it was unclear how much popular support that would have.

One of Gaddafi's sons, London-educated Saif al-Islam, again appeared on television on Saturday to deny that much of Libya was in revolt. But he also said: "What the Libyan nation is going through has opened the door to all options, and now the signs of civil war and foreign interference have started."

Gaddafi, once branded a "mad dog" by Washington for his support of militant groups worldwide, has been embraced by the West in recent years in return for renouncing some weapons programmes and, critically, for opening up Libya's oilfields.

While money has flowed into Libya, many people, especially in the long-restive and oil-rich east, have seen little benefit and, inspired by the popular overthrow of veteran strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt, on either side of their country, they rose up to demand better conditions and political freedoms.

Particular condemnation has been reserved for aerial bombing by government forces and for reported indiscriminate attacks by Gaddafi loyalists and mercenaries on unarmed protesters.

"Gaddafi is the enemy of God!" a crowd chanted on Saturday in Tajoura, a poor neighbourhood of Tripoli, at the funeral of a man they said was shot down by Gaddafi loyalists the day before.

Now, residents said, those security forces had disappeared.

Locals had erected barricades of rocks and palm trees across rubbish-strewn streets, and graffiti covered many walls. Bullet holes in the walls of the houses bore testimony to the violence.

The residents, still unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals, said troops fired on demonstrators who tried to march from Tajoura to central Green Square overnight, killing at least five people. The number could not be independently confirmed.

Libyan state television again showed a crowd chanting their loyalty to Gaddafi in Tripoli's Green Square on Saturday. But journalists there estimated their number at scarcely 200.

Revolt closes in

From Misrata, a major city 200 km (120 miles) east of Tripoli, residents said by telephone that a thrust by forces loyal to Gaddafi, operating from the local airport, had been rebuffed with bloodshed by the opposition.

"There were violent clashes last night and in the early hours of the morning near the airport," one resident, Mohammed, told Reuters. "An extreme state of alert prevails in the city."

He said several mercenaries from Chad had been detained by rebels in Misrata. The report could not be verified but was similar to accounts elsewhere of Gaddafi deploying fighters brought in from African states where he has long had allies.

Protesters in Zawiyah, an oil refining town on the main coastal highway 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli, have fought off government forces for several nights.

At Tripoli's international airport, thousands of desperate foreign workers besieged the main gate trying to leave the country as police used batons and whips to keep them out.

Britain and France followed the United States in closing their embassies. Britain sent in air force troop carriers to take some 150 oil workers out of camps in the desert.

Libya supplies 2 percent of the world's oil, the bulk of it from wells and supply terminals in the east. The prospect of it being shut off -- as well as speculation that the unrest in the Arab world could spread to the major exporters of the Gulf -- has pushed oil prices up to highs not seen in over two years.

UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions on Gaddafi

2011-02-28T22:49:00.000-08:00

Zawiyah braces itself for attack as Gaddafi digs in

2011-02-28T22:38:00.000-08:00

Libyan rebels awaited a counter-attack by Muammar Gaddafi's forces on Monday, after the country's leader defied demands that he quit to end the bloodiest of the Arab world's wave of uprisings.
Rebels holding Zawiyah, only 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli, said about 2,000 troops loyal to Gaddafi had surrounded the city.

"We will do our best to fight them off. They will attack soon," said a former police major who switched sides and joined the rebellion. "If we are fighting for freedom, we are ready to die for it."

Gaddafi is fighting a rebellion which has swept through his Mediterranean oil producing nation after uprisings toppled entrenched leaders in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt. His fierce crackdown has killed hundreds, triggering U.N. sanctions and Western condemnation, but has not turned the tide of protests.

Residents even in parts of the capital Tripoli have thrown up barricades against government forces. A general in the east of the country, where Gaddafi's power has evaporated, told Reuters his forces were ready to help rebels in the west.

"Our brothers in Tripoli say: `We are fine so far, we do not need help'. If they ask for help we are ready to move," said General Ahmed el-Gatrani, one of most senior figures in the mutinous army in Benghazi.

Analysts say they expect rebels eventually to take the capital and kill or capture Gaddafi, but add that he has the firepower to foment chaos or civil war -- a prospect he and his sons have warned of.

Monday looked likely to see nervousness in oil markets. NYMEX crude for April delivery was up $1.38 at $99.25 per barrel at 0722 GMT. Libya pumps only 2 percent of world oil and Saudi Arabia has boosted output, but traders fear turmoil intensifying in the Arab world.

Serbian television quoted Gaddafi as blaming foreigners and al Qaeda for the unrest and condemning the U.N. Security Council for imposing sanctions and ordering a war crimes inquiry.

"The people of Libya support me. Small groups of rebels are surrounded and will be dealt with," he said.

Stand down calls

European powers said it was time for Gaddafi to stand down and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States was "reaching out" to opposition groups.

Residents of Zawiyah told of fierce fighting against pro-Gaddafi paramilitaries armed with heavy weapons.

"Gaddafi is crazy. His people shot at us using rocket-propelled grenades," said a man who gave his name as Mustafa. Another man called Chawki said: "We need justice. People are being killed. Gaddafi's people shot my nephew."

There were queues outside banks in Tripoli on Sunday for the 500 Libyan dinars ($400) the government had promised it would start distributing to each family.

From Misrata, a city 200 km (120 miles) east of Tripoli, residents said by phone a thrust by forces loyal to Gaddafi, operating from the airport, had been rebuffed with bloodshed.

But Libyan exile groups said later aircraft were firing on the city's radio station.

In the eastern city of Benghazi, opponents of the 68-year-old leader said they had formed a National Libyan Council to be the "face" of the revolution, but it was unclear who they represented.

They said they wanted no foreign intervention and had not made contact with foreign governments.

The "Network of Free Ulema," claiming to represent "some of Libya's most senior and most respected Muslim scholars", issued a statement urging "total rebellion" and endorsing the formation of an "interim government" announced two days ago.

Foreign workers stranded

Western leaders, emboldened by evacuations that have brought home many of their citizens from the vast desert state, spoke out more clearly than before against Gaddafi.

"We have reached, I believe, a point of no return," Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said, adding it was "inevitable" that Gaddafi would leave power.

Britain revoked Gaddafi's diplomatic immunity and said it was freezing his family's assets. "It is time for Colonel Gaddafi to go," Foreign Secretary William Hague said.

Britain's former prime minister, Tony Blair, said he had spoken to Gaddafi on Friday and told him to go. Blair helped end the Western isolation of Gaddafi after he agreed to renounce weapons of mass destruction, paving the way for big British business deals in Libya.

Three British military planes evacuated 150 civilians from Libya's desert on Sunday, after a similar operation on Saturday.

Wealthy states have sent planes and ships to bring home expatriate workers but many more, from poorer countries, are stranded. Thousands of Egyptians streamed into Tunisia on Sunday, complaining Cairo had done nothing to help them.

Malta said it had refused a Libyan request to return two warplanes brought to the island by defecting pilots last Monday.

Gaddafi, once branded a "mad dog" by Washington for his support of militant groups worldwide, had been embraced by the West in recent years in return for renouncing some weapons programmes and, critically, for opening up Libya's oilfields.

While money has flowed into Libya, many people, especially in the long-restive and oil-rich east, have seen little benefit and, inspired by the popular overthrow of veteran strongmen in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, they rose up to demand better conditions and political freedoms.

US moves ships closer to Libya and freezes assets

2011-02-28T22:35:00.000-08:00

The United States has begun moving warships and aircraft closer to Libya and has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets. Skip related content
Related photos / videos
World plans military action against Libya Play video

* World plans military action against Libya Play video
* US moves ships closer to Libya and freezes assets Enlarge photo

More photos: Barack Obama
Related content

* U.S. military action seen unlikely against Gaddafi
* Libya: Exodus As World Plans Military Action
* Libya: Rebels Show Off Trophies Of Victory
* Related Hot Topic: Libya

Have your say: Libya

The White House is ramping up pressure on leader Muammar Gaddafi after calling on him to step down.

The ships could be used for humanitarian and rescue missions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Geneva, where she told the UN Human Rights Council that Gaddafi was using "mercenaries and thugs" to suppress a popular uprising.

"There is not any pending military action involving US naval vessels," she said after the Pentagon announced it was moving warships and air force units closer to Libya.

The Obama administration has said military action is one option it is looking at, although many analysts say the United States is highly unlikely to launch a ground invasion or air strikes because of the volatile situation on the ground.

The Pentagon gave no details of the forces being moved, but its announcement is likely aimed at sending a signal to Gaddafi and his government that the United States is matching its sharper rhetoric of recent days with action.

Other foreign governments are also increasing the pressure on Gaddafi to leave in the hope of ending fighting that has claimed at least 1,000 lives.

Libya: Gaddafi's last stand?

2011-02-28T22:24:00.000-08:00

Since Feb. 15 Libya has been rocked by an unprecedented movement to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. At the helm of the North African nation for 42 years, the strongman is now struggling to retain his grip on power. The international community has almost unanimously decried the "bloodbath" inflicted on Libyans by government supporters.

Strike, death at Makerere University

2010-03-16T02:58:00.000-07:00

Makerere

Makerere University students have taken to the streets after a trigger-happy guard, Richard Akasia, allegedly shot dead two and critically injured one of them at God Is Able Hostel in Marerere-Kikoni.

Police say many students had gathered at the Hostel for the final leg of the Guild election campaigns when the watchman, suspecting one of the students could have intended to damage a vehicle in the parking lot, opened fire.

Earlier reports suggested supporters of Simon Kamau, one of the contestants in the guild presidential race, clashed with those of NRM's John Taylor, prompting the shooting of the Kenyan students.

“We have arrested the suspect and is being held at Old Kampala Police Station as investigations continue,” Police Spokesperson, Judith Nabakooba, says.

A resurgent riot, just after some relative calm, is forcing the Police anti-riot crew to dash back to the campus after retreating to the city earlier in the morning.

Students wearing red gowns and brandishing tree branches have gathered at the University main building and the campus freedom square to demonstrate the killings.

Ms Nabakooba says identities of the victims are not clear due to conflicting information.

It had been reported that Brian Awaga and Simon Peter Mungeni were those shot.

LOVE SHED MANY TEARS

2010-03-12T00:53:00.001-08:00

KAMPALA - A Kenyan student at Kampala International University (KIU) is held at Kabalagala Police station for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend to death. Jane Nyiha, a second-year student of bachelor of public administration, is accused of stabbing David Musunga Ivita in the throat, causing him to bleed to death.

She was yesterday picked from her room in Kansanga, a Kampala suburb, where she allegedly committed the crime at around 11:00am. The Police also recovered a knife which she is suspected to have used.

Musunga, also from Kenya, was a third-year student pursuing a bachelor’s degree in mass communication. He was due to sit his final exams in April and graduate in September. Almost 80% of KIU students are Kenyans.

Musunga died during examination at the university clinic where he had been rushed. The two, who had been staying in the same room, were described as long-time lovers by their landlord, John Male. "They have been friendly and calm since they rented my house in 2008. Although the boy would drink, he was generally very cool," he said.

Neighbours reported that trouble started yesterday morning when Musunga returned home drunk at 4:00am. Nyiha declined to open the door for him. The landlord narrated that Musunga spent almost an hour knocking at the door, but his girlfriend only peeped through the window, laughed and ordered him out of her sight. Musunga slept at the house of a friend, David Mwenda, who is also a Kenyan. When he returned to his room at 11:00am, a brief quarrel ensued between the two, a neighbour said. "We heard the boy groaning and wondered what had happened."

When some neighbours went to check, they said they were shocked to find the boy in a pool of blood. His girlfriend reportedly dashed to a boda-boda stage to rush the victim to the university clinic where he died on arrival. The body now lies in Nsambya Hospital.

For several hours, Police detectives cordoned off the scene of the crime. They broke the padlock of the deceased’s room and picked blood-stained bed sheets, photographs and a knife among other exhibits.

Students who knew Nyiha said she was a born-again Christian and not quarrelsome. They described the deceased as a quiet, intelligent youth. Kansanga residents complained that many of the foreign students at the university’s main campus are rowdy and indisciplined. "They drink a lot, sparking off conflicts. I often receive complaints from landlords and residents concerning the improper behaviour of Kenyan students," the LC1 chairperson, Francis Sseguya, said. He called for collaboration between the Police, the community and university authorities to guarantee security in the area.

Muhammad Ndaula, the university vice-chancellor, regretted the incident, but defended the Kenyan students. The incident is just the latest in a series of murder cases involving students over love and alcohol.

In 2007, a Kenyan student, Duncan Njogu Kamore, was expelled from Busoga University for stabbing a colleague, Paul Mogaka, after they fought over a girl. In October 2008, 17-year-old Tadeo Bukye, an S4 student of Mpanga SS in Fort Portal, was stabbed to death by a jealous girlfriend at a school party. Last year in September, Phiona Mutamba, a student of Makerere University Business School, was stabbed by her boyfriend, also a student at the same school, before he committed suicide at Workers House in the centre of Kampala

marketing politics

2010-01-25T04:05:00.000-08:00

it has been along while prior awakening that politics isnt a dirty game given the options of non-interference in the issues that one cannot define or even explain.how could peace be achieved if people still have the mediocre perception of word politic yet there are more than myriad literature mainstreaming political ideologies into familiar domains.have we not apprehended the power of politics and the damage it can cause if not properly harnessed and carefully handled by the right characters

Pirates in fierce gun battle over ransom January 19, 2010 - 6:47AM

2010-01-19T03:20:00.000-08:00

Somali pirates have fought a fierce gun battle over the share-out of a multimillion-dollar ransom within hours of the release of a Greek supertanker, witnesses say.

Machine-gun fire echoed across the coastal village of Harardhere and "there are dead bodies in the streets", one witness said.

Harardhere resident Husein Warsame said the fighting had brought the village to a standstill.

"There is no movement so far, the pirates are exchanging heavy machinegun fire inside the town and there are dead bodies in the streets."

Abdi Yare, a member of a pirate gang in the village, said two clans were disputing the ransom split.

"I have seen the body of one pirate and two injured so far but the casualties could be far higher than that," said another resident, Abdulahi Haji Mohamed.

Harardhere is a known pirate lair - 300km north of the capital, Mogadishu - where the Greek supertanker, Maran Centaurus, was held before pirates released it earlier on Monday in exchange for a reported $US9 million ($9.8 million) in ransom.

A sum of $US7 million was dropped onto the deck of the ship by plane while another $US2 million was handed over via bank transfer, according to Ecoterra International, which monitors piracy in the Indian Ocean.

The 332-metre supertanker, with its multinational crew of 28, was on its way to the South African port of Durban. It was hijacked in the Indian Ocean on November 29.

AFP

CNN correpondent performs brain op on warship January 19, 2010 - 1:11PM

2010-01-19T03:18:00.000-08:00

ON BOARD THE USS CARL VINSON: Star CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, a practising neurosurgeon, has performed brain surgery on a 12-year-old Haitian girl aboard a US military ship.

The girl, whose name was not released, was injured in last week's devastating earthquake, and was diagnosed as having a 1.2-centimetre chunk of concrete embedded in her skull.

The ship's surgeon called for a neurosurgeon, who are in short supply in the region amid the mammoth and often chaotic rescue and recovery operation.

With the help of a CNN producer, we called CNN in Atlanta who then patched us through to Dr Gupta in Port-au-Prince," the Vinson's deputy public affairs officer Erik Schneider said.

"Someone got a hold of our international desk," Dr Gupta, 40, later recalled.

"They said there was an urgent call from the Carl Vinson. So I put a call in to them and there was something about a head injury."

Assisted by Los Angeles surgeon Henri Ford and the ship's surgeon Kathryn Berndt, Dr Gupta pulled off the surgery on Monday between his multiple reports for the international news network on the massive quake that hit the Caribbean nation.

A US Navy news report confirmed the events and added that a second operation was needed to remove a sliver of debris in the girl's skull that the medical team could not initially reach.

The girl was "neurologically intact and there wasn't any penetration of the brain," said Dr Ford, originally from Haiti.

Dr Gupta and Dr Ford said they anticipated the girl would make a full recovery.

"I was honoured to help out," Dr Gupta said afterwards.

"I have a profound respect for the capabilities of the US Navy and the medical team on board the Carl Vinson."

Dr Gupta was considered for the post of US President Barack Obama's surgeon general but withdrew his name in March last year due to family and career reasons.

AFP

Twins sharing heart to be separated

2010-01-19T03:16:00.000-08:00

Conjoined American twin sisters have already defied expectations by living past their third birthdays.

Now their parents are hoping they'll become one of the first sets of twins sharing a heart to be successfully separated.

Emma and Taylor Bailey were born connected at the chest - sharing a liver and heart - and weren't expected to leave the hospital.

The girls, who live in the south-western US state of Arizona, exceeded medical expectations, but now have heart failure.

And their parents, Mandy and Tor Bailey, know they must be surgically separated to survive in the long term, the East Valley Tribune reported on Monday.

The Baileys have been working with a team at Seattle Children's Hospital for about two years to prepare for separation and heart transplants.

The girls have a few preliminary surgeries to go, but the family says they may be ready by the end of this year.

AP

Give adult daughter allowance, father told January 19, 2010

2010-01-19T03:12:00.000-08:00

ROME: Adult Italians who refuse to give up the comforts of their parents' home have found a champion in a judge who ordered a father to carry on paying a living allowance to his student daughter, 32.

In a case that has provoked debate in Italy, Giancarlo Casagrande, 60, of Bergamo, risked having his assets confiscated unless he resumed paying €350 ($550) a month and €12,000 in arrears to his daughter, Marina, after he decided three years ago she was old enough to pay her own way.

With concerns growing in Italy about the 59 per cent of Italians under 34 still living at home, Roberto Calderoli, a cabinet member, called the ruling ''a slap in the face for good sense''.

Eight years after she was due to graduate with a degree in philosophy, Ms Casagrande is still working on her thesis and lives with her mother. The allowance was fixed when her parents divorced in 1997 .

''It's easy to say she is a bambocciona,'' her mother said, using the Italian slang for children who refuse to leave home, which roughly translates to big baby. ''But it's hard for children to find work today.''

Two years ago a Milan court dismissed an application by an engineer, 36, to force his father to pay a €2000 monthly allowance.

A legal expert said Mr Casagrande was easy to sue because he had broken off payments to his daughter without seeking a settlement.

Her mother said the student had been trying to make ends meet as a dance instructor and promised she was no slacker.

''Marina should graduate in March with a thesis on the holy grail,'' she said.

Guardian News & Media

Jessica and the dagger: saga of sex and a lost soul January 19, 2010 - 12:37PM

2010-01-19T03:09:00.000-08:00

The ex-lover of jailed murderer Jessica Davies breaks his silence to Henry Samuel in Paris and Neil Tweedie

Jessica Davies used the most curious of bookmarks; her then boyfriend, Laurent Couturier, called it "the dagger".

He had bought the black-handled kitchen knife with a six inch-blade to prepare food. "It cut the best," he remembered.

Davies, then 28, English-born but raised in France, would slip it between the pages of the book she was reading while at home in her Parisian flat.

The implement became the subject of increasing fascination as the summer of 2007 wore on. Dark thoughts , which would soon find tragic expression, were marshalling in the mind of Davies, now 30, sometime catwalk model, banker's daughter and niece of a British Government minister.

As she begins a 15-year prison sentence for killing a man she had brought home, she can still not explain what drove her to do it. The answer resides somewhere in a life that promised much but which degenerated into an aimless existence characterised by alcoholism, promiscuity, drug dependency and casual, terrifying violence.

It was in August 2007 that Davies used the knife on herself, slashing her wrists in the bath in a second attempt at suicide (the first was in 2004). She sliced right down to the tendons before attacking her thighs and legs, inflicting wounds that required 27 stitches.

"I need to see blood to wake myself up to life - or leave it," she said later, admitting to harbouring thoughts of suicide from the age of 11. Unfortunately, the blood did not have to be hers.

Three months later, on the night of November 11, the niece of Quentin Davies, the Conservative-turned-Labour MP and Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, used the knife again, sinking it five inches deep into the throat of Olivier Mugnier.

Mr Mugnier, 24, jobless and carefree, had made the mistake of accepting the offer of a one-night stand at Davies's flat, in the affluent suburb of St Germain-en-Laye, after meeting her in O'Sullivan's, an Irish bar five minutes from her home.

When the police arrived at the flat to find him dying in a pool of blood, Davies explained how she had initially used the knife to open a bottle of wine. Her victim had been too drunk to make love and was sitting up with his back to her.

"I just wanted to cut him a little but the knife went in by itself," she later explained. "I remember a strange sensation, which must have been the knife going in, but no image at all. It was profoundly shocking and must have been the jolt that snapped me out of the state I was in.

"I remember being on the phone to the emergency services, one hand on the receiver, the other pressed to his throat."

She told the paramedics: "I am a monster", before being ushered by a female police officer into the tiny bathroom. As the ambulancemen worked frantically to stem the tide of blood issuing from the victim's throat, Davies was examining herself in the mirror, grabbing a hairbrush and saying: "I look a state." How had she reached that point of near insanity?

Born in London in February 1979, she was educated in France. Hers should have been a starred life. Beautiful, intelligent and regarded by those who knew her as a kind and sensitive person, she also enjoyed the privileges of wealth - her father Richard, brother of Quentin, was successful in finance.

But there were shadows, too. During her childhood, her maternal grandmother made repeated attempts to kill herself. There was instability in her father's family, too. His brother Julian was a schizophrenic who tried to kill his mother over the alleged non-payment of a debt.

Davies's capacity for erratic behaviour was evident in her attempt to burn her school down, followed by her transfer to boarding school. Her parents' divorce and the departure of her father to Italy with his lover further undermined her increasingly fragile mental state.

When her mother, Monique, left Paris, Davies lived alone in an apartment provided by her father, who put pressure on her to find a job after a lacklustre university career at Toulouse.

A fledgling career in modelling - she worked for the French mail-order firm, La Redoute - failed to take off, and she worked intermittently in bars and offices, relying on money from her parents.

Hanging out in bars became her primary pastime, together with drugs, including ecstasy, cocaine and various kinds of antidepressant, and casual sex.

Her friend, Lubomira Ratzov, 29, said: "I thought they would tell me she had killed herself, not someone else. She has an inner anger that she takes out on herself, not others. She's a very generous person who wants to help people. She's a very intelligent, beautiful girl. The boys were all mad about her but didn't know where they stood with her. She wanted the life of a couple, but she was not shy and did not have problems going with a boy on the first night. She appeared very self-assured, but that was not the real Jessica. Jessica was a girl who was hurting inside.

"The way she treated men was a form of revenge on her father. She told me in a very light, detached way that she had tried to commit suicide."

Davies maintained regular contact with her uncle Quentin. "We write to each other," she said. "He's someone I admire, for his success, his convictions and his humanism. We discussed the French Revolution. He's very cultured."

She found a degree of stability with Mr Couturier, now 38, their often-tempestuous relationship lasting two years. When it finally dissolved in mid-2007, Davies tried to kill herself.

"We had recently split up," he explained. "I was worried not to have news, not to be able to reach her at work.

"I had the keys and let myself in to her flat. I found a letter to her mother.

"Then I went into the bathroom. There was blood everywhere, the bath was full of blood-coloured water.

"I thought she was dead, but discovered that she was in hospital.

"In her personality, she turned violence against herself.

"If we had a fight, her instinct was to leave. My explanation is that she was very much in love [with me] and this relationship failed and that was the spark for the killing.

"She drank huge amounts of alcohol, up to 15 pints of Guinness, much more than I could bear. And she was on medication."

Despite their split, the couple slept together the night before the murder.

"I never had feelings of guilt that it should have been me who was murdered. We spent two years together. I think if it was supposed to happen to me, it would have happened before."

He continues to visit her in jail.

"Even if we were together tomorrow, I wouldn't fear for my life. She still can't understand what happened."

His mother, Anie Erny Beaufils, remembered: "Never, never, never was she violent. She wouldn't hurt a fly. She was a very sensitive girl.

"She was very in love with Laurent, but couldn't leave him. They were like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton: two strong characters who kept splitting up and getting back together.

"He adored her; she was his doll. He was much older than her and very protective. He didn't want to leave her alone.

"Both of them were depressed and taking the same medication, Effexor. It's very strong and one should absolutely not drink with it.

"She was a highly intelligent girl with an extraordinary IQ. I was like a mother to Jessica, she would confide in me even more than her own mother. She had only good things to say about her own family, her mother, father and uncle.

"She had lots of lovers, as she needed someone to hold her, but you couldn't keep her down because she wasn't stable in her head, always on antidepressants.

"If I had known more about her childhood, I would have done more to help. Never did she speak about her suicidal grandmother and her uncle Julian's mental illness."

A psychiatric report on Davies pointed to her father's failure to exercise his authority during her adolesence and her mother's "invasive" presence.

Her father admitted in court that he had been "poorly placed" to assess his daughter's situation following his departure for Italy, but he denied that she had intended to kill Mr Mugnier.

She had, he said, been "traumatised" by some events in her life.

The psychiatric report stated: "She [Davies] had a tendency to seek refuge in a parallel world. Her amnesia over the facts appears genuine and she had serious narcissistic problems, she had a destructiveness and a borderline personality.

"Olivier was a means of separating from her partner. She had ambivalent feelings of desire and hatred towards men. He was a pure sexual object. Olivier failed to fill the void of Jessica Davies. And instead of taking it out on herself, Olivier freed her destructiveness."

Davies's mother has still not absorbed the fact that her daughter will be in prison for up to 15 years.

"I have tried to explain what happened to myself, but I cannot," she said. "This isn't at all like my daughter. She is a nice girl."

The Telegraph, ,London

* Support is available for anyone who may be distressed by calling SANE Helpline 1800 18 7263; Lifeline 131 114; Salvo Crisis Line 9331 2000; beyondblue 1300 22 46 36.

Billionaire wins Chilean presidency

2010-01-19T03:07:00.000-08:00

A billionaire media magnate, Sebastian Pinera, is to become the next president of Chile after a runoff election on Sunday that put an end to a 20-year hold on power by the left-wing coalition of outgoing head-of-state Michelle Bachelet.

Bachelet's defeated candidate, Eduardo Frei, a former president himself, conceded defeat after an official count of most ballots showed Pinera had picked up 52 per cent to his 48 per cent.

Bachelet was constitutionally barred from seeking another term.

The victory by Pinera, 60, marked the defeat of the Concertacion coalition of four left-wing and centrist parties that had governed Chile since the 1990 exit of dictator General August Pinochet.

Pinera, who owns one of Chile's four television networks and a big stake in flagship airline LAN among many other business interests, is seen likely to continue social policies that left Bachelet with sky-high popularity ratings of about 80 per cent.

But, in a victory speech before 30,000 supporters, he promised reforms to "break down the walls dividing us and build new bridges to bring us together".

He told Concertacion's defeated rival Frei that "our country needs unity - the problems facing us today are big and challenging and require unity."

When he cast his ballot, he said the change he represented would be "like opening the window to let fresh air in".

Pinera easily won the first round of the presidential elections on December 13, but then saw his lead narrow to a statistical dead heat with Frei as Bachelet leveraged her popularity in defence of her candidate.

In the end, he squeaked through, according to an official count from 60 per cent of polling stations.

Complete results were expected by the early hours of Monday.

Bachelet, who had assured the electorate she would welcome whoever won, telephoned Pinera to congratulate him.

Frei also wished his rival luck.

"The majority of Chileans gave him their trust to direct the fate of the country for the next four years," he said as he conceded the race.

"I hope that what will prevail will be dialogue, the search for consensus and the retention of social conquests that were hard-won and which have been transformed into a symbol of our relationship with the world," he said.

Some 8.3 million people were eligible to vote in Chile, one of Latin America's most prosperous nations.

Interior Minister Edmundo Perez Yoma confirmed Pinera's victory by saying: "The country today wanted a change. It has swung to the right, and we wish the new government all the best."

Some of the first issues Pinera will have to address, however, are potential conflicts of interest highlighted by Bachelet in the run-up to Sunday's election.

Pinera, who Forbes magazine says has a fortune of $US1.2 billion ($A1.3 billion), has investments in many activities in Chile, and the outgoing president suggested strongly that maintaining them could raise serious questions.

He has sought to dodge the tag his critics put upon him that he was the Chilean version of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, notably by setting up a blind trust to handle much of his fortune and promising to divest his 26-per cent stake in LAN before taking office March 11.

He said, however, that he would hold on to his football club.

Venezuela seizes three banks, two others closed

2010-01-19T03:05:00.000-08:00

The Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez seized three banks and ordered two other financial institutions closed, as the country reeled from a currency devaluation he hopes will improving cratering state finances.

"In order to guarantee a healthy national banking and financial system, the board... has decided to intervene (with regard to) the following firms: InverUnion Banco Comercial; Banco Del Sol; and Mi Casa," banking regulator Sudeban said in a statement.

The closures come despite warnings that now regular business seizures could further spook foreign investors and undermine Chavez's efforts to put state revenues on a solid footing.

The nationalization of eight small- and medium-sized institutions last year prompted fears of a run on the country's banks, as investors moved to withdraw funds. It also sparked a dip in Venezuelan bonds and the country's currency in free trading.

The banking regulator defended Monday's move as a boost to the sector's stability, claiming the three seized banks were facing "serious administrative and managerial problems that resulted in insufficient liquidity to cover their short-term obligations."

Sudeban also closed down investment bank Baninvest and Banco Real Banco de Desarrollo, "due to inefficient operations" and announced that the banks' clients would not have immediate access to their deposits.

The government currently controls around 25 percent of the banking sector, largely due to the purchase of the Banco de Venezuela from the Spain's Santander group in 2009.

Venezuela's National Assembly on December 15 passed a banking reform law giving the state more power to regulate the sector, a move that coincided with Chavez's drive to revamp national finances, with an eye on legislative elections next year, observers said.

Supporters of Chavez had faced a tough fight at the polls, as the government saw its ability to woo supporters with popular spending programs curbed by evaporating state revenue.

In an effort to increase oil revenue Chavez earlier this month announced the bolivar would trade at 4.30 against the dollar for "non-essential" goods -- double the previous rate -- and a rate of 2.60 bolivars against the dollar for basic goods.

The Venezuelan military then moved to shutter 70 firms, including a European-backed supermarket, amid panic buying by customers who feared imminent price hikes.

The currency move is already being felt by firms exporting to Venezuela. Goodyear, a US tire company, on Monday said the devaluation would cost it 150 million US dollars in the first three months of this year.

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

China denies 'selective rescue' in Haiti January 19, 2010 - 8:14PM

2010-01-19T03:03:00.000-08:00

China angrily has denied accusations that its rescue team in Haiti was only searching for Chinese nationals missing after last week's devastating earthquake.

"Concerning the comments that Chinese rescuers only rescue Chinese, these comments are false and are made out of ulterior motives," foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters on Tuesday.

"The Chinese rescue team departed China immediately after the quake. They not only found the bodies of the Chinese peacekeepers, they also found the bodies of UN officers in Haiti and many others."

The 60-strong Chinese medical team in Haiti has already treated more than 200 locals and China has air-lifted rescue supplies and aid to the devastated country, he said.

"These actions are not selfish and brook no accusations. The accusers should be accused," Ma said, after media reports about China's contribution to the humanitarian operation in Haiti.

"Our rescue team and Chinese peacekeepers have made a great contribution to the relief efforts. We have won high appraisal from relevant parties, including the secretary general of the United Nations."

Tens of thousands were killed in the 7.0-magnitude quake that struck Haiti on January 12, with an estimated quarter of a million injured and 1.5 million left homeless.

Ma said China would consider a UN request for nations to help provide an additional 3,500 peacekeepers to help maintain order in Haiti, but made no firm commitment.

The bodies of eight Chinese peacekeepers killed in the quake were on Tuesday repatriated and given a state funeral, including a procession down the Avenue of Heavenly Peace, the capital's main thoroughfare, past Tiananmen Square.

"They sacrificed their lives for the maintenance of peace. Here I would like to express deep condolences," Ma said.

© 2010 AFP

Cadbury agrees to £11.5 bln takeover by Kraft January 19, 2010 - 9:39PM

2010-01-19T03:02:00.001-08:00

Cadbury has agreed to a takeover from US food giant Kraft worth 840 pence per share or 11.5 billion pounds (13.1 billion euros, 18.9 billion US dollars), the two firms said on Tuesday.

"The board of Kraft Foods is pleased to announce the detailed terms of a recommended final offer for Cadbury and the board of Cadbury unanimously recommends Cadbury security holders to accept the terms," a statement said.

The US firm proposes to pay 500 pence in cash and 0.1874 new Kraft Foods shares per Cadbury share. That would value each Cadbury share at 840 pence.

"In addition, Cadbury shareholders will be entitled to receive 10 pence per Cadbury share by way of a special dividend following the date on which the final offer becomes or is declared unconditional," the statement added.

"The terms of the final offer reflect the strength of Cadbury's business, its brands and the future potential for growth through the combination of Kraft Foods and Cadbury."

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

Cadbury agrees to £11.5 bln takeover by Kraft January 19, 2010 - 9:39PM

2010-01-19T02:59:00.000-08:00

Looters prey upon quake-ravaged Haiti STEPHANE JOURDAIN January 19, 2010 - 11:24AM

2010-01-19T02:54:00.001-08:00

Roving bands of hundreds of looters on Monday swarmed across Port-au-Prince, while police and military officials tasked with protecting Haiti's quake-stricken capital were nowhere to be found.

World leaders have promised to dispatch additional police, troops, marines and UN peacekeepers to the city which has spiralled into chaos and despair after being levelled by a massive earthquake nearly a week ago.

But for now, the commercial heart of Haiti's shattered capital remains firmly in the hands of the thieves and vandals, who make off with whatever has not been damaged beyond use.

Looters roamed from shop to shop, some clearly survivors scavenging for food and water, as the unrest across the region was stoked by a delay in supplies reaching hundreds of thousands of people desperate for aid.

But others on the rampage on Port-au-Prince's lawless streets appeared to be simply marauders availing themselves of whatever goods they might be able to use or sell at a later time.

And not all of the city's looting victims were merchants.

"I wanted to get my possessions from my house but the looters prevented me from doing so," said one distraught elderly man, near what remains of his rubble-strewn home.

"They've already stolen almost everything I own: my rice, my spaghetti, my milk," the old man said disconsolately.

Occasionally, one or two isolated police officers fired shots into the air in an effort to stop the looting in the city centre but they were vastly outnumbered by the masses of looters, who scattered briefly, if at all, before returning to their plundering.

Widespread looting on Sunday led Haitian police to open fire on a crowd in the capital, killing at least one man who was shot in the head, as others ransacked a supermarket.

"Incidents of violence and looting are on the rise as the desperation grows," warned the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Roaming gangs of looters steal anything they can find: sneakers, fabric, music stereos. Everything is up for grabs.

International officials overseeing relief operations on Monday said they were painfully aware of the need for additional troops and police to get vital aid to quake survivors - and to restore a semblance of order as Haiti struggles to emerge from the worst catastrophe to befall the poor Caribbean nation.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon requested 3,500 extra troops and police to boost his battered mission in Haiti as the world body's death toll from the disaster rose to 46, with hundreds of staff still unaccounted for.

Speaking to reporters after briefing the Security Council on his six-hour visit to the devastated Haitian capital on Sunday, Ban said he had requested that the UN mission, known as MINUSTAH, be considerably beefed up.

Vital aid and a surge in US military personnel to Haiti on Monday brought a drip of hope to despairing survivors still seeking basic supplies and security nearly a week after the killer quake.

About 1,700 US troops were already on the ground as part of the humanitarian response and in a bid to provide desperately needed security to back up those efforts.

And food rations provided by the United Nations and humanitarian organisations slowly began to trickle out to Haiti's desperate recipients.

Meanwhile, more than 2,200 Marines arrived aboard the amphibious ship USS Bataan, boosting overall US troop numbers to 7,000 either in Haiti or offshore.

And Lieutenant-General Ken Keen, US commander of the joint task force in Haiti, said there would be 10,000 US troops in the area in coming weeks.

Pot bill signed into law in US state January 19, 2010 - 12:59PM AP

2010-01-19T02:53:00.001-08:00

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has signed legislation granting chronically ill patients legal access to marijuana.

Corzine's office said the governor signed the bill late on Monday, his last full day in office. Governor-elect Chris Christie will be sworn in on Tuesday.

New Jersey is the 14th state to allow patients with diseases such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis to use marijuana to alleviate their pain and other symptoms.

The legislation allows for dispensaries to be set up around the state where patients with prescriptions can access the drug.

Growing marijuana at home will remain illegal, as will driving while high.

Assembly sponsor Reed Gusciora says New Jersey's medicinal marijuana law is the strictest in the country.

Lawlessness, health crisis loom over Haiti DAVE CLARK January 19, 2010 - 8:09PM

2010-01-19T02:49:00.000-08:00

Lawlessness, health crisis loom over Haiti
DAVE CLARK
January 19, 2010 - 8:09PM

Troops struggled Tuesday to control looters in the ruined Haiti capital amid urgent efforts to speed up aid deliveries to hundreds of thousands of survivors of a devastating earthquake.

A health crisis also loomed as a week after the 7.0-magnitude tremor aid workers struggled to tend to the homeless and injured amid deteriorating security in the stricken capital Port-au-Prince.

The United Nations said Tuesday more than 90 people had been pulled out alive so far, but with hopes of finding any more survivors in the rubble fading, relief efforts were focusing on the estimated quarter of a million injured and 1.5 million left homeless.

The Security Council was expected Tuesday to approve a request for 3,500 extra UN troops and police to be deployed to help curb lawlessness.

Even as pledges of improved security were made, thousands of homeless Haitians were prey to roving bands of looters swarming through the ruins of Port-au-Prince, with police and military officials tasked with protecting the vulnerable populace nowhere to be found.

Officials have expressed fears the final death toll may top 200,000 -- if it is ever known at all -- while a government minister said Sunday that 70,000 bodies had already been buried.

A lucky few survivors received treatment from surgeons on a US Navy ship floating kilometers (miles) from Port-au-Prince, but the medics aboard were frustrated at not being able to do more.

Related article: Babies pulled from the rubble

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon requested 3,500 more troops and police for the battered UN mission that was trying to bring stability to the dysfunctional Caribbean state even before disaster struck.

The UN peacekeeping mission -- which had its headquarters destroyed in the January 12 earthquake -- had been deployed in Haiti since 2004 to help stabilize the country, already the poorest in the Western Hemisphere.

More than 2,200 Marines had arrived aboard the amphibious ship USS Bataan, boosting overall US troop numbers to 7,000 either in Haiti or offshore.

Approximately 1,700 US troops were already on the ground overseeing the aid effort and trying to provide desperately needed security. US commanders promised more than 10,000 personnel in total would be in the disaster zone in the coming weeks.

"We will stay as long as is required," said Major General Cornell Wilson. "We are working in conjunction and coordination with UN forces and the government of Haiti for security issues."

Related article: UN chief seeks 3,500 reinforcements for UN mission in Haiti

US President Barack Obama proposed a joint US-Brazilian-Canadian leadership for relief efforts as the scale of the disaster overwhelmed the international humanitarian operation. Related article: US to accept Haiti orphans

Obama suggested to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that the three countries "should lead and coordinate efforts by the international community of Haiti donors and other parties," a Brazilian government official said.

EU nations promised more than 600 million US dollars in aid and reconstruction funds but Dominican President Leonel Fernandez estimated 10 billion US dollars over five years would be needed to help Haiti recover.

In the stinking capital Port-au-Prince, where corpses lay abandoned under the rubble and palace gardens were turned into putrid slums, groups of survivors roamed the streets to scrounge supplies.

Troops in combat gear fired off rounds and hauled some people to the ground to try to stop the worst of the pillaging.

Scene: For thousands, Haiti healing pivots on an amputation

Looters roamed from shop to shop, some clearly survivors scavenging for food and water, as the unrest across the region was stoked by a delay in supplies reaching the hundreds of thousands who have been without a steady source of food or water since the quake struck.

"I wanted to get my possessions from my house, but the looters prevented me," wailed one distraught elderly man near what remains of his rubble-strewn home.

The International Committee of the Red Cross warned that violence by desperate Haitians was growing.

"Prices for food and transport have skyrocketed since last Tuesday and incidents of violence and looting are on the rise as the desperation grows," it said in a statement.

Related article: Looters prey upon quake-ravaged Haitian capital

Aid was trickling through to the needy though and UN agencies said field hospitals and food distribution had multiplied in and around the capital.

Around 105,000 food rations and 20,000 tents were distributed Monday by the World Food Programme and humanitarian groups from neighbouring Dominican Republic, a Haitian official said.

Amid the death and desperation the life-affirming tales of survival that had provided glimmers of hope in preceding days were drying up, although an 18-month-old baby was found alive on Monday.

Emergency workers expanded their operations to battered communities outside of Port-au-Prince, including Gressier, Petit Goave, and Leogane, which were all leveled by the quake.

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

kasovo crisis

2009-05-15T02:31:00.000-07:00

"We gave everyone in the town a chance to leave," said the Serb police major, responsible for sacking the village of Prekaz in Kosovo province (Chris Hedges, New York Times, 03/09/98). Doesn't this sound just too familiar? Didn't Ratko Mladic, commander of Serb forces that overrun Srebrenica in summer 1995, said something similar about "giving everyone in town of Srebrenica a chance to leave?"

So, if Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians volunteered to abandon their homes and possessions, rubber-stamping the Serbian policies of "ethnic cleansing," their lives would be generously spared.

"Solution lies in dialogue," said the boss of above-mentioned police major. Doesn't this sound all too familiar, too? Serbian interior ministry reports 200 terrorist attacks since 1991 on Kosovo. However, the UCK (KLA: Kosovo Liberation Army) is around only for somewhat more than a year - benefiting mostly from a spin-off of smuggled AK rifles and other weapons looted from Albanian military during the recent upheavals in Albania (650,000 rifles were looted), and the Serb's loss of the Drenica region to KLA is just a few months old. Actually, Kosovo Albanian leaders shunned from armed struggle hoping for and continuously asking for dialogue in the past ten years. One of the reasons why Ibrahim Rugova, the leader of largest political bloc among Kosovo Albanians, lost so much support among his people lately, is his stubborn adherence to dialogue. As it did in Bosnia, Serbian regime again declares it's willingness for a dialogue, while in reality blocks any initiative that could lead to one. Fehmi Agani, one of the leading Albanian cause spokesmen said for B92 that the sudden Serbian government call for a dialogue, after they massacred women and children, is unearnest.
As they claimed in Bosnia that Bosnian Muslims shelled Sarajevo themselves, I've just heard Yugoslav ambassador in Zagreb saying that Kosovo kids were killed by Kosovo terorist leaders not wanting them to escape and give their positions. Other events confirm the use of the same tactics that Serbia used in Bosnian and Croatian wars:

Serbs again refuse to let international humanitarian organizations (as reported by ICRC) through to help care about refugees and displaced persons,
they refuse international mediation (Albanian leader Azem Vlassi suggested European envoy Felipe Gonzales) in the dialogue and
they disallow peaceful protests as they turned away Prishtina women that attempted a march on Drenica carrying a loaf of bread each.
In fact, nobody in Serbian government and, which is more sad, in Serbian political opposition, ever seriously thought about opening a dialogue with Kosovo Albanians. After all, neither did Russians ever consider a dialogue with Chechens, nor had the French been willing to accept a dialogue with Algerians, while Brits just recently, and only under the U.S. pressure, sat at the same table with Shin Fein's Garry Adams. Serbia behave as any other colonial power, which made Albanians in Kosovo learn their lesson: dialogue is futile. Nobody would listen to their case until the world media started reporting on the existence of KLA.

European powers are poorly equipped to deal with this crisis: Russians do not want to see Kosovo in Albanian hands, because that would spark a precedent for the situation in Chechenya; England perhaps see the similarity between KLA and IRA; France didn't give up Algeria without a fight, so it should show some understanding for Serbia today. In fact, currently the Serbian minority in Kosovo is smaller than French minority was in Algeria before that war, that France defended in front of the world community as the "internal French question." Doesn't that sound awfully familiar, too?

European powers reluctance to act against the fellow colonialist power already created one very bloody debacle for the international community: Bosnia. It is, therefore, imperative now, in the case of Kosovo, to act immediately and preventively. Check here the latest from State Department, U.S Congress and Contact Group on that issue. Human Rights Watch suggested that International War Crimes Tribunal should start prosecuting crimes against humanity in Kosovo holding Belgrade authorities liable for them, and the Tribunal said that it might do just that. Helsinki Citizens Assembly called upon sending peace-keepers to the region when there is still some peace to be kept. Society for Threatened Peoples (Gesellschaft fuer Bedrohte Voelker) wrote a report on recent human rights abuses in Kosovo by Serbian police with an emphasis on arbitrary detentions, interogations and beatings of Albanians who have relatives living and working in Germany. Sanjaki Refugee Center, comprised of Muslims "ethnically cleansed" from Serbian region of Sandjak, warns about t

Questions of proportionality

2009-04-25T02:59:00.000-07:00

Other incidents have raised concerns for these reasons, together with a second legal concept - proportionality.

This demands that the military gain of a particular operation be proportional to the likely or actual civilian losses incurred in carrying it out.

As Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch puts it: "Even if you have a legitimate target you can’t just drop 10-tonne bombs on it."

Gaza medic rushes injured child into hospital
Questions of proportionality rest on intention as much as the numbers of people killed and injured

Five sisters in the Balousha family were killed as they slept together as, apparently, a nearby Hamas-linked mosque was bombed in Jabaliya refugee camp on the second day of Operation Cast Lead.

HRW is calling for an investigation. "Was the mosque a legitimate target? We have our doubts… Did they use weaponry that would limit damage to civilians? We have our serious doubts," says Mr Abrahams.

In this case, Capt. Rutland said the IDF had no record of a target in that specific area at that time, and gave no further explanation for the girls’ deaths.

A further case is the bombing of a truck that Israel initially said was loaded with missiles.

B’Tselem and the truck's owner – who said his son died along with seven other people – later said it was carrying oxygen canisters for welding. Israel maintains the warehouse the canisters were loaded from had been known to house weapons in the past.

How good was Israel's intelligence? How likely was it, for example, that at the moment of decision, the information might turn out to be wrong? And did the potential gains outweigh the possible losses?

Professor Sands says proportionality is "very, very difficult."

"What's proportionate in the eyes of one person may be disproportionate in the eyes of another," he says.

The difference in numbers in the Gaza war is stark - Palestinians say more than 500 Gazans have died in eight days, compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.

But experts say issues ranging from the parties' intentions, the reasons for going to war, the actions taken to protect - or indeed expose - civilians, and the conditions on the ground, all feed into a much more complicated legal equation.

Israel says lawyers are constantly consulted in its operations. It says it takes all possible steps to minimise civilian casualties.

Guided weapons are used; telephone warnings are often given before buildings are bombed; the IDF says missions have been aborted because civilians were seen at the target.

And it says its enemy is far from a standard army: "We're talking about an entire government whose entire raison d’etre is the defeat of Israel … and all of whose energies are directed at attacking Israeli civilians," says Capt. Rutland.

Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.

But while B’Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard."

Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?

2009-04-25T02:50:00.000-07:00

Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?

Hamas-run Interior Ministry
The Interior Ministry was hit in the first strike targeting a government building

By Heather Sharp
BBC News, Jerusalem

The bloodied children are clearly civilians; men killed as they launch rockets are undisputedly not. But what about the 40 or so young Hamas police recruits on parade who died in the first wave of Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza?

And weapons caches are clearly military sites – but what about the interior ministry, hit in a strike that killed two medical workers; or the money changer's office, destroyed last week injuring a boy living on the floor above?

As the death toll mounts in Gaza, the thorny question is arising of who and what can be considered a legitimate military target in a territory effectively governed by a group that many in the international community consider a terrorist organisation.

This is also the group that won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and a year later consolidated its control by force.

So while it was behind a campaign of suicide attacks in Israel and fires rockets indiscriminately over the border, it is also in charge of schools, hospitals, sewage works and power plants in Gaza.

International law

Israel says it is operating totally within humanitarian law, but human rights groups fear it is stretching the boundaries.

And as ground forces clash in the heavily-populated Gaza Strip, the questions will become more pressing.

International law’s rules on keeping civilian casualties to a minimum are based on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants".

Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm
Benjamin Rutland
IDF spokesman

As Israel launched the first air strikes, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "You - the citizens of Gaza - are not our enemies. Hamas, Jihad and the other terrorist organisations are your enemies, as they are our enemies."

But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".

But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.

"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."

Indeed, Hamas itself has been quoted as saying the fact that most Israelis serve in the military justifies attacks on civilian areas.

Hamas policemen

The first wave of bombings, which targeted police stations across Gaza, is a key case in question - particularly the strike that killed at least 40 trainees on parade.

Analysts say Hamas policemen are responsible for quashing dissent and rooting out spies, as well as tackling crime and directing traffic.

But the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, which has raised the issue in a letter to Israel’s attorney general, says it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.

The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted.

To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic
B’Tselem director Jessica Montell

However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities.

Both B’Tselem and HRW are also concerned about the targeting of ostensibly civilian sites such as a university, mosques and government buildings.

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - quoted by Israel, although not signed by it - says that for a site to be a legitimate military target it must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage".

Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.

But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research, or for its claims that at least three money changers targeted were involved in “the transfer of funds for terrorist activities”.

This is because Israel rarely releases intelligence material for fear of endangering the lives of its sources, Capt. Rutland says.

However, on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings.

"To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic," says B’Tselem director Jessica Montell.

Q&A: Gaza conflict

2009-04-25T02:36:00.000-07:00

Three weeks after it began its offensive in the Gaza Strip, Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire, followed hours later by Hamas announcing a one-week ceasefire. The BBC News website looks at the background to the conflict and what the ceasefire means.

Why has Israel declared a ceasefire and what are its terms?

The ceasefire was unilaterally declared by Israel, 22 days after its offensive began. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the nation Hamas had been "badly beaten" and that Israel's goals "have been more than fully achieved". The goals had been to stop rocket fire into southern Israel and, in the words of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, "to change realities on the ground".

Israel has been under intense diplomatic pressure to end its action and a day before the ceasefire received assurances from the United States that it would take concrete steps to halt the flow of arms and explosives into the Gaza Strip.

Israel said its soldiers would remain inside Gaza for the time being and reserve the right to strike back if militants continued to launch attacks.

How did Hamas react?

Hamas rejected Israel's ceasefire in advance, saying it would fight on. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Israel must withdraw its troops and end its 19-month blockade of the strip.

Hours after the ceasefire began, at 0200 (0000 GMT) on 18 January, Hamas militants shot at Israeli troops in northern Gaza, drawing return fire, and fired rockets into southern Israel, triggering an Israeli air strike in response, the Israeli military said.

But then the group announced its own immediate one-week ceasefire, demanding that Israel withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip.

Hamas' deputy chief in Syria, Moussa Abou Marzouk, also reiterated long-standing demands for all the crossings to be re-opened for the entry of humanitarian aid, food and other necessities.

Why did the Israelis launch their 27 December offensive?

The Israelis say they attacked in order to stop the firing of rockets into Israel. Israel wants all firing to stop and measures to be taken to prevent Hamas from re-arming. It is trying to destroy or reduce Hamas as a fighting force and to capture its stocks of weapons to help achieve this.

The Israeli attack began on 27 December 2008, not long after Hamas had announced that it would not renew a ceasefire that had started in June 2008.

Why did Hamas not renew the ceasefire?

The six-month ceasefire, brokered by the Egyptians, was often broken in practice. Its terms were never written, but were widely understood to include Hamas ending all rocket fire from Gaza and weapons smuggling from Egypt, while Israel stopped military activity against militants in the strip and carried out a phased lifting of its blockade of Gaza. Negotiations on the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit were also supposed to begin.

Rocket fire was greatly reduced, though not completely stopped, for the first few months of the truce. The volume of goods allowed into Gaza also increased for some of the time, but remained well below pre-embargo levels.

Events began to come to a climax after the Israelis carried out their first incursion into southern Gaza during the truce, killing six militants, on 4 November 2008. Israel said its troops entered to destroy a tunnel which could be used to abduct its soldiers. This led to the further firing of Hamas missiles into Israel and in turn to a much tighter Israel blockade.

Hamas said Israel had broken the truce by failing to lift the blockade; Israel said Hamas had used the period to smuggle more rockets into Gaza, was planting explosive devices on the border fence and had not stopped the rocket fire completely.

Hamas demanded that the blockade be ended or it would not renew the ceasefire.

Why does Hamas fire missiles into Israel?

Hamas is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It regards the whole of historic Palestine as Islamic land and therefore views the state of Israel as an occupier, though it has offered a 10-year "truce" if Israel withdraws to the lines held before the war of 1967.

It therefore generally justifies any actions against Israel, which has included suicide bombings and rocket attacks, as legitimate resistance.

Specifically in Gaza, it argued that Israel's blockade justified a counter-attack by any means possible.

What casualties have the Hamas rockets caused?

Since 2001, when the rockets were first fired, more than 8,600 have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more. In the Israeli town of Sderot near Gaza, 90% of residents have had a missile exploding in their street or an adjacent one.

The range of the missiles is increasing. The Qassam rocket (named after a Palestinian leader in the 1930s) has a range of about 10km (6 miles) but more advanced missiles, including versions of the old Soviet Grad or Katyusha, possibly smuggled in, have recently hit the Israeli city of Beersheba, 40km (25 miles) from Gaza and brought 800,000 Israelis into range.

Palestinian medical sources say that more than 1,000 people have been killed in Gaza during Israel's military that started on 27 December 2008.

What have been the effects of the Israeli blockade?

They have been severe. Little but humanitarian basics have been allowed into Gaza since Hamas seized power in 2007. Before the Israeli operation began, health, water, sewage and power infrastructure were seriously ailing because of a lack of spare parts. The blockade includes limits on fuel, which have on several occasions forced the power plant that supplies Gaza City to shut down.

A total ban on exports has left the already fragile economy devastated. Unemployment has soared. The United Nations Relief and Works agency (Unrwa) provides basic food aid to about 750,000 people in Gaza, but in the weeks preceding the Israeli operation these were suspended because the UN ran out of food because Israel closed the crossings into Gaza citing security reasons.

Goods ranging from food to missiles have, however, been brought in through smuggling tunnels from Egypt.

What is the history of this small strip of land?

Gaza was part of Palestine when it was administered by Britain in a mandate granted by the League of Nations after World War I. In fighting after Israel declared its independence in large areas of Palestine in 1948, the Egyptians captured the Gaza Strip. Palestinian refugees from the coastal cities to the north took refuge there. They or their descendants still live in UN camps in Gaza. Israel captured it in the war of 1967 and eventually moved about 8,000 settlers there, but all Israeli settlers and soldiers left in 2005.

Gaza has a population of 1.4 million of whom about some three-quarters are registered with the United Nations as refugees. It is 40km (25 miles) long and between six and 12km (4 and 8 miles) wide.

How did Hamas come to control Gaza?

After the Israeli evacuation in August 2005, the Palestinian Authority took control of Gaza. The PA was made up mainly of secular-minded Palestinian nationalists from the Fatah party, which, unlike Hamas, thinks that a final agreement with Israel for a two-state solution - Israel and Palestine - can be made.

In January 2006, Hamas won elections to the Palestinian legislature and formed a government in Gaza and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank. A unity government between Hamas and Fatah was then formed in March 2007 but the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader directly elected in an earlier vote, subsequently dissolved the government.

In June 2007, Hamas, claiming that Fatah forces were trying to launch a coup, took control of Gaza by force, but not the West Bank territories.

Hamas was boycotted by the international community, which demands that it renounce violence and recognise Israel.

power sharing

2009-04-21T03:06:00.000-07:00

Power sharing is anonymously diversified concept that entails granting territorial autonomy, adopting a proper representation of groups in administrative appointment, implementing a policy of consensus and decision making by the executive, establishing a proportional electoral system, developing of non-ethic federal structure and encouraging cross-ethic coalitions. given the above tentacles of power sharing in reference to the power sharing that was drafted and adopted in Kenya after post-election violence in bid to reconcile the two previously rivalry camps and in pursuit for social cohesion, it is undeniably that there was enormous stretch of ambiguities in definition of tenets of power sharing considering the already existing wind of re-negations .Kenya’s structure of power sharing is depicted to have assimilated a policy of consensus and decision making by the executive and to a small extent unconscious negligible drops of other elements. The idea of signing the national cord without understanding its consequences has resulted to the current political gridlock manifested in the manner in which the coalition is attempting to feign, fake and forge a spirit of national trust which is outwardly demonstrated by heated arguments and personal attacks, it seems power sharing is interim way of dealing with crisis through the use of diplomatic techniques, power sharing creates two centres of power which are empowered by rubber stamp ruling out the idea that one party may overrun the other creating a state of quo which is very unpleasant for the survival of the citizens, good governance and existence of democracy. Just like the authoritarian regimes power sharing tends to justify its existence by duping the common man existence through gross malpractice such as corruption and its related vices. Notwithstanding reassertion of sociological behaviours and attitudes in the society of amplifying some elites in expense of the mass, power sharing in Kenya can be seen as dead but not buried given the view that even in some of the most politically disciplined countries such as Switzerland power sharing have remained passive and a breathing space for the leaders contemplating to blow their trumpet before they redefine and restructure the very turbulent power sharing which swayed them into power. If examined critically power sharing is a method of resolving and managing conflict to restore sanity and stability.dominique mundiah

Kenya's humanitarian crisis grows

2009-04-17T02:22:00.000-07:00

The UN says half a million Kenyans urgently need help

At least 180,000 people have been displaced by unrest as the humanitarian crisis grows after last week's disputed election in Kenya, say UN officials.
Some have been housed in makeshift camps while others have sought refuge in police stations or churches, fleeing violence that has claimed 350 lives.

In badly-affected western Kenya nearly all the refugees are hungry, and several children have died of exposure.

A top UN official in Nairobi says about 500,000 Kenyans need urgent help.

The latest developments came as anti-government protests fizzled out and the president said he might accept opposition demands for a fresh election, but only if ordered by a court.

Renegade soldiers kill Guinea-Bissau president

2009-03-03T02:44:00.000-08:00

Renegade soldiers kill Guinea-Bissau president

Assassination comes hours after bomb blast kills West African leader's rival

Soldiers assassinate Guinea-Bissau's leader
March 2: A group of renegade soldiers assassinate the president of Guinea-Bissau. Msnbc.com's Becca Field reports.
msnbc.com

BISSAU, Guinea-Bissau - Renegade soldiers assassinated the president of Guinea-Bissau in his palace Monday, hours after a bomb blast killed his rival, but the military said that no coup was in progress in the fragile West African nation.

The military statement broadcast on state radio attributed President Joao Bernardo Vieira's death to an "isolated" group of unidentified soldiers whom the military said it was now hunting down.

Luis Sanca, security adviser to Prime Minister Carlos Gomes Jr., confirmed the president had died but gave no details.

The military said the armed forces would respect the constitutional order, which calls for parliament chief Raimundo Pereira to succeed the president in the event of his death.

It also dismissed claims that the armed forces headquarters was implicated in Vieira's killing as a retaliation for the assassination late Sunday of armed forces chief of staff Gen. Batiste Tagme na Waie at his headquarters in Bissau.

The two men were considered staunch political rivals and both had survived assassination attempts in recent months.

Poverty, coups and cocaine
The former Portuguese colony has suffered multiple coups and attempted coups since 1980, when Vieira himself first took power in one. The United Nations says Guinea-Bissau, an impoverished nation on the Atlantic coast of Africa, has become a key transit point for cocaine smuggled from Latin America to Europe.

Bissau was remarkably calm on Monday despite the president's death, and traffic flowed normally in some parts of town.

Just hours after Waie's death late Sunday, volleys of automatic gunfire were heard for at least two hours before dawn in Bissau and residents said soldiers had converged on Vieira's palace.

The Portuguese news agency LUSA reported that troops attacked with rockets and rifles. The president's press chief, Barnabe Gomes, escaped from the house after being struck by a bullet in his right shoulder, LUSA said.

It was the second attack on Vieira in recent months. In November, Vieira's residence was attacked by renegade soldiers with automatic weapons. At least one guard was killed in the failed coup attempt that was repulsed by loyalist security forces.

Waie also survived an apparent assassination attempt when unidentified attackers opened fire on his car in January.

Waie killed by blast
It was not immediately clear what caused the blast that killed Waie. Defense Minister Artur Silva and other top officials contacted by The Associated Press declined to comment.

On Sunday in Bissau, troops closed roads around the armed forces building and prevented reporters from approaching. The British Broadcasting Corp. reported that the blast had destroyed part of the building.

Soldiers also shut down the city's five private radio stations, said Zikue Swaeibi, a journalist at one of them, Radio Bombolom. State radio was on the air, but it played only traditional music and there were no news broadcasts.

The three soldiers wounded in the blast were taken to the main public hospital. An AP reporter who visited the hospital saw that two of the soldiers were covered in blood and a third suffered severe burns.

In Lisbon, the Portuguese Foreign Ministry lamented Vieira's death and said it was "fundamental that all political and military authorities in the country respect the constitutional order."

Portugal said it would call an emergency meeting of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, an eight-member organization based in Lisbon.

Crisis-hit Serbia seeks 2 bln more dollars from IMF

2009-03-03T02:40:00.000-08:00

Crisis-hit Serbia seeks 2 bln more dollars from IMF:
BELGRADE (AFP) –

Having been hit harder than expected by the worldwide financial crisis, Serbia plans to seek a two-billion-dollar (1.5-billion-euro) additional arrangement with the IMF, media said Saturday.

Growth for 2009 is now expected to be between 0.5 and 1.0 percent, significantly lower than the initially forecasted three percent, Jurij Bajec, economic adviser for Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic, told the state-run Tanjug news agency.

"It was necessary to make a new agreement with IMF on an additional two billion dollars as a precondition to revise the budget in April," Bajec was quoted as saying, describing previous economic forecasts as "too optimistic."

The budget deficit is now expected to be three percent of gross domestic product, instead of the 1.5 percent agreed with IMF, he said, adding that inflation -- targeted at eight percent -- would likely be higher as well.

The International Monetary Fund's executive board approved a 530-million-dollar loan last month to help Serbia cope with the downturn.

According to Bajec, Serbia will ask the IMF to extend the initial arrangement to a total amount of 2.5 billion dollars, to be used mostly to cover foreign currency reserves and stabilise the national currency.

The dinar has lost 4.0 percent of its value since the beginning of the year, despite central bank efforts to stem the slide.

Serbia is also negotiating for 510 million dollars in assistance from the European Union as well as 300 million dollars from the World Bank, Bajec said.

Crisis in Africa

2009-03-03T02:19:00.000-08:00

some issues in Africa remains peculiar and unique in their various capacity and as they proceed towards to what is cited as ’ African way of dealing with severe threats’ they assume pseudo shapes characterized by strong statements from the leaders who define African priorities and ideals according to the duration of time spent in power,terrorising citizens with factious based tyranny systems of governance is the secret behind such unconstitutional tendencies of clinging into power for economic empowerment. Democracy in Africa is more of an ideal concept than reality considering the fact that natives are tethered with chains of absolute poverty coupled with the highest callous of treatment.

Election call in Serbia crisis

2009-03-03T02:05:00.001-08:00

Election call in Serbia crisis

By Matthew Price
Belgrade

Serbia's two largest opposition parties have called for early elections amid a deepening political crisis.

They released a joint statement demanding the elections, which are not due for another year.

As the political crisis bites, there are daily attacks on politicians on all sides.

Djindjic's assassination has sent politics spiralling deeper into crisis
Major scandals tear every day at the heart of government.

Politics was never particularly pleasant under the former Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.

But since his assassination in March the atmosphere has worsened.

Now, the joint statement says the situation is so "grave that only early parliamentary elections" can help.

Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic has dismissed the call. But it is sure to add to pressure on his administration.

The latest polls suggest that most people feel there should be early elections. But with public trust in politicians at its lowest ever, few know who they would vote for.

Unity plea

As if to underline the political problems facing Belgrade the prime minister has sent a letter to all the parties in his ruling coalition urging them to continue their work together.

Mr Zivkovic knows that if some of the parties leave the coalition he may well be forced into early elections.

The two opposition parties now callomg for elections were once part of the ruling coalition which overthrew the former President Slobodan Milosevic in 2001.

They represent different ends of the political spectrum.

But they are so angry about the current state of Serbian politics, they seem prepared to bury former differences, and work together, at least for now.

Questions for Consideration

2009-02-18T01:27:00.000-08:00

It is often assumed that knowing history is "knowing the facts." But historical understanding is more accurately depicted as a series of inquiries and hypotheses about the past. Asking questions and looking for answers are essential components of the historian's craft. What follows are a number of questions to help you reflect on the crisis at Fort Sumter. Although the information in this program never changes, you may find that as you ask new questions or reconsider old ones, your ideas about what happened change and broaden. Pursuing the program's bibliographic references will also enlarge your understanding of this event.

1. According to some accounts of the Sumter crisis, President Lincoln should bear the major responsibility for the outbreak of war because his actions were needlessly provocative. Although the Confederacy might have fired the first shot, the real aggressor is not necessarily the person who first resorts to violence. To what extent do you agree with this assessment of Lincoln's policy?

2. Would you have recommended that Lincoln adopt a more conciliatory course towards the seceding states, and, specifically, what would you have advised him to do?

3. If Lincoln had adopted a more conciliatory course, do you think the outcome would have been any different? Would it have averted war? For example, if Lincoln had abandoned Sumter, what do you think would have happened?

4. Would you have supported Secretary of State Seward's advice to let Sumter go but make a symbolic stand at Pickens? What were the benefits and liabilities of Seward's idea?

5. Do you think that Lincoln was actually too moderate and conciliatory, and that he misjudged the Confederacy's resolve and intent? If you were an adviser, would you have recommended that the President adopt a firmer and more forceful stand on Fort Sumter and other federal possessions at the very outset of his administration?

6. If Fort Sumter had little military value to either side, did Jefferson Davis and his cabinet miscalculate the best interests of the Confederacy by firing on Sumter before the relief expedition arrived? Was this simply an act of "rash emotionalism," as some have contended? Would it have mattered if the fort remained in Union hands for the time being?

7. Suppose Lincoln recognized the likelihood of conflict when he ordered the relief mission to sail. Does this decision make him more, less, or equally responsible than Davis for the war that followed?

8. What was Lincoln's justification for risking conflict when he sent the Sumter expedition? Are some things worth the risk of war? If so, do you think holding Fort Sumter should be considered one of them?

9. To what degree do you think Lincoln's decision to send the relief expedition was dictated by a sense that there was simply no better alternative, and that the "best" decision was actually only the "least bad" alternative?

10. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln offered his own observations about the outbreak of war. "Four years ago," he recalled, "all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it-- all sought to avert it . . . Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Do you think that Lincoln was accurately describing the positions of both the Union and the Confederacy? Does his statement imply a fatalistic recognition that war was inevitable?

The Fox Expedition's Feasibility

2009-02-18T01:25:00.000-08:00

Since relief, in the form of provisioning and, perhaps, reinforcement was essential to hold Sumter, it is necessary to consider the feasibility of Fox's plan. Would Fox have been able to transport provisions or troops to the fort, either without provoking conflict or in the face of resistance? And if the plan could work, was the loss of the Powhatan, which was attached in stead to the Pickens expedition, a fatal blow to its chances?

Fox himself thought his plan was "perfectly practicable," and that the Confederacy, realizing its feasibility, attacked Sumter before it could be strengthened. "I believe every officer of the army or navy present were entirely satisfied of the feasibility of . . . my plans," he declared afterwards. "In fact, their [Confederate] fire was precipitated because they . . . were assured by their best naval authority that it was perfectly practicable." Had all gone according to plan, "a reenforcement would have been easy," Fox reported after the battle of Sumter.

Fox blamed the expedition's failure on Secretary of State Seward. He claimed that Seward's "treachery" deprived him of the Powhatan, with its essential boats and crew, making the transfer of supplies and troops impossible. "Had the Powhatan arrived on the 12th," Fox wrote, "we should have had the men and provisions into Fort Sumter, as I had everything ready, boats, muffled oars, small packages of provisions, in fact everything but the 300 sailors promised to me by the [Navy] dept."

But others disagreed with Fox. Both Major Anderson and Secretary of the Navy Welles believed that Confederate forces were numerous and forewarned, making reprovisioning and reinforcement impossible. Anderson argued that the plan "could not have been successfully executed on account of the many guns which could have been brought to bear by the batteries, while Welles agreed that the effort "probably would not have succeeded" because the rebels were prepared and warned of the intended expedition.

Lincoln thought the Sumter expedition sufficiently practicable to send forward, but as he acknowledged to Fox afterwards, the "plan was not, in fact, brought to a test." In accounting for the mission's failure, Lincoln pointed to bad weather, the non-appearance of the tugboats, and his own responsibility for unintentionally depriving Fox of the Powhatan.

Bibliography: Fox, Confidential Correspondence, 1: 43-44; ORN, pp. 244-45.

Lincoln the Realist

2009-02-18T01:24:00.000-08:00

Some of those who have examined the secession crisis present Lincoln as neither a war hawk nor a failed peacemaker. Kenneth M. Stampp and Richard N. Current disagree with those who allege Lincoln's responsibility for provoking the Civil War. Indeed, they argue, one could readily reverse the charge and allege that the Confederacy was motivated to provoke the war. For Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government, Sumter provided an opportunity to unify the Confederacy, uphold southern honor and prestige, and drag the upper South out of the Union, despite Lincoln's best efforts to avoid conflict! It was Davis, after all, who ordered the attack on Sumter before the arrival of the expedition.

At the same time, these historians do not think Lincoln was unequivocally committed to a peaceable resolution of the crisis and the voluntary reconstruction of the Union. If the President truly sought the most peaceable course possible, he would have let Sumter go and taken his symbolic stand for federal authority at Fort Pickens. Since Sumter had no military value, Lincoln could have justified his withdrawal on the grounds of military necessity, blaming the previous Buchanan administration for handing him the fort in an indefensible condition. Even in sending the Sumter expedition, Lincoln could have announced his purpose without also stating that he would attempt to reinforce the fort if the provisioning were resisted. Such a course would have appeared less threatening to sensitive southern leaders.

Lincoln, then, neither deliberately provoked war nor followed the most peaceable course imaginable. Instead, he was a realist who acknowledged the possibility that his policy risked conflict. According to Stampp, Lincoln developed a "strategy of defense," by which he would hold federal property by means that would be considered defensive, not coercive. Thus, despite his cabinet's almost unanimous approval initially to withdraw from Sumter, Lincoln continued to search for ways to relieve it. He himself formulated the idea of sending in provisions unless resistance occurred, and of providing advance notice to the South Carolina government. The South, then, would have to bear the onus of firing the first shot, and firing it against an unarmed ship bringing food to hungry troops.

To be sure, Lincoln hesitated for a time before making his final decision to dispatch the Sumter expedition. But this cautiousness was not dictated by the tempting prospect of focusing attention on Fort Pickens and abandoning Sumter. Instead, it was due to the greater military and political dangers inherent in the situation in Charleston Harbor. He could not simply ignore advice from military experts that a relief mission was impossible, and he had to find a way of sending it without appearing to be the aggressor. His determination to go forward with the Sumter operation was made independently of the situation at Pickens. He made his decision prior to learning that Pickens had not been reinforced, though that news likely confirmed his judgment to proceed.

To Stampp and Current, the outbreak of fighting did not represent a failure of Lincoln's policy; he had always recognized the risk of conflict. Indeed, his policy would have succeeded regardless of what happened at Sumter. If the South permitted the fleet to resupply the fort, the prestige and legitimacy of the Confederacy would have suffered a severe blow. If, as happened, the South resisted, Lincoln would find a more united North and a sympathetic European community standing against the South's aggressive attack. As his private secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, later expressed it, when Lincoln issued the decisive order for the Sumter ships to sail, "he was master of the situation."

Although they dispute key aspects of Potter's argument, Stampp and Current agree with him that in sending the Sumter expedition, Lincoln was not choosing war over peace. While he realized the probability that the expedition would be attacked, it was at least possible that the South would acquiesce. Moreover, alternatives, such as abandoning Sumter, also entailed risks. Withdrawal could bestow legitimacy on the Confederacy and hasten a new crisis over another issue. It could also encourage the upper South to secede, persuade European governments to offer recognition, or merely postpone the inevitable conflict. Finally, if the expedition eventuated in battle, as was likely, Lincoln did not necessarily anticipate a protracted and bloody war. He may well have expected a brief contest which would lead to the quick restoration of the Union. In accepting the risk of conflict, Lincoln was not envisioning the Civil War that actually came to pass.

Commentary

Bibliography: Current, Lincoln and the First Shot, pp. 188-94; Stampp, Imperiled Union, pp. 177-85; Stampp, And the War Came, pp. 284-86; Stampp, "Comment" on Potter's "Why the Republicans Rejected Both Compromise and Secession," Knoles, ed., Crisis, pp. 107-13; Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, 3: 442, 4: 62.

Lincoln Provoked the War

2009-02-18T01:21:00.000-08:00

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter,"pp. 259-88.

Lincoln, the Man of Peace

2009-02-18T01:17:00.000-08:00

Lincoln, the Man of Peace

Almost all historians reject the claim that Lincoln deliberately provoked the Civil War. They consider the idea unsubstantiated by evidence, inconsistent with Lincoln's character, and unwarranted by the context of events. David M. Potter, for example, contends that Lincoln sincerely pursued a policy that would avert war. Placing great-- too great-- faith in the existence of unionist sentiment in the South, Lincoln did all he could to avoid a confrontation that would und ermine unionist chances of regaining power. He modified his Inaugural Address to eliminate the threat of repossessing federal property, and seriously contemplated abandoning Sumter if military considerations made such an action necessary. Although he would not sacrifice the essential principle of Union, on every occasion, Lincoln adopted the least provocative course available.

In the end, Lincoln reluctantly sent the Sumter expedition only after learning that the reinforcement of Fort Pickens had not taken place. Since Pickens could not provide a symbol of the Union's permanency, the abandonment of Sumter was now unacceptable. Even in these circumstances, Lincoln took the most peaceable course possible. He adopted a plan to resupply rather than reinforce the fort, and informed South Carolina officials of his intention. Althou gh fighting broke out as a result of his decision, Lincoln did not deliberately choose war. Instead, he opted for a course whose consequences were unknown, and which offered at least a possibility of avoiding war.

From Potter's perspective, the bombardment of Sumter represented a failure of Lincoln's policy to avert war. War was an unintended consequence of a policy that failed because of Confederate actions and Lincoln's miscalculation of the strength and determination of the secessionist cause. The Lincoln scholar, James G. Randall, has articulated the significant distinction between intentions and unintended consequences. "To say that Lincoln meant that the first shot would be fired by the other side if a first shot was fired, is not to say that he maneuvered to have the shot fired. The distinction is fundamental," Randall observes.

Bibliography: Potter, Lincoln and His Party, xxxi-xxxiii, 336-75; Potter, "Why the Republicans R

Reflections

2009-02-18T01:16:00.000-08:00

Reflections

As the reality of civil war quickly took hold in the days following April 12, the dramatic saga of Anderson's garrison at Fort Sumter faded into the background. Montgomery Blair remarked that "events of such magnitude" rapidly crowded on the country and President Lincoln, that "Sumter and Anderson are not thought of for the moment."

Fort Sumter, of course, was not forgotten, and the story of the fort and its small garrison holds a prominent place in American history. Sumter's fame has little to do with its military aspects. In strictly military terms, the battle between Union and Confederate forces at Fort Sumter scarcely merits attention. After a relatively brief bombardment, the small Union garrison surrendered a position of questionable military value to either side. Not a single human life was lost during the fighting, as compared to the massive, momentous, and bloody engagements at Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, or at Cold Harbor during the Wilderness Campaign where in a brief period of no more than half an hour, Union forces suffered some 7,000 casualties.

It is Sumter's association with the Civil War, one of the great shaping events of the American experience, which gives it a symbolic dimension far outweighing its military significance. The attack on Sumter was the first notable clash of arms between the newly formed Confederacy and the Union. The battle marked a transition from the period of precarious peace that accompanied the initial secession of seven deep South states from the Union to the four protracted years of bloodshed and devastation of the Civil War.

Like the Civil War itself, however, Sumter remains the subject of considerable controversy. Contemporary recollections, popular investigations, and historical analyses, have offered different assessments of a variety of issues connected with the outbreak of fighting. The most intense debate has focused on Lincoln, some of whose critics at the time, as well as later, held him responsible for the war and contended that he deliberately provoked the South into firing on Fort Sumter. In their view, Lincoln deliberately and disingenuously fixed the onus for starting the war on the Confederacy. To be sure, scholars have also investigated the Confederate government, and some hold it accountable for the fighting. But it is Lincoln's decisions and motives that have been most closely scrutinized.

Lincoln was not the first, or last, President to be accused of acting deceitfully and provocatively in order to advance broader military or political objectives. In an earlier period, President James K. Polk was charged by opponents, including Lincoln himself, with initiating the Mexican War by sending American troops into disputed territory. In more recent American history, some critics assailed Franklin D. Roosevelt for maneuvering the United States into World War II, and Lyndon B. Johnson was alleged to have used an ambiguous incident in the Tonkin Gulf to widen the Viet Nam War.

The controversy over who was responsible for the "first shot" of the Civil War raises substantial moral and political issues. Americans have long and proudly considered themselves a peaceable people, who repel aggression but do not initiate war. Fortunate circumstances, including isolation from Europe and the presence of few and weak neighbors, partly explain the existence of the idea of America as a peaceful oasis in a contentious world. But the sources of this claim run deeper. The insightful nineteenth-century French visitor to the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville, remarked that democratic nations "quench the military spirit." According to Tocqueville, the manners and customs of democracies, combined with their wide diffusion of wealth and property, mitigate against war and warlike passions.

Whatever the validity of Tocqueville's observation, Americans have generally taken it to heart. They have affirmed that the United States should avoid international conflict and only intervene in response to outside aggression-- after the enemy has fire d the first shot. In a society devoted to democracy and prosperity, war is an aberration. When compelled to fight, however, Americans claim the high moral ground of defending freedom against aggressors. The possibility that either the Lincoln or Davis administrations initiated war, therefore, challenges long-established and strongly held cultural assumptions.

The issue of responsibility also involves broader questions of both policy and decision making. What exactly were the policies of the Lincoln and Davis administrations in dealing with the Sumter crisis? What were the decisions they made, and what assumptions underlay their decisions? Did either government, for example, want or expect war? What did each side expect would happen when it implemented its policy? Did their decisions have unintended consequences? Were their policies consistent over time, or did policies change as conditions altered? Issues of policy and decision making, therefore, call not only for an investigation of actions taken, but also of the motives and intentions behind those actions.

This section contains a survey of some of the key controversies surrounding Fort Sumter. Two topics, often overlooked by historians today but of great moment during the Sumter crisis, concern the Fox expedition and the condition of Fort Sumter itself. Could Fox's plan have worked? If so, if it had been possible to relieve Sumter, would the fort have been able to withstand the Confederate assault and remain in Union hands?

These two questions suggest a much broader issue about the Fort Sumter episode. Assuming there were reasonable grounds to send the relief expedition, what were Lincoln's expectations when he dispatched it? In answering this question, commentators have offered very different assessments of Lincoln's motives and actions. He has been variously portrayed as a man who provoked war, as a man of peace, and as a political realist. Depending on how Lincoln is viewed, the events at Sumter take on very different meanings.

To explore the issues concerning the Fox expedition and Fort Sumter, and to understand the various ways in which Lincoln's motives and actions during the Sumter crisis have been portrayed, click on the appropriate topic. The information presented illuminates the different perspectives with which Americans have viewed their Civil War. The section ends with a series of questions raised by this program.

* Fox Expedition's Feasibility
* Fort Sumter Defense
* Lincoln Provoked The War
* Lincoln, Man of Peace
* Lincoln The Realist
* Questions for Consideration

Bibliography: Current, Lincoln and the First Shot, pp. 7-12, 182-208; Stampp, Imperiled Union, pp. 163-88; McWhiney, "Confederacy's First Shot," pp. 5-6; Robertson, American Myth, American Reality, pp. 324-31; Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Bender, p. 54

Aftermath

2009-02-18T01:15:00.001-08:00

April 13, 1861 - April 14, 1865

Ironically, the situations at both Forts Pickens and Sumter were resolved even before the arrival of the relief expeditions. On the evening of April 12, 1861, following Lieutenant Worden's arrival in Pensacola, United States troops were landed at Pickens. The fort was secured, thereby offsetting the loss of the other naval fortifications at Pensacola Harbor. Fort Pickens and the surrounding island remained in Union hands throughout the Civil War. While public attention focused on the shelling of Fort Sumter and the outbreak of Civil War, Meigs's relief expedition became a footnote in history, a relatively obscure "second" reinforcement of Pickens.

Meanwhile, Fox's expedition to Sumter arrived too late to provision or reinforce Anderson and his garrison. Fox's plan was never tested, partly because of the Confederacy's decision to attack Sumter before his expedition arrived, and partly because the Powhatan, with its essential boats and crew, sailed to Fort Pickens instead of Sumter.

In one sense, all of the decision making and planning behind the two expeditions was pointless. But such a view unduly minimizes the significance of Lincoln's actions. The Pickens mission decisively secured the fort from hostile forces, assuring a more effective implementation of the Union's blockade of southern ports. Furthermore, Lincoln's decision to send these expeditions influenced Jefferson Davis to initiate the attack on Sumter. While the irony of the Sumter and Pickens expeditions should be fully appreciated, their featured role in the coming of the Civil War still merits recognition.

And The War Came

2009-02-18T01:14:00.001-08:00

April 7 - 12, 1861

Lincoln had made his decision to relieve Forts Sumter and Pickens. The messengers to Charleston and Pensacola had been dispatched. Two expeditions, one headed to Sumter, the other directed to Pickens, were in the process of embarking. Now there would be days of waiting until the fate of these efforts was known. Throughout the Union, there was a general anticipation that the long period of standoff between Washington and Montgomery was about to end.

Lincoln had set his plan in motion, but its outcome was no longer subject to his control. Already, and still unknown to him, the flagship of the Sumter fleet, the Powhatan, was headed for the wrong fort, Pickens. Furthermore, nature was proving uncooperative. A storm struck the Atlantic just as the Sumter expedition left port, blowing gale winds, rain, and high seas. The ships had to make their way through this "unpropitious" weather to reach Charleston. Most significantly, the action of Confederate officials would also determine the consequences of Lincoln's decision.

Final Orders

2009-02-18T01:12:00.000-08:00

March 31 - April 6, 1861

By the end of March, Lincoln had made certain key decisions involving Forts Sumter and Pickens. He had set in motion preparations for a relief mission to Sumter, and placed Gustavus V. Fox in charge. He had also established April 6 as the approximate date for the expedition to get under way, if sent, so as to arrive in time to help Anderson's garrison.

As for Fort Pickens, which was more accessible and politically less controversial, Lincoln had ordered it to be held and reinforced at the outset of his administration. However, no word had yet reached Washington that his orders had been successfully carried out. Instead, rumors were rampant that federal troops had never landed. At the suggestion of Secretary of State Seward, Lincoln, therefore, initiated conversations with Captain Montgomery C. Meigs to consider plans for another relief expedition to Florida.

In this delicate and potentially explosive situation, Lincoln may well have wondered at times whether it would have been better had the Buchanan administration abandoned Sumter and Pickens. By retaining the forts, President Buchanan had, in effect, left him with a highly visible, emotional, symbolic point of contention with the Confederacy. But the problem was now his, and with it, the responsibility of decision making. As the month of March came to a close, Lincoln stood poised to make a final decision concerning Sumter and Pickens.

March 19-29, 1861

2009-02-18T01:11:00.000-08:00

Ever since Lincoln learned on March 5 that Anderson's troops at Sumter had supplies that would last no longer than mid-April, time became an increasingly weighty consideration for the President. It would take time to organize and dispatch a relief expedition, whether small-scale or massive. It would take time to reach Sumter from northern ports. Meanwhile, Confederate forces at both Sumter and Pickens were strengthening their batteries and tightening the noose around these Union positions. Every day made reinforcement more difficult, particularly at Sumter; every day made life at these posts more stressful; every day increased the possibility of a Confederate attack. And every day, too, brought demands from segments of his own Republican Party and northern public opinion for some action that would show the kind of energy and commitment to the Union that the previous Buchanan administration had lacked.

Despite pressure to act quickly, Lincoln took advantage of the time that remained to him. During the ten days following the submission of his cabinet's written opinions, Lincoln gathered information and explored ways of holding the Union's forts. By March 29, he was ready to decide on a course of action.

March 5-18, 1861

2009-02-18T01:10:00.001-08:00

Lincoln's Inaugural Address formulated a general statement of policy concerning federal forts and possessions. At the time he composed and delivered it, he understood that no immediate crisis existed at the forts still in the government's hands. He assumed that both Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter were secure and adequately supplied for the foreseeable future. Although the situation at the forts was uneasy, especially at Sumter, which was located in the charged atmosphere of Charleston, there was no immediate need to disturb the status quo. Time was available to try peaceable remedies and, perhaps, smooth the way for reconciliation.

However, Lincoln's assumptions received a jolt at the very outset of his presidency, when he learned that Sumter's troops could not hold out for any substantial period of time without assistance. Lincoln would now have to decide what to do in these new circumstances.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address

2009-02-18T01:08:00.000-08:00

Monday March 4, 1861

With the failure of compromise, attention focused increasingly on the question of secession itself and the related issue of federal property. As southern states took over federal forts one by one, those few that remained in Union hands came to symbolize the conflict over the legitimacy of secession.

Especially important were both Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens, which the Confederate government was demanding and where federal troops were now surrounded by hostile Confederate forces. Did states have a constitutional right to peaceably secede from the Union and reclaim (with compensation to the federal government) federal property within their borders, as the seceding states claimed?

If states had no such right, what were the best means of asserting the permanency of the Union and the legitimate claims of federal government over the states? Now that the long waiting period was over, Lincoln would have an opportunity in his inaugural message on March 4, 1861 to address the questions of secession and federal property. What would he say?

Problem 2

December 3, 1860 - March 3, 1864

2009-02-18T01:06:00.000-08:00

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress assembled, and the following three months leading up to Lincoln's inauguration were marked by events of profound significance for the country. Seven states left the Union, formed a new government, and took over federal property; eight slaveholding states precariously walked a tightrope between Union and secession; the Buchanan administration, after conceding the loss of most federal posts, held firm at Forts Pickens and Sumter; and moderates formulated compromise proposals to resolve the crisis and provide a means for the peaceable reconstruction of the country.

Officially, Lincoln had no more authority in this situation than any other American. Due to a constitutional requirement, he would not take office until March 4, 1861. In the meantime, power remained in the hands of a lame-duck President and Congress . Yet unofficially, Lincoln possessed considerable influence, and what he decided to do about the various compromise proposals during this period would be as fateful as any decision he made after he became President.

In making up his mind, Lincoln had to consider, among other things, his own principles and ideals, the demands of his party and constituents, the situation in the upper South, the strength of the secessionist movement in the deep South, and the likely consequences of any decision on the future course of events.

Crisis At Fort Sumter

2009-02-18T00:58:00.000-08:00

Private sector seeks solutions to global economic recession

2009-02-18T00:50:00.000-08:00

Private sector seeks solutions to global economic recession

Tuesday, 17th February, 2009

By Sylvia Juuko

WITH only 10 months to go before all goods trade freely within the East African Community (EAC), the private sector is still grappling with lack of capacity to trade within the region.

This comes against a backdrop of the looming impact of the global economic crisis that will impact negatively on the private sector.

While goods have been enjoying a tariff-free regime within the EAC since 2005, Kenyan goods pay a diminishing interim duty for five years to take care of concerns that Kenya was more developed. However, this period expires in 2010.

There was consensus at a chief executives’ consultative forum on improving Uganda’s competitiveness that the private sector needs to become more pro-active by advising the Government and supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

“While its trade capacity diminishes, most of the SMEs suffer internal constraints like inefficiency in production, non-existent books of accounts and limited management skills,” noted Lamin Manjang, the managing director of Standard Chartered Bank.

“Internal limitations reduce competitiveness of SMEs, which in turn reduces that of large enterprises and eventually Uganda’s trade capacity within the region,” he noted during the forum organised by the Private Sector Foundation.

The private sector is grappling with infrastructure challenges, which have pushed up costs of doing business. The cost of finance and ease of doing business are other challenges.

Leading industrialist, James Mulwana agreed, noting that that unless the private sector improves its trade capacity, the country was at risk of becoming a supermarket

“Donors and the Government have given us support. It is up to us to utilise that and become a player and not a supermarket for other countries in the region.”

With a raging global economic crisis that is affecting Uganda’s trade partners, leveraging on its competitive advantage to supply the region has become more urgent for Uganda’s private sector.

“The private sector has been relaxed about the global crisis but it’s with us now. If we organised forums just to talk, that was last year, it can’t work this year. We have to be pro-active, otherwise we won’t to find opportunities because we haven’t yet built capacity to confront this crisis.”

Mulwana suggested a reduction of Value Added Tax for companies setting up shop in rural areas to add value to agro-produce for export to the region.

Patrick Bitature, the chairman of the Uganda Investment Authority, said: “We should see how to help farmers build storage capacity like silos, improve production and marketing so that their business is sustainable and not vulnerable to price shocks. This will help them plan beyond a season.”

Financial Sector Wages

2009-02-18T00:47:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of irritation currently about salaries and bonuses in the financial sector, especially in light of recent bail-outs. Critics of the exuberance in the financial sector should not worry. According to a new working paper by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef, we can expect a sharp decrease in financial sector salaries in the coming years. This prediction is based on an analysis of the wage and skill development in the U.S. financial sector from 1909 to 2006. Until 1933, the financial sector was a high-skill, high wage industry. After the Great Depression, the financial sector not only lost its high human capital, but also the wage premium compared to the rest of the private sector. It was not until the 1980s that the financial sector became yet again a high-skill and high-wage industry, driven by financial liberalization and innovation.

Salaries

Both in the period from the mid-1920s to the mid-1930s and from the mid-1990s onwards, salaries in the financial sector were not consistent with education levels and employment risk, suggesting short-term rents for financial sector employees and an unsustainable labor market equilibrium. So, expect financial sector salaries to drop, although not immediately as the experience from the Great Depression shows, where it took several years for relative financial sector wages to drop. But given excess wages of 40%, expect big drops! These high excess wages might also explain regulatory failures in the run-up to the crisis; regulators could simply not attract sufficient talent given the high excess compensation in the private sector. So, the next question will be: what about the impact on MBA and Finance programs.

Posted by Thorsten Beck on January 28, 2009 in Lessons from the past | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Aid to the Suffering World

2009-02-18T00:45:00.000-08:00

William Easterly, of The White Man's Burden fame, has just started a blog on the market for development aid. His first entry discusses president Zoellick's recent proposal to have a small percentage of stimulus packages in the West be dedicated to aid for developing countries. Easterly argues that besides being unrealistic, this proposal does not offer any increased responsibility for how the money would be used. Read on.
Comments (0) E-mail Digg Bookmark Facebook

Posted by Simeon Djankov on January 29, 2009 in Aid in the crisis | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Living in a Madoff World

2009-02-18T00:44:00.001-08:00

Editor's Note: Arshad Sayed is World Bank Country Manager in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Madoff made off with billions, Nassim Taleb kept sighting unseen Black Swans, and the global economy has been in a tailspin. Meanwhile, I have been ensconced on the Mongolian Steppe. It's so far from it all that the approaching recession looked impenetrable – until now.

The prices for Mongolia’s major export, copper, and the herder’s main sources of livelihood, cashmere and meat, are in free fall. Why?

What unleashed this financial maelstrom that threatens to besiege my neighbor’s lives seemingly so disconnected from those at the center of it on Wall Street? As I look for answers there is no shortage of raison d’êtres.

Continue reading "Living in a Madoff World" »

Posted by Arshad Sayed on January 29, 2009 in East Asia and Pacific | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

The Ukrainian Tax Administration's Response to the Crisis

2009-02-18T00:42:00.000-08:00

It is widely known in Ukraine that the performance of the State Tax Administration (STA) is assessed by the volume of collected tax revenues, which is tracked on a monthly and annual basis. It is these figures that matter, and not the level of taxpayer service or public opinion. A new year has just started and the STA is already asking the Government to reduce the targets on tax revenues for 2009, which are the same as last year for company profit tax and slightly higher for VAT.

The STA argues that the targets are unrealistic considering the general decline in production and trade, the reduction of exports, etc. The signal is clear – we should prepare for hard times and the STA doesn’t want to be a poor performer, with a culture that demands the set targets should be exceeded, a heritage coming from the Soviet past.

This last decade tax revenues have been growing from year to year, based on a natural tendency of inflation and GDP growth.

Continue reading "The Ukrainian Tax Administration's Response to the Crisis" »

Posted by Nadiya Pustovoytova on January 29, 2009 in Eastern Europe | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Disclosure by Politicians

2009-02-18T00:40:00.000-08:00

After three years in the making, we have just completed a large research project on the disclosure of conflicts of interest and business dealings by politicians in 175 countries. The resulting paper, Disclosure by Politicians, a joint effort with Rafael La Porta (Dartmouth), Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes (EDHEC Business School) and Andrei Shleifer (Harvard), is the first to look at what disclosures are required by law, which of these are made public, in which countries someone actually checks whether the disclosures are made or not, and what penalties exist in the event of faulty or incomplete disclosures.

The topic will undoubtedly raise heat in countries that don't do well. More relevant for the current crisis, however, one can imagine a call for similar types of disclosures by CEOs of publicly-traded companies and perhaps even privately-held financial companies. The scandals starting to emerge from the crisis - take Madoff and Satyam - suggest there is considerable sleaze in the private sector too.

The good news is that the methodology now exists and can be adapted to the captains of industry.

Posted by Simeon Djankov on February 2, 2009 in Moral hazard | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Kaufmann Takes Aim At Corruption

2009-02-18T00:38:00.000-08:00

Dani Kaufmann, one of the pioneers of the governance agenda at the World Bank, discusses the role that corruption played in the financial crisis:

There are multiple causes of the financial crisis. But we can not ignore the element of "capture" in the systemic failures of oversight, regulation and disclosure in the financial sector. Concrete examples abound.

First, the way Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spent millions of dollars lobbying some influential members of Congress in exchange for, among other things, lax capital reserve requirements for these mortgage giants.

Second, how AIG's "small" derivatives unit located in London managed to obscure its accounts, be governed by lax regulatory oversight, and take inordinate risks that effectively brought down AIG's empire of 100,000 employees in 130 countries, accelerating the global financial crisis...

Third, how giant mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial switched regulators so to fall under the lax oversight of the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was funded by fees paid by the regulated banks (and which also supervised AIG's derivative unit).

Fourth, how in April 2004, during a 55-minute-long meeting at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the largest investment banks persuaded the SEC to relax its regulatory stance and allow them to take on much larger amounts of debt.

Finally, Madoff's giant Ponzi scheme, some of which appears to be plain fraud, though system-wide irregularities also point to subtler forms of corruption and capture. Years ago the SEC knew that Madoff, who had served on the commission's own advisory committee, had multiple violations and was misleading it in how he managed the funds of his customers. Yet the SEC failed in unmasking the Ponzi scheme.

Worse yet, more governance challenges are yet to come, as fiscal stimulus packages present all kinds of opportunities for the ethically challenged. Kaufmann recommends far-reaching measures to improve transparency as an antidote. I agree with that but doubt that's enough.

Continue reading "Kaufmann Takes Aim At Corruption" »

Posted by Ryan Hahn on February 2, 2009 in Moral hazard, Prudential regulation, Stimulus policies | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Share Prices and Accounting Reclassifications

2009-02-18T00:36:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: The following post is a joint contribution by Costas Stephanou and Haocong Ren.

As some may recall, Deutsche Bank (DB) took advantage of the change in IFRS rules (under pressure from the EU Commission) and reclassified almost Euro 25 bn. of hard-to-value (toxic?) securities from its available-for-sale portfolio to the held-to-maturity portfolio in October 2008. This allowed it to improve its reported net income for 2008Q3 by more than Euro 500 million and to report a quarterly profit, as opposed to the loss that analysts were expecting. Its stock price shot up 15% on the day of the announcement (October 30, 2008) vs. 1.2% for the relevant benchmark index (S&P 500 financials), and similar behavior could be observed for its 5-year CDS spread vis-a-vis the relevant benchmark (iTraxx Europe senior financials).

This jump in the share price washes away (based on a preliminary statistical analysis - see the attached Excel file) when looking at the evolution over a longer time period vis-a-vis the benchmark. It may also be due to a perceived market relief that DB's reported tier one capital adequacy ratio (partly as a result of the accounting changes) exceeded 10% and therefore DB had no apparent need for more capital raising that would lead to shareholder dilution. However, it is instructive to see how - at least anecdotally - accounting rules have real effects on share prices since DB's accounting reclassifications represented the main reason why analyst expectations were exceeded, as was pointed out explicitly in the financial press. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Posted by Costas Stephanou on February 3, 2009 in Accounting and auditing | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Guerilla Trade Tactics

2009-02-18T00:35:00.000-08:00

In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was implemented in the United States, raising tariffs on nearly 900 goods. The Europeans retaliated with similar tariff hikes. World trade fell by two-thirds from 1929 to 1934 largely as a result of declining demand during the world depression, but also because of the increased tariffs. Such conventional trade warfare finally came to an end with the advent of the GATT in 1947.

Thanks to the rules provided in the WTO, the successor to the GATT, a conventional trade war is now unthinkable. But as demand is plummeting, countries are seeking ways to shift it to domestic goods. This is where guerilla trade tactics come in. The WTO Secretariat reported that in the first half of 2008 (the most recent data available) there was a 39 per cent increase in antidumping investigations among members as compared with the same period in 2007. Subsidies around the world are being directed at specific domestic industries. Now, the U.S. stimulus package appears likely to include a “buy American” clause.

Such guerilla trade tactics may be just as dangerous as a conventional trade war. A key issue is the non-transparency of these antidumping duties, countervailing duties, and targeted domestic subsidies. If these modes of discrimination explode it will take a long time to disentangle them and reopen the trade system. Not to mention the resources wasted and uncertainty they generate for importers (for example, in the United States, it takes the ITC and ITA between 235 to 390 days to reach a final conclusion in an antidumping investigation!).

The WTO has been among the most successful of the international institutions. The ongoing Doha Round—with all its promises—may be able to claim victory after all if it can simply prevent protectionism from surging during the global recession.

Posted by Caroline Freund on February 4, 2009 in International organizations, Lessons from the past, Trade and trade finance | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Competitive Devaluations?

2009-02-18T00:33:00.000-08:00

Competitive Devaluations?

Kazakhstan’s central bank devalued the tenge by 18 percent yesterday. The central bank is letting the tenge weaken for the first time since it started managing the currency in 2007. Kazakshstan joins Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in abandoning attempts to prop up exchange rates as currency reserves dwindle and economies stagger. A number of other resource-rich countries have also seen their currencies fall substantially against the dollar over the last few months, including Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Maintaining a currency’s value under pressure is costly. Kazakhstan spent $3.5 billion, or 16 percent, of its foreign-exchange reserves supporting the tenge. Russia spent between $7 and $8 billion in one day last month defending the already weakened ruble. And the longer the process lasts, the more money that goes down the drain. Argentina’s net reserves fell by $20 billion in 2001 before the currency board eventually collapsed the following year.

Some countries attempt to maintain currencies because of a history of inflation. Sudden and large depreciations can be destabilizing, leading to inflation and higher interest rates. Depreciations also increase the cost of foreign currency debt. But depreciation is not necessarily bad for growth. Depreciation mimics an export subsidy and import tax, boosting exports and consumption of domestic goods. This can help countries to grow when domestic demand is weak or declining.

But what happens if many currencies collapse simultaneously? This puts downward pressure on import prices, fueling deflation in foreign markets. Kindleberger has argued that such competitive devaluations are part of what led to the Great Depression.

Volatile currency movements are already aggravating uncertainties in global financial markets. But at least so far, most of the these currency declines are understandable. Sharp declines in commodity prices have worsenened the terms of trade of the resource exporters at the same time as western capital has dried up. If depreciations spread to the large manufacturing countries then there could be real trouble.

Posted by Caroline Freund on February 6, 2009 in Currency markets, Eastern Europe | Permalink

Russia: Corruption Prevention during the Financial Crisis

2009-02-18T00:32:00.001-08:00

Russia: Corruption Prevention during the Financial Crisis

Editor's Note: Larisa Smirnova is a consultant at the World Bank and is currently working with the Transparency indicator team. She previously worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Russia and Japan.

Experts at Troika Dialogue Group, a Russian investment company, estimate that the financial crisis may naturally decrease corruption in the country due to… lower oil prices! As the Russian economy is largely dependent on oil exports, lower oil prices means less money and therefore… less bribes?

Among fears that government anti-crisis money may become another easy prey for corruption, Russia adopted a new anti-corruption law in December 2008. After heated debates, financial disclosure requirements were extended to family members of government officials. However, the content of the declarations is confirmed to be not just publicly unavailable but constituting a "state secret".

The conclusions of a recent paper, Disclosure by Politicians, which compared financial disclosure procedures in 175 countries, suggest that Russia’s corruption prevention measures might not be the most effective ones. Analysis showed that family members’ disclosure does not correlate with lower perceived corruption. Publicity of disclosure, on the contrary, appears to be the crucial imperative for political accountability.

Posted by Larisa Smirnova on February 9, 2009 in Corruption, Eastern Europe | Permalink

Remittances: Not as Bad as Predicted

2009-02-18T00:31:00.001-08:00

Remittances: Not as Bad as Predicted

Writing on the World Bank People Move blog, Dilip Ratha points out that not all the dire predictions about the crisis have come to pass. At least in the cases for which we have data, remittances have proven resilient. Mexico - one of the most important recipients of remittances and a country for which there is good data - is a case in point:

Remittance flows to Mexico dropped 10 percent year-on-year in December 2008, bringing the 2008 12-month total to $25 billion, a 3.6 percent decline compared to $26 billion registered in 2007. This decline is much smaller than the 8 percent decline projected by Mexico in August 2008.

As long as this is not a blip on the screen, remittances should help cushion the blow of the retreat of other forms of private capital flows. The Institute for International Finance warned late last month that "the outlook for private capital flows to emerging economies has deteriorated significantly in recent months." The fate of stimulus packages in rich countries consequently becomes all that more important for the rest of the world, as migrants will have a hard time keeping or finding jobs in the face of rising unemployment rates.

Posted by Ryan Hahn on February 10, 2009 in Latin America and the Caribbean, Stimulus policies | Permalink

Trained to Be Dull

2009-02-18T00:30:00.001-08:00

Trained to Be Dull

Nassim Taleb, author of the bestseller The Black Swan, doesn't have a very high opinion of bankers:

...think of a bank chairman whose institution makes steady profits over a long time, only to lose everything in a single reversal of fortune. Traditionally, bankers of the lending variety have been pear-shaped, clean-shaven, and dress in possibly the most comforting and boring manner, in dark suits, white shirts, and red ties. Indeed, for their lending business, banks hire dull people and train them to be even more dull. But this is for show. If they look conservative, it is because their loans only go bust on rare, very rare, occasions. There is no way to gauge the effectiveness of their lending activity by observing it over a day, a week, a month, or...even a century!

Taleb will be speaking at the opening session of the upcoming Financial and Private Sector Development Forum at the World Bank, along with Tim Harford, a columnist at the Financial Times, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick. I expect the discussion will be lively.

Posted by Ryan Hahn on February 10, 2009 | Permalink

Trade Still Weak but Not Worse in December

2009-02-18T00:28:00.000-08:00

February 11, 2009

Trade Still Weak but Not Worse in December

More than 60 countries have now reported trade data for November and they are uniformly weak, with imports on average down 14 percent and exports down 17 percent, as compared with the same month last year. In addition, 22 countries have now reported December data. While trade continues to be weak, there is little change since November, and nearly half of the countries show some improvement. So, while conditions did not improve in December they did not worsen significantly either.

Another indicator that the trade situation did not deteriorate further in December comes from the Baltic Dry Index. (The BDI is issued daily by the Baltic Exchange, which canvasses brokers around the world about the cost of shipping cargo of raw materials on various routes.) After a 93 percent drop since the early summer, November is the month when the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) appears to have bottomed out, suggesting that demand for shipping was at a low in that month.

While this is not exactly positive news, it could have been a lot worse.
Comments (0) E-mail Digg Bookmark Facebook

Posted by Caroline Freund on February 11, 2009 in Trade and trade finance | Permalink
The Man with the Two Trillion Dollar Plan

On Monday, World Bank Chief Economist Justin Lin proposed the establishment of a $2 trillion Global Recovery Plan. A new Marshall Plan, of sorts. You can listen to his presentation and read about it here.

The issue is that the United States of today is in a different position than the United States after the Second World War. It is hard to imagine Congress giving much money for causes abroad when the domestic economy is hurting. The same applies to the other rich economies. If anything, one may expect some lean years in development aid.

Posted by Simeon Djankov on February 11, 2009 in Aid in the crisis, International organizations | Permalink

Increasing University Enrollment as Crisis Response

2009-02-18T00:26:00.000-08:00

Increasing University Enrollment as Crisis Response

My friends in economics departments around the United States tell me that applications to PhD programs have trippled this year relative to last year. Some law schools have also reported a large increase in applications. This is because the unfolding crisis is putting lots of young people - particularly Wall Street types - out of jobs. What better time to get a graduate degree?

Even business schools report higher demand, even though one wonders what they really teach students there. Some "modesty" courses may be in order.

Increasing university enrollment is a good anti-cyclical device. In a country like the United States, this happens naturally as people with dimmed work prospects upgrade their skills. In smaller countries, this may be trickier as universities may be less prepared to meet increasing demand. Especially if they depend on government subsidies for financing a share of their operations. Hence, the need for a possible public policy.

Georgi Angelov, a senior economist at the Open Society Institute in Sofia, and I have just written a short paper on this topic, using data for Bulgaria as an example. The policy proposal is relevant for any country, however.

We develop a proposal for expanding university enrollment in Bulgaria by 30,000 students (or about 12% over 2008 enrollment). This is done by creating a student loan program guaranteed by the government. Student loans, offered competitively by commercial banks, would cover up to 50% of the cost of education. The remainder is covered by direct government subsidies (as is currently the case) and household income. The proposal is budget neutral – the government spends as much money on university education as in previous years.

Continue reading "Increasing University Enrollment as Crisis Response" »

Posted by Simeon Djankov on February 12, 2009 in Eastern Europe | Permalink

A Return of the Investment Banks?

2009-02-18T00:21:00.000-08:00

February 12, 2009

A Return of the Investment Banks?

Not likely, or at least not very desirable, according to a new working paper from Asli Demirguc-Kunt and Harry Huizinga. In Bank Activity and Funding Strategies, the authors look at an international sample of 1,334 banks to get a handle on the risk-return tradeoff of various activity and funding strategies. Their findings suggest that the failure of investment banks in the U.S. was not really a statistical outlier or a once-in-a-century event:

The main contribution of this paper is to provide evidence on what bank income and funding strategies perform well in terms of producing profitable and stable banks. In particular, we examine how a bank’s income and funding mixes affect the rate of return on its assets and Z-score or distance to default. Our basic regressions suggest that at low levels of non-interest income and non-deposit funding, there may be some risk diversification benefits of increasing these shares, although at higher levels of non-interest income and non-deposit funding shares, further increases result in higher bank risk...

...The evidence presented in paper suggests that traditional banks – with a heavy reliance on interest-income generating and deposit funding – are safer than banks that go very far in the direction of non-interest income generation and funding through the wholesale capital market. Our results provide a strong indication that banking strategies that rely preponderantly on non-interest income or non-deposit funding are indeed very risky.

Figure 2: Trend of the fee income shareFee income

(The fee income share is the share of non-interest income in total operating income. This figure displays the trend of the fee income share from 1999 to 2007. The fee income share data are yearly averages. The data are from Bankscope.)
Comments (1) E-mail Digg Bookmark Facebook

Posted by Ryan Hahn on February 12, 2009 | Permalink
Increasing University Enrollment as Crisis Response

My friends in economics departments around the United States tell me that applications to PhD programs have trippled this year relative to last year. Some law schools have also reported a large increase in applications. This is because the unfolding crisis is putting lots of young people - particularly Wall Street types - out of jobs. What better time to get a graduate degree?

Even business schools report higher demand, even though one wonders what they really teach students there. Some "modesty" courses may be in order.

Increasing university enrollment is a good anti-cyclical device. In a country like the United States, this happens naturally as people with dimmed work prospects upgrade their skills. In smaller countries, this may be trickier as universities may be less prepared to meet increasing demand. Especially if they depend on government subsidies for financing a share of their operations. Hence, the need for a possible public policy.

Georgi Angelov, a senior economist at the Open Society Institute in Sofia, and I have just written a short paper on this topic, using data for Bulgaria as an example. The policy proposal is relevant for any country, however.

We develop a proposal for expanding university enrollment in Bulgaria by 30,000 students (or about 12% over 2008 enrollment). This is done by creating a student loan program guaranteed by the government. Student loans, offered competitively by commercial banks, would cover up to 50% of the cost of education. The remainder is covered by direct government subsidies (as is currently the case) and household income. The proposal is budget neutral – the government spends as much money on university education as in previous years.

Continue reading "Increasing University Enrollment as Crisis Response" »

Posted by Simeon Djankov on February 12, 2009 in Eastern Europe | Permalink

A Second Chance for Abandoned Construction in Ukraine

2009-02-18T00:00:00.000-08:00

February 17, 2009

A Second Chance for Abandoned Construction in Ukraine

Kyiv has a long history of abandoned construction, with some objects dating back as far as the beginning of 20th century. However, most of it has accumulated in the city (and throughout the country) within the two last decades. We can find at least several groups here:

1. Unfinished construction from perestroika times – mostly huge administrative buildings that were started in the eighties and abandoned just before or soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when public spending on construction was cut off;
2. Buildings that were started after 1995, with the rise of private building companies – mostly apartment blocks – and dropped at different stages of construction for several reasons. The builder may have gone bankrupt or due to frauds with funds collected from individual investors;
3. Construction frozen as a consequence of the current financial crisis and lack of liquidity. This last group includes both residential and commercial real estate.

Fortunately, the Ukrainian language has a word for this phenomenon: dovgobud. Some of these are lucky and eventually get finished; others are forgotten, and in some very rare cases ruined. Dovgobudy in the third category, however, may be getting a second chance. Overall, as for apartment blocks, around 75-80 percent of objects have been put on hold, and as for commercial real estate – it’s close to 30-40 percent. Just before the end of 2008 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a special law aimed at mitigating the influence of the financial crisis on building construction. The Government will now allocate UAH 3 billion (roughly USD 375 million) to help finish the objects built by at least 70 percent in 2009. Those built by 50-70 percent will be covered by the program in 2010.

Continue reading "A Second Chance for Abandoned Construction in Ukraine" »
Comments (0) E-mail Digg Bookmark Facebook

Posted by Nadiya Pustovoytova on February 17, 2009 in Eastern Europe | Permalink
February 13, 2009
World Crisis Index

Intrade, one of the most popular prediction markets out there, has put together a world crisis index that aggregates markets that indicate the probability of recessions, unemployment, falls in the stock market, and the like. The index opened at 50.0 on January 27. Unfortunately, Intrade hasn't published a graph to track the index over time, but as of 2pm GMT today, the index had creeped up to 51.0, meaning that propsects for 2009 have gotten just a little bit worse over the last two weeks.
Comments (1) E-mail Digg Bookmark Facebook

Posted by Ryan Hahn on February 13, 2009 in Recession | Permalink
Enforcing Transparency

The financial crisis gave new impetus to demands for more transparency and more accountability. “The global financial crisis [is caused] in part by greed and corruption,” was the announcement last December by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. How to enforce transparency?

There might be a few good ideas to learn from the American experience of setting up a transparency watchdog. These ideas were presented by Walter M. Shaub of the US Office of Government Ethics (OGE), the main speaker at a brown bag lunch at the World Bank last week.

The work of the OGE is focused on prevention. Assets and interests disclosure is the main tool to identify conflicts of interest among government officials. If a conflict of interest is apparent from the declaration, the agency works with the official on resolving such conflict before it creates prejudice. Increasingly complex conflict-of-interest legislation increases the probability of inadvertent violations. The right advice is important - independent from law enforcement bodies and tax authorities, the ethics agency is conscientious of the trust that its clients place in it.

Promoting transparency comes before fighting corruption. It is generally true that a psychological stance of promotion creates acceptance while struggle against something incites resistance. Transparency might be just like healthy food and a healthy lifestyle – it requires steady effort to build up the right habits.

Posted by Larisa Smirnova on February 13, 2009 in Corruption, International organizations | Permalink

A SUPERNUMERARY CRISIS

2009-02-17T00:34:00.000-08:00

TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
IN "Rivington's New York Gazette," of December 6th, is a publication, under the appearance of a letter from London, dated September 30th; and is on a subject which demands the attention of the United States.

The public will remember that a treaty of commerce between the United States and England was set on foot last spring, and that until the said treaty could be completed, a bill was brought into the British Parliament by the then chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Pitt, to admit and legalize (as the case then required) the commerce of the United States into the British ports and dominions. But neither the one nor the other has been completed. The commercial treaty is either broken off, or remains as it began; and the bill in Parliament has been thrown aside. And in lieu thereof, a selfish system of English politics has started up, calculated to fetter the commerce of America, by engrossing to England the carrying trade of the American produce to the West India islands.

Among the advocates for this last measure is Lord Sheffield, a member of the British Parliament, who has published a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Commerce of the American States." The pamphlet has two objects; the one is to allure the Americans to purchase British manufactures; and the other to spirit up the British Parliament to prohibit the citizens of the United States from trading to the West India islands.

Viewed in this light, the pamphlet, though in some parts dexterously written, is an absurdity. It offends, in the very act of endeavoring to ingratiate; and his lordship, as a politician, ought not to have suffered the two objects to have appeared together. The latter alluded to, contains extracts from the pamphlet, with high encomiums on Lord Sheffield, for laboriously endeavoring (as the letter styles it) "to show the mighty advantages of retaining the carrying trade."

Since the publication of this pamphlet in England, the commerce of the United States to the West Indies, in American vessels, has been prohibited; and all intercourse, except in British bottoms, the property of and navigated by British subjects, cut off.

That a country has a right to be as foolish as it pleases, has been proved by the practice of England for many years past: in her island situation, sequestered from the world, she forgets that her whispers are heard by other nations; and in her plans of politics and commerce she seems not to know, that other votes are necessary besides her own. America would be equally as foolish as Britain, were she to suffer so great a degradation on her flag, and such a stroke on the freedom of her commerce, to pass without a balance.

We admit the right of any nation to prohibit the commerce of another into its own dominions, where there are no treaties to the contrary; but as this right belongs to one side as well as the other, there is always a way left to bring avarice and insolence to reason.

But the ground of security which Lord Sheffield has chosen to erect his policy upon, is of a nature which ought, and I think must, awaken in every American a just and strong sense of national dignity. Lord Sheffield appears to be sensible, that in advising the British nation and Parliament to engross to themselves so great a part of the carrying trade of America, he is attempting a measure which cannot succeed, if the politics of the United States be properly directed to counteract the assumption.

But, says he, in his pamphlet, "It will be a long time before the American states can be brought to act as a nation, neither are they to be feared as such by us."

What is this more or less than to tell us, that while we have no national system of commerce, the British will govern our trade by their own laws and proclamations as they please. The quotation discloses a truth too serious to be overlooked, and too mischievous not to be remedied.

Among other circumstances which led them to this discovery none could operate so effectually as the injudicious, uncandid and indecent opposition made by sundry persons in a certain state, to the recommendations of Congress last winter, for an import duty of five per cent. It could not but explain to the British a weakness in the national power of America, and encourage them to attempt restrictions on her trade, which otherwise they would not have dared to hazard. Neither is there any state in the union, whose policy was more misdirected to its interest than the state I allude to, because her principal support is the carrying trade, which Britain, induced by the want of a well-centred power in the United States to protect and secure, is now attempting to take away. It fortunately happened (and to no state in the union more than the state in question) that the terms of peace were agreed on before the opposition appeared, otherwise, there cannot be a doubt, that if the same idea of the diminished authority of America had occurred to them at that time as has occurred to them since, but they would have made the same grasp at the fisheries, as they have done at the carrying trade.

It is surprising that an authority which can be supported with so much ease, and so little expense, and capable of such extensive advantages to the country, should be cavilled at by those whose duty it is to watch over it, and whose existence as a people depends upon it. But this, perhaps, will ever be the case, till some misfortune awakens us into reason, and the instance now before us is but a gentle beginning of what America must expect, unless she guards her union with nicer care and stricter honor. United, she is formidable, and that with the least possible charge a nation can be so; separated, she is a medley of individual nothings, subject to the sport of foreign nations.

It is very probable that the ingenuity of commerce may have found out a method to evade and supersede the intentions of the British, in interdicting the trade with the West India islands. The language of both being the same, and their customs well understood, the vessels of one country may, by deception, pass for those of another. But this would be a practice too debasing for a sovereign people to stoop to, and too profligate not to be discountenanced. An illicit trade, under any shape it can be placed, cannot be carried on without a violation of truth. America is now sovereign and independent, and ought to conduct her affairs in a regular style of character. She has the same right to say that no British vessel shall enter ports, or that no British manufactures shall be imported, but in American bottoms, the property of, and navigated by American subjects, as Britain has to say the same thing respecting the West Indies. Or she may lay a duty of ten, fifteen, or twenty shillings per ton (exclusive of other duties) on every British vessel coming from any port of the West Indies, where she is not admitted to trade, the said tonnage to continue as long on her side as the prohibition continues on the other.

But it is only by acting in union, that the usurpations of foreign nations on the freedom of trade can be counteracted, and security extended to the commerce of America. And when we view a flag, which to the eye is beautiful, and to contemplate its rise and origin inspires a sensation of sublime delight, our national honor must unite with our interest to prevent injury to the one, or insult to the other.

COMMON SENSE.

NEW YORK, December 9, 1783. Table Of Contents

A Supernumerary Crisis (To The People Of America)

2009-02-17T00:32:00.001-08:00

XIII.
THOUGHTS ON THE PEACE, AND THE PROBABLE ADVANTAGES THEREOF.
"THE times that tried men's souls,"* are over- and the greatest and completest revolution the world ever knew, gloriously and happily accomplished.

* "These are the times that try men's souls," The Crisis No. I. published December, 1776.

But to pass from the extremes of danger to safety- from the tumult of war to the tranquillity of peace, though sweet in contemplation, requires a gradual composure of the senses to receive it. Even calmness has the power of stunning, when it opens too instantly upon us. The long and raging hurricane that should cease in a moment, would leave us in a state rather of wonder than enjoyment; and some moments of recollection must pass, before we could be capable of tasting the felicity of repose. There are but few instances, in which the mind is fitted for sudden transitions: it takes in its pleasures by reflection and comparison and those must have time to act, before the relish for new scenes is complete.

In the present case- the mighty magnitude of the object- the various uncertainties of fate it has undergone- the numerous and complicated dangers we have suffered or escaped- the eminence we now stand on, and the vast prospect before us, must all conspire to impress us with contemplation.

To see it in our power to make a world happy- to teach mankind the art of being so- to exhibit, on the theatre of the universe a character hitherto unknown- and to have, as it were, a new creation intrusted to our hands, are honors that command reflection, and can neither be too highly estimated, nor too gratefully received.

In this pause then of recollection- while the storm is ceasing, and the long agitated mind vibrating to a rest, let us look back on the scenes we have passed, and learn from experience what is yet to be done.

Never, I say, had a country so many openings to happiness as this. Her setting out in life, like the rising of a fair morning, was unclouded and promising. Her cause was good. Her principles just and liberal. Her temper serene and firm. Her conduct regulated by the nicest steps, and everything about her wore the mark of honor. It is not every country (perhaps there is not another in the world) that can boast so fair an origin. Even the first settlement of America corresponds with the character of the revolution. Rome, once the proud mistress of the universe, was originally a band of ruffians. Plunder and rapine made her rich, and her oppression of millions made her great. But America need never be ashamed to tell her birth, nor relate the stages by which she rose to empire.

The remembrance, then, of what is past, if it operates rightly, must inspire her with the most laudable of all ambition, that of adding to the fair fame she began with. The world has seen her great in adversity; struggling, without a thought of yielding, beneath accumulated difficulties, bravely, nay proudly, encountering distress, and rising in resolution as the storm increased. All this is justly due to her, for her fortitude has merited the character. Let, then, the world see that she can bear prosperity: and that her honest virtue in time of peace, is equal to the bravest virtue in time of war.

She is now descending to the scenes of quiet and domestic life. Not beneath the cypress shade of disappointment, but to enjoy in her own land, and under her own vine, the sweet of her labors, and the reward of her toil.- In this situation, may she never forget that a fair national reputation is of as much importance as independence. That it possesses a charm that wins upon the world, and makes even enemies civil. That it gives a dignity which is often superior to power, and commands reverence where pomp and splendor fail.

It would be a circumstance ever to be lamented and never to be forgotten, were a single blot, from any cause whatever, suffered to fall on a revolution, which to the end of time must be an honor to the age that accomplished it: and which has contributed more to enlighten the world, and diffuse a spirit of freedom and liberality among mankind, than any human event (if this may be called one) that ever preceded it.

It is not among the least of the calamities of a long continued war, that it unhinges the mind from those nice sensations which at other times appear so amiable. The continual spectacle of woe blunts the finer feelings, and the necessity of bearing with the sight, renders it familiar. In like manner, are many of the moral obligations of society weakened, till the custom of acting by necessity becomes an apology, where it is truly a crime. Yet let but a nation conceive rightly of its character, and it will be chastely just in protecting it. None ever began with a fairer than America and none can be under a greater obligation to preserve it.

The debt which America has contracted, compared with the cause she has gained, and the advantages to flow from it, ought scarcely to be mentioned. She has it in her choice to do, and to live as happily as she pleases. The world is in her hands. She has no foreign power to monopolize her commerce, perplex her legislation, or control her prosperity. The struggle is over, which must one day have happened, and, perhaps, never could have happened at a better time.* And instead of a domineering master, she has gained an ally whose exemplary greatness, and universal liberality, have extorted a confession even from her enemies.

* That the revolution began at the exact period of time best fitted to the purpose, is sufficiently proved by the event.- But the great hinge on which the whole machine turned, is the Union of the States: and this union was naturally produced by the inability of any one state to support itself against any foreign enemy without the assistance of the rest.
Had the states severally been less able than they were when the war began, their united strength would not have been equal to the undertaking, and they must in all human probability have failed.- And, on the other hand, had they severally been more able, they might not have seen, or, what is more, might not have felt, the necessity of uniting: and, either by attempting to stand alone or in small confederacies, would have been separately conquered.
Now, as we cannot see a time (and many years must pass away before it can arrive) when the strength of any one state, or several united, can be equal to the whole of the present United States, and as we have seen the extreme difficulty of collectively prosecuting the war to a successful issue, and preserving our national importance in the world, therefore, from the experience we have had, and the knowledge we have gained, we must, unless we make a waste of wisdom, be strongly impressed with the advantage, as well as the necessity of strengthening that happy union which had been our salvation, and without which we should have been a ruined people.
While I was writing this note, I cast my eye on the pamphlet, Common Sense, from which I shall make an extract, as it exactly applies to the case. It is as follows:
"I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who has not confessed it as his opinion that a separation between the countries would take place one time or other; and there is no instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of the continent for independence.
"As all men allow the measure, and differ only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not to go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time has found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact.
"It is not in numbers, but in a union, that our great strength lies. The continent is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter; and either more or less than this, might be fatal in its effects."

With the blessings of peace, independence, and an universal commerce, the states, individually and collectively, will have leisure and opportunity to regulate and establish their domestic concerns, and to put it beyond the power of calumny to throw the least reflection on their honor. Character is much easier kept than recovered, and that man, if any such there be, who, from sinister views, or littleness of soul, lends unseen his hand to injure it, contrives a wound it will never be in his power to heal.

As we have established an inheritance for posterity, let that inheritance descend, with every mark of an honorable conveyance. The little it will cost, compared with the worth of the states, the greatness of the object, and the value of the national character, will be a profitable exchange.

But that which must more forcibly strike a thoughtful, penetrating mind, and which includes and renders easy all inferior concerns, is the UNION OF THE STATES. On this our great national character depends. It is this which must give us importance abroad and security at home. It is through this only that we are, or can be, nationally known in the world; it is the flag of the United States which renders our ships and commerce safe on the seas, or in a foreign port. Our Mediterranean passes must be obtained under the same style. All our treaties, whether of alliance, peace, or commerce, are formed under the sovereignty of the United States, and Europe knows us by no other name or title.

The division of the empire into states is for our own convenience, but abroad this distinction ceases. The affairs of each state are local. They can go no further than to itself. And were the whole worth of even the richest of them expended in revenue, it would not be sufficient to support sovereignty against a foreign attack. In short, we have no other national sovereignty than as United States. It would even be fatal for us if we had- too expensive to be maintained, and impossible to be supported. Individuals, or individual states, may call themselves what they please; but the world, and especially the world of enemies, is not to be held in awe by the whistling of a name. Sovereignty must have power to protect all the parts that compose and constitute it: and as UNITED STATES we are equal to the importance of the title, but otherwise we are not. Our union, well and wisely regulated and cemented, is the cheapest way of being great- the easiest way of being powerful, and the happiest invention in government which the circumstances of America can admit of.- Because it collects from each state, that which, by being inadequate, can be of no use to it, and forms an aggregate that serves for all.

The states of Holland are an unfortunate instance of the effects of individual sovereignty. Their disjointed condition exposes them to numerous intrigues, losses, calamities, and enemies; and the almost impossibility of bringing their measures to a decision, and that decision into execution, is to them, and would be to us, a source of endless misfortune.

It is with confederated states as with individuals in society; something must be yielded up to make the whole secure. In this view of things we gain by what we give, and draw an annual interest greater than the capital.- I ever feel myself hurt when I hear the union, that great palladium of our liberty and safety, the least irreverently spoken of. It is the most sacred thing in the constitution of America, and that which every man should be most proud and tender of. Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS- our inferior one varies with the place.

So far as my endeavors could go, they have all been directed to conciliate the affections, unite the interests, and draw and keep the mind of the country together; and the better to assist in this foundation work of the revolution, I have avoided all places of profit or office, either in the state I live in, or in the United States; kept myself at a distance from all parties and party connections, and even disregarded all private and inferior concerns: and when we take into view the great work which we have gone through, and feel, as we ought to feel, the just importance of it, we shall then see, that the little wranglings and indecent contentions of personal parley, are as dishonorable to our characters, as they are injurious to our repose.

It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force with which it struck my mind and the dangerous condition the country appeared to me in, by courting an impossible and an unnatural reconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of striking out into the only line that could cement and save her, A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, made it impossible for me, feeling as I did, to be silent: and if, in the course of more than seven years, I have rendered her any service, I have likewise added something to the reputation of literature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in the great cause of mankind, and showing that there may be genius without prostitution.

Independence always appeared to me practicable and probable, provided the sentiment of the country could be formed and held to the object: and there is no instance in the world, where a people so extended, and wedded to former habits of thinking, and under such a variety of circumstances, were so instantly and effectually pervaded, by a turn in politics, as in the case of independence; and who supported their opinion, undiminished, through such a succession of good and ill fortune, till they crowned it with success.

But as the scenes of war are closed, and every man preparing for home and happier times, I therefore take my leave of the subject. I have most sincerely followed it from beginning to end, and through all its turns and windings: and whatever country I may hereafter be in, I shall always feel an honest pride at the part I have taken and acted, and a gratitude to nature and providence for putting it in my power to be of some use to mankind.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA, April 19, 1783. Table Of Contents
A Supernumerary Crisis (To The People Of America)

The Crisis No. XIII

2009-02-17T00:29:00.000-08:00

XII.
TO THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.
MY LORD,- A speech, which has been printed in several of the British and New York newspapers, as coming from your lordship, in answer to one from the Duke of Richmond, of the 10th of July last, contains expressions and opinions so new and singular, and so enveloped in mysterious reasoning, that I address this publication to you, for the purpose of giving them a free and candid examination. The speech I allude to is in these words:

"His lordship said, it had been mentioned in another place, that he had been guilty of inconsistency. To clear himself of this, he asserted that he still held the same principles in respect to American independence which he at first imbibed. He had been, and yet was of opinion, whenever the Parliament of Great Britain acknowledges that point, the sun of England's glory is set forever. Such were the sentiments he possessed on a former day, and such the sentiments he continued to hold at this hour. It was the opinion of Lord Chatham, as well as many other able statesmen. Other noble lords, however, think differently, and as the majority of the cabinet support them, he acquiesced in the measure, dissenting from the idea; and the point is settled for bringing the matter into the full discussion of Parliament, where it will be candidly, fairly, and impartially debated. The independence of America would end in the ruin of England; and that a peace patched up with France, would give that proud enemy the means of yet trampling on this country. The sun of England's glory he wished not to see set forever; he looked for a spark at least to be left, which might in time light us up to a new day. But if independence was to be granted, if Parliament deemed that measure prudent, he foresaw, in his own mind, that England was undone. He wished to God that he had been deputed to Congress, that be might plead the cause of that country as well as of this, and that he might exercise whatever powers he possessed as an orator, to save both from ruin, in a conviction to Congress, that, if their independence was signed, their liberties were gone forever.

"Peace, his lordship added, was a desirable object, but it must be an honorable peace, and not an humiliating one, dictated by France, or insisted on by America. It was very true, that this kingdom was not in a flourishing state, it was impoverished by war. But if we were not rich, it was evident that France was poor. If we were straitened in our finances, the enemy were exhausted in their resources. This was a great empire; it abounded with brave men, who were able and willing to fight in a common cause; the language of humiliation should not, therefore, be the language of Great Britain. His lordship said, that he was not afraid nor ashamed of those expressions going to America. There were numbers, great numbers there, who were of the same way of thinking, in respect to that country being dependent on this, and who, with his lordship, perceived ruin and independence linked together."

Thus far the speech; on which I remark- That his lordship is a total stranger to the mind and sentiments of America; that he has wrapped himself up in fond delusion, that something less than independence, may, under his administration, be accepted; and he wishes himself sent to Congress, to prove the most extraordinary of all doctrines, which is, that independence, the sublimest of all human conditions, is loss of liberty.

In answer to which we may say, that in order to know what the contrary word dependence means, we have only to look back to those years of severe humiliation, when the mildest of all petitions could obtain no other notice than the haughtiest of all insults; and when the base terms of unconditional submission were demanded, or undistinguishable destruction threatened. It is nothing to us that the ministry have been changed, for they may be changed again. The guilt of a government is the crime of a whole country; and the nation that can, though but for a moment, think and act as England has done, can never afterwards be believed or trusted. There are cases in which it is as impossible to restore character to life, as it is to recover the dead. It is a phoenix that can expire but once, and from whose ashes there is no resurrection. Some offences are of such a slight composition, that they reach no further than the temper, and are created or cured by a thought. But the sin of England has struck the heart of America, and nature has not left in our power to say we can forgive.

Your lordship wishes for an opportunity to plead before Congress the cause of England and America, and to save, as you say, both from ruin.

That the country, which, for more than seven years has sought our destruction, should now cringe to solicit our protection, is adding the wretchedness of disgrace to the misery of disappointment; and if England has the least spark of supposed honor left, that spark must be darkened by asking, and extinguished by receiving, the smallest favor from America; for the criminal who owes his life to the grace and mercy of the injured, is more executed by living, than he who dies.

But a thousand pleadings, even from your lordship, can have no effect. Honor, interest, and every sensation of the heart, would plead against you. We are a people who think not as you think; and what is equally true, you cannot feel as we feel. The situations of the two countries are exceedingly different. Ours has been the seat of war; yours has seen nothing of it. The most wanton destruction has been committed in our sight; the most insolent barbarity has been acted on our feelings. We can look round and see the remains of burnt and destroyed houses, once the fair fruit of hard industry, and now the striking monuments of British brutality. We walk over the dead whom we loved, in every part of America, and remember by whom they fell. There is scarcely a village but brings to life some melancholy thought, and reminds us of what we have suffered, and of those we have lost by the inhumanity of Britain. A thousand images arise to us, which, from situation, you cannot see, and are accompanied by as many ideas which you cannot know; and therefore your supposed system of reasoning would apply to nothing, and all your expectations die of themselves.

The question whether England shall accede to the independence of America, and which your lordship says is to undergo a parliamentary discussion, is so very simple, and composed of so few cases, that it scarcely needs a debate.

It is the only way out of an expensive and ruinous war, which has no object, and without which acknowledgment there can be no peace.

But your lordship says, the sun of Great Britain will set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America.- Whereas the metaphor would have been strictly just, to have left the sun wholly out of the figure, and have ascribed her not acknowledging it to the influence of the moon.

But the expression, if true, is the greatest confession of disgrace that could be made, and furnishes America with the highest notions of sovereign independent importance. Mr. Wedderburne, about the year 1776, made use of an idea of much the same kind,- Relinquish America! says he- What is it but to desire a giant to shrink spontaneously into a dwarf.

Alas! are those people who call themselves Englishmen, of so little internal consequence, that when America is gone, or shuts her eyes upon them, their sun is set, they can shine no more, but grope about in obscurity, and contract into insignificant animals? Was America, then, the giant of the empire, and England only her dwarf in waiting! Is the case so strangely altered, that those who once thought we could not live without them, are now brought to declare that they cannot exist without us? Will they tell to the world, and that from their first minister of state, that America is their all in all; that it is by her importance only that they can live, and breathe, and have a being? Will they, who long since threatened to bring us to their feet, bow themselves to ours, and own that without us they are not a nation? Are they become so unqualified to debate on independence, that they have lost all idea of it themselves, and are calling to the rocks and mountains of America to cover their insignificance? Or, if America is lost, is it manly to sob over it like a child for its rattle, and invite the laughter of the world by declarations of disgrace? Surely, a more consistent line of conduct would be to bear it without complaint; and to show that England, without America, can preserve her independence, and a suitable rank with other European powers. You were not contented while you had her, and to weep for her now is childish.

But Lord Shelburne thinks something may yet be done. What that something is, or how it is to be accomplished, is a matter in obscurity. By arms there is no hope. The experience of nearly eight years, with the expense of an hundred million pounds sterling, and the loss of two armies, must positively decide that point. Besides, the British have lost their interest in America with the disaffected. Every part of it has been tried. There is no new scene left for delusion: and the thousands who have been ruined by adhering to them, and have now to quit the settlements which they had acquired, and be conveyed like transports to cultivate the deserts of Augustine and Nova Scotia, has put an end to all further expectations of aid.

If you cast your eyes on the people of England, what have they to console themselves with for the millions expended? Or, what encouragement is there left to continue throwing good money after bad? America can carry on the war for ten years longer, and all the charges of government included, for less than you can defray the charges of war and government for one year. And I, who know both countries, know well, that the people of America can afford to pay their share of the expense much better than the people of England can. Besides, it is their own estates and property, their own rights, liberties and government, that they are defending; and were they not to do it, they would deserve to lose all, and none would pity them. The fault would be their own, and their punishment just.

The British army in America care not how long the war lasts. They enjoy an easy and indolent life. They fatten on the folly of one country and the spoils of another; and, between their plunder and their prey, may go home rich. But the case is very different with the laboring farmer, the working tradesman, and the necessitous poor in England, the sweat of whose brow goes day after day to feed, in prodigality and sloth, the army that is robbing both them and us. Removed from the eye of that country that supports them, and distant from the government that employs them, they cut and carve for themselves, and there is none to call them to account.

But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America is independent.

Then I say, is England already ruined, for America is already independent: and if Lord Shelburne will not allow this, he immediately denies the fact which he infers. Besides, to make England the mere creature of America, is paying too great a compliment to us, and too little to himself.

But the declaration is a rhapsody of inconsistency. For to say, as Lord Shelburne has numberless times said, that the war against America is ruinous, and yet to continue the prosecution of that ruinous war for the purpose of avoiding ruin, is a language which cannot be understood. Neither is it possible to see how the independence of America is to accomplish the ruin of England after the war is over, and yet not affect it before. America cannot be more independent of her, nor a greater enemy to her, hereafter than she now is; nor can England derive less advantages from her than at present: why then is ruin to follow in the best state of the case, and not in the worst? And if not in the worst, why is it to follow at all?

That a nation is to be ruined by peace and commerce, and fourteen or fifteen millions a-year less expenses than before, is a new doctrine in politics. We have heard much clamor of national savings and economy; but surely the true economy would be, to save the whole charge of a silly, foolish, and headstrong war; because, compared with this, all other retrenchments are baubles and trifles.

But is it possible that Lord Shelburne can be serious in supposing that the least advantage can be obtained by arms, or that any advantage can be equal to the expense or the danger of attempting it? Will not the capture of one army after another satisfy him, must all become prisoners? Must England ever be the sport of hope, and the victim of delusion? Sometimes our currency was to fail; another time our army was to disband; then whole provinces were to revolt. Such a general said this and that; another wrote so and so; Lord Chatham was of this opinion; and lord somebody else of another. To-day 20,000 Russians and 20 Russian ships of the line were to come; to-morrow the empress was abused without mercy or decency. Then the Emperor of Germany was to be bribed with a million of money, and the King of Prussia was to do wonderful things. At one time it was, Lo here! and then it was, Lo there! Sometimes this power, and sometimes that power, was to engage in the war, just as if the whole world was mad and foolish like Britain. And thus, from year to year, has every straw been catched at, and every Will-with-a-wisp led them a new dance.

This year a still newer folly is to take place. Lord Shelburne wishes to be sent to Congress, and he thinks that something may be done.

Are not the repeated declarations of Congress, and which all America supports, that they will not even hear any proposals whatever, until the unconditional and unequivocal independence of America is recognised; are not, I say, these declarations answer enough?

But for England to receive any thing from America now, after so many insults, injuries and outrages, acted towards us, would show such a spirit of meanness in her, that we could not but despise her for accepting it. And so far from Lord Shelburne's coming here to solicit it, it would be the greatest disgrace we could do them to offer it. England would appear a wretch indeed, at this time of day, to ask or owe any thing to the bounty of America. Has not the name of Englishman blots enough upon it, without inventing more? Even Lucifer would scorn to reign in heaven by permission, and yet an Englishman can creep for only an entrance into America. Or, has a land of liberty so many charms, that to be a doorkeeper in it is better than to be an English minister of state?

But what can this expected something be? Or, if obtained, what can it amount to, but new disgraces, contentions and quarrels? The people of America have for years accustomed themselves to think and speak so freely and contemptuously of English authority, and the inveteracy is so deeply rooted, that a person invested with any authority from that country, and attempting to exercise it here, would have the life of a toad under a harrow. They would look on him as an interloper, to whom their compassion permitted a residence. He would be no more than the Mungo of a farce; and if he disliked that, he must set off. It would be a station of degradation, debased by our pity, and despised by our pride, and would place England in a more contemptible situation than any she has yet been in during the war. We have too high an opinion of ourselves, even to think of yielding again the least obedience to outlandish authority; and for a thousand reasons, England would be the last country in the world to yield it to. She has been treacherous, and we know it. Her character is gone, and we have seen the funeral.

Surely she loves to fish in troubled waters, and drink the cup of contention, or she would not now think of mingling her affairs with those of America. It would be like a foolish dotard taking to his arms the bride that despises him, or who has placed on his head the ensigns of her disgust. It is kissing the hand that boxes his ears, and proposing to renew the exchange. The thought is as servile as the war is wicked, and shows the last scene of the drama to be as inconsistent as the first.

As America is gone, the only act of manhood is to let her go. Your lordship had no hand in the separation, and you will gain no honor by temporising politics. Besides, there is something so exceedingly whimsical, unsteady, and even insincere in the present conduct of England, that she exhibits herself in the most dishonorable colors. On the second of August last, General Carleton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington in these words:

"The resolution of the House of Commons, of the 27th of February last, has been placed in Your Excellency's hands, and intimations given at the same time that further pacific measures were likely to follow. Since which, until the present time, we have had no direct communications with England; but a mail is now arrived, which brings us very important information. We are acquainted, sir, by authority, that negotiations for a general peace have already commenced at Paris, and that Mr. Grenville is invested with full powers to treat with all the parties at war, and is now at Paris in execution of his commission. And we are further, sir, made acquainted, that His Majesty, in order to remove any obstacles to this peace which he so ardently wishes to restore, has commanded his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville, that the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces, should be proposed by him in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a general treaty."

Now, taking your present measures into view, and comparing them with the declaration in this letter, pray what is the word of your king, or his ministers, or the Parliament, good for? Must we not look upon you as a confederated body of faithless, treacherous men, whose assurances are fraud, and their language deceit? What opinion can we possibly form of you, but that you are a lost, abandoned, profligate nation, who sport even with your own character, and are to be held by nothing but the bayonet or the halter?

To say, after this, that the sun of Great Britain will be set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America, when the not doing it is the unqualified lie of government, can be no other than the language of ridicule, the jargon of inconsistency. There were thousands in America who predicted the delusion, and looked upon it as a trick of treachery, to take us from our guard, and draw off our attention from the only system of finance, by which we can be called, or deserve to be called, a sovereign, independent people. The fraud, on your part, might be worth attempting, but the sacrifice to obtain it is too high.

There are others who credited the assurance, because they thought it impossible that men who had their characters to establish, would begin with a lie. The prosecution of the war by the former ministry was savage and horrid; since which it has been mean, trickish, and delusive. The one went greedily into the passion of revenge, the other into the subtleties of low contrivance; till, between the crimes of both, there is scarcely left a man in America, be he Whig or Tory, who does not despise or detest the conduct of Britain.

The management of Lord Shelburne, whatever may be his views, is a caution to us, and must be to the world, never to regard British assurances. A perfidy so notorious cannot be hid. It stands even in the public papers of New York, with the names of Carleton and Digby affixed to it. It is a proclamation that the king of England is not to be believed; that the spirit of lying is the governing principle of the ministry. It is holding up the character of the House of Commons to public infamy, and warning all men not to credit them. Such are the consequences which Lord Shelburne's management has brought upon his country.

After the authorized declarations contained in Carleton and Digby's letter, you ought, from every motive of honor, policy and prudence, to have fulfilled them, whatever might have been the event. It was the least atonement that you could possibly make to America, and the greatest kindness you could do to yourselves; for you will save millions by a general peace, and you will lose as many by continuing the war.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 29, 1782.

P. S. The manuscript copy of this letter is sent your lordship, by the way of our head-quarters, to New York, inclosing a late pamphlet of mine, addressed to the Abbe Raynal, which will serve to give your lordship some idea of the principles and sentiments of America.

C. S.

Table Of Contents
The Crisis No. XIII

The Crisis No. XII

2009-02-17T00:27:00.000-08:00

A SUPERNUMERARY CRISIS

TO SIR GUY CARLETON.

IT is the nature of compassion to associate with misfortune; and I address this to you in behalf even of an enemy, a captain in the British service, now on his way to the headquarters of the American army, and unfortunately doomed to death for a crime not his own. A sentence so extraordinary, an execution so repugnant to every human sensation, ought never to be told without the circumstances which produced it: and as the destined victim is yet in existence, and in your hands rests his life or death, I shall briefly state the case, and the melancholy consequence.
Captain Huddy, of the Jersey militia, was attacked in a small fort on Tom's River, by a party of refugees in the British pay and service, was made prisoner, together with his company, carried to New York and lodged in the provost of that city: about three weeks after which, he was taken out of the provost down to the water-side, put into a boat, and brought again upon the Jersey shore, and there, contrary to the practice of all nations but savages, was hung up on a tree, and left hanging till found by our people who took him down and buried him.
The inhabitants of that part of the country where the murder was committed, sent a deputation to General Washington with a full and certified statement of the fact. Struck, as every human breast must be, with such brutish outrage, and determined both to punish and prevent it for the future, the General represented the case to General Clinton, who then commanded, and demanded that the refugee officer who ordered and attended the execution, and whose name is Lippencott, should be delivered up as a murderer; and in case of refusal, that the person of some British officer should suffer in his stead. The demand, though not refused, has not been complied with; and the melancholy lot (not by selection, but by casting lots) has fallen upon Captain Asgill, of the Guards, who, as I have already mentioned, is on his way from Lancaster to camp, a martyr to the general wickedness of the cause he engaged in, and the ingratitude of those whom he served.
The first reflection which arises on this black business is, what sort of men must Englishmen be, and what sort of order and discipline do they preserve in their army, when in the immediate place of their headquarters, and under the eye and nose of their commander-in-chief, a prisoner can be taken at pleasure from his confinement, and his death made a matter of sport.
The history of the most savage Indians does not produce instances exactly of this kind. They, at least, have a formality in their punishments. With them it is the horridness of revenge, but with your army it is a still greater crime, the horridness of diversion.
The British generals who have succeeded each other, from the time of General Gage to yourself, have all affected to speak in language that they have no right to. In their proclamations, their addresses, their letters to General Washington, and their supplications to Congress (for they deserve no other name) they talk of British honor, British generosity, and British clemency, as if those things were matters of fact; whereas, we whose eyes are open, who speak the same language with yourselves, many of whom were born on the same spot with you, and who can no more be mistaken in your words than in your actions, can declare to all the world, that so far as our knowledge goes, there is not a more detestable character, nor a meaner or more barbarous enemy, than the present British one. With us, you have forfeited all pretensions to reputation, and it is only by holding you like a wild beast, afraid of your keepers, that you can be made manageable. But to return to the point in question.
Though I can think no man innocent who has lent his hand to destroy the country which he did not plant, and to ruin those that he could not enslave, yet, abstracted from all ideas of right and wrong on the original question, Captain Asgill, in the present case, is not the guilty man. The villain and the victim are here separated characters. You hold the one and we the other. You disown, or affect to disown and reprobate the conduct of Lippincut, yet you give him a sanctuary; and by so doing you as effectually become the executioner of Asgill, as if you had put the rope on his neck, and dismissed him from the world. Whatever your feelings on this interesting occasion may be are best known to yourself. Within the grave of your own mind lies buried the fate of Asgill. He becomes the corpse of your will, or the survivor of your justice. Deliver up the one, and you save the other; withhold the one, and the other dies by your choice.
On our part the case is exceeding plain; an officer has been taken from his confinement and murdered, and the murderer is within your lines. Your army has been guilty of a thousand instances of equal cruelty, but they have been rendered equivocal, and sheltered from personal detection. Here the crime is fixed; and is one of those extraordinary cases which can neither be denied nor palliated, and to which the custom of war does not apply; for it never could be supposed that such a brutal outrage would ever be committed. It is an original in the history of civilized barbarians, and is truly British.
On your part you are accountable to us for the personal safety of the prisoners within your walls. Here can be no mistake; they can neither be spies nor suspected as such; your security is not endangered, nor your operations subjected to miscarriage, by men immured within a dungeon. They differ in every circumstance from men in the field, and leave no pretence for severity of punishment. But if to the dismal condition of captivity with you must be added the constant apprehensions of death; if to be imprisoned is so nearly to be entombed; and if, after all, the murderers are to be protected, and thereby the crime encouraged, wherein do you differ from [American] Indians either in conduct or character?
We can have no idea of your honor, or your justice, in any future transaction, of what nature it may be, while you shelter within your lines an outrageous murderer, and sacrifice in his stead an officer of your own. If you have no regard to us, at least spare the blood which it is your duty to save. Whether the punishment will be greater on him, who, in this case, innocently dies, or on him whom sad necessity forces to retaliate, is, in the nicety of sensation, an undecided question? It rests with you to prevent the sufferings of both. You have nothing to do but to give up the murderer, and the matter ends.
But to protect him, be he who he may, is to patronize his crime, and to trifle it off by frivolous and unmeaning inquiries, is to promote it. There is no declaration you can make, nor promise you can give that will obtain credit. It is the man and not the apology that is demanded.
You see yourself pressed on all sides to spare the life of your own officer, for die he will if you withhold justice. The murder of Captain Huddy is an offence not to be borne with, and there is no security which we can have, that such actions or similar ones shall not be repeated, but by making the punishment fall upon yourselves. To destroy the last security of captivity, and to take the unarmed, the unresisting prisoner to private and sportive execution, is carrying barbarity too high for silence. The evil must be put an end to; and the choice of persons rests with you. But if your attachment to the guilty is stronger than to the innocent, you invent a crime that must destroy your character, and if the cause of your king needs to be so supported, for ever cease, sir, to torture our remembrance with the wretched phrases of British honor, British generosity and British clemency.
From this melancholy circumstance, learn, sir, a lesson of morality. The refugees are men whom your predecessors have instructed in wickedness, the better to fit them to their master's purpose. To make them useful, they have made them vile, and the consequence of their tutored villany is now descending on the heads of their encouragers. They have been trained like hounds to the scent of blood, and cherished in every species of dissolute barbarity. Their ideas of right and wrong are worn away in the constant habitude of repeated infamy, till, like men practised in execution, they feel not the value of another's life.
The task before you, though painful, is not difficult; give up the murderer, and save your officer, as the first outset of a necessary reformation.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA May 31, 1782. Table Of Contents
The Crisis No. XII

The Crisis No. XI

2009-02-17T00:25:00.000-08:00

TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA

On the expenses, arrangements and disbursements for
carrying on the war, and finishing it with honor
and advantage

WHEN any necessity or occasion has pointed out the convenience of addressing the public, I have never made it a consideration whether the subject was popular or unpopular, but whether it was right or wrong; for that which is right will become popular, and that which is wrong, though by mistake it may obtain the cry or fashion of the day, will soon lose the power of delusion, and sink into disesteem.

A remarkable instance of this happened in the case of Silas Deane; and I mention this circumstance with the greater ease, because the poison of his hypocrisy spread over the whole country, and every man, almost without exception, thought me wrong in opposing him. The best friends I then had, except Mr. [Henry] Laurens, stood at a distance, and this tribute, which is due to his constancy, I pay to him with respect, and that the readier, because he is not here to hear it. If it reaches him in his imprisonment, it will afford him an agreeable reflection.

"As he rose like a rocket, he would fall like a stick," is a metaphor which I applied to Mr. Deane, in the first piece which I published respecting him, and he has exactly fulfilled the description. The credit he so unjustly obtained from the public, he lost in almost as short a time. The delusion perished as it fell, and he soon saw himself stripped of popular support. His more intimate acquaintances began to doubt, and to desert him long before he left America, and at his departure, he saw himself the object of general suspicion. When he arrived in France, he endeavored to effect by treason what he had failed to accomplish by fraud. His plans, schemes and projects, together with his expectation of being sent to Holland to negotiate a loan of money, had all miscarried. He then began traducing and accusing America of every crime, which could injure her reputation. "That she was a ruined country; that she only meant to make a tool of France, to get what money she could out of her, and then to leave her and accommodate with Britain." Of all which and much more, Colonel Laurens and myself, when in France, informed Dr. Franklin, who had not before heard of it. And to complete the character of traitor, he has, by letters to his country since, some of which, in his own handwriting, are now in the possession of Congress, used every expression and argument in his power, to injure the reputation of France, and to advise America to renounce her alliance, and surrender up her independence.* Thus in France he abuses America, and in his letters to America he abuses France; and is endeavoring to create disunion between two countries, by the same arts of double-dealing by which he caused dissensions among the commissioners in Paris, and distractions in America. But his life has been fraud, and his character has been that of a plodding, plotting, cringing mercenary, capable of any disguise that suited his purpose. His final detection has very happily cleared up those mistakes, and removed that uneasiness, which his unprincipled conduct occasioned. Every one now sees him in the same light; for towards friends or enemies he acted with the same deception and injustice, and his name, like that of Arnold, ought now to be forgotten among us. As this is the first time that I have mentioned him since my return from France, it is my intention that it shall be the last. From this digression, which for several reasons I thought necessary to give, I now proceed to the purport of my address.

* Mr. William Marshall, of this city [Philadelphia], formerly a pilot, who had been taken at sea and carried to England, and got from thence to France, brought over letters from Mr. Deane to America, one of which was directed to "Robert Morris, Esq." Mr. Morris sent it unopened to Congress, and advised Mr. Marshall to deliver the others there, which he did. The letters were of the same purport with those which have been already published under the signature of S. Deane, to which they had frequent reference.

I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property. It is not the war of Congress, the war of the assemblies, or the war of government in any line whatever. The country first, by mutual compact, resolved to defend their rights and maintain their independence, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes; they elected their representatives, by whom they appointed their members of Congress, and said, act you for us, and we will support you. This is the true ground and principle of the war on the part of America, and, consequently, there remains nothing to do, but for every one to fulfil his obligation.

It was next to impossible that a new country, engaged in a new undertaking, could set off systematically right at first. She saw not the extent of the struggle that she was involved in, neither could she avoid the beginning. She supposed every step that she took, and every resolution which she formed, would bring her enemy to reason and close the contest. Those failing, she was forced into new measures; and these, like the former, being fitted to her expectations, and failing in their turn, left her continually unprovided, and without system. The enemy, likewise, was induced to prosecute the war, from the temporary expedients we adopted for carrying it on. We were continually expecting to see their credit exhausted, and they were looking to see our currency fail; and thus, between their watching us, and we them, the hopes of both have been deceived, and the childishness of the expectation has served to increase the expense.

Yet who, through this wilderness of error, has been to blame? Where is the man who can say the fault, in part, has not been his? They were the natural, unavoidable errors of the day. They were the errors of a whole country, which nothing but experience could detect and time remove. Neither could the circumstances of America admit of system, till either the paper currency was fixed or laid aside. No calculation of a finance could be made on a medium failing without reason, and fluctuating without rule.

But there is one error which might have been prevented and was not; and as it is not my custom to flatter, but to serve mankind, I will speak it freely. It certainly was the duty of every assembly on the continent to have known, at all times, what was the condition of its treasury, and to have ascertained at every period of depreciation, how much the real worth of the taxes fell short of their nominal value. This knowledge, which might have been easily gained, in the time of it, would have enabled them to have kept their constituents well informed, and this is one of the greatest duties of representation. They ought to have studied and calculated the expenses of the war, the quota of each state, and the consequent proportion that would fall on each man's property for his defence; and this must have easily shown to them, that a tax of one hundred pounds could not be paid by a bushel of apples or an hundred of flour, which was often the case two or three years ago. But instead of this, which would have been plain and upright dealing, the little line of temporary popularity, the feather of an hour's duration, was too much pursued; and in this involved condition of things, every state, for the want of a little thinking, or a little information, supposed that it supported the whole expenses of the war, when in fact it fell, by the time the tax was levied and collected, above three-fourths short of its own quota.

Impressed with a sense of the danger to which the country was exposed by this lax method of doing business, and the prevailing errors of the day, I published, last October was a twelvemonth, the Crisis Extraordinary, on the revenues of America, and the yearly expense of carrying on the war. My estimation of the latter, together with the civil list of Congress, and the civil list of the several states, was two million pounds sterling, which is very nearly nine millions of dollars.

Since that time, Congress have gone into a calculation, and have estimated the expenses of the War Department and the civil list of Congress (exclusive of the civil list of the several governments) at eight millions of dollars; and as the remaining million will be fully sufficient for the civil list of the several states, the two calculations are exceedingly near each other.

The sum of eight millions of dollars have called upon the states to furnish, and their quotas are as follows, which I shall preface with the resolution itself.

"By the United States in Congress assembled.

"October 30, 1781.

"Resolved, That the respective states be called upon to furnish the treasury of the United States with their quotas of eight millions of dollars, for the War Department and civil list for the ensuing year, to be paid quarterly, in equal proportions, the first payment to be made on the first day of April next.
"Resolved, That a committee, consisting of a member from each state, be appointed to apportion to the several states the quota of the above sum.
"November 2d. The committee appointed to ascertain the proportions of the several states of the monies to be raised for the expenses of the ensuing year, report the following resolutions:
"That the sum of eight millions of dollars, as required to be raised by the resolutions of the 30th of October last, be paid by the states in the following proportion:

New Hampshire....... $ 373,598
Massachusetts....... 1,307,596
Rhode Island........ 216,684
Connecticut......... 747,196
New York............ 373,598
New Jersey.......... 485,679
Pennsylvania........ 1,120,794
Delaware............ 112,085
Maryland............ 933,996
Virginia............ 1,307,594
North Carolina...... 622,677
South Carolina...... 373,598
Georgia............. 24,905

$8,000,000

"Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, to lay taxes for raising their quotas of money for the United States, separate from those laid for their own particular use."

On these resolutions I shall offer several remarks.

1st, On the sum itself, and the ability of the country.
2d, On the several quotas, and the nature of a union. And,
3d, On the manner of collection and expenditure.

1st, On the sum itself, and the ability of the country. As I know my own calculation is as low as possible, and as the sum called for by congress, according to their calculation, agrees very nearly therewith, I am sensible it cannot possibly be lower. Neither can it be done for that, unless there is ready money to go to market with; and even in that case, it is only by the utmost management and economy that it can be made to do.

By the accounts which were laid before the British Parliament last spring, it appeared that the charge of only subsisting, that is, feeding their army in America, cost annually four million pounds sterling, which is very nearly eighteen millions of dollars. Now if, for eight millions, we can feed, clothe, arm, provide for, and pay an army sufficient for our defence, the very comparison shows that the money must be well laid out.

It may be of some use, either in debate or conversation, to attend to the progress of the expenses of an army, because it will enable us to see on what part any deficiency will fall.

The first thing is, to feed them and prepare for the sick.
Second, to clothe them.
Third, to arm and furnish them.
Fourth, to provide means for removing them from place to place. And,
Fifth, to pay them.

The first and second are absolutely necessary to them as men. The third and fourth are equally as necessary to them as an army. And the fifth is their just due. Now if the sum which shall be raised should fall short, either by the several acts of the states for raising it, or by the manner of collecting it, the deficiency will fall on the fifth head, the soldiers' pay, which would be defrauding them, and eternally disgracing ourselves. It would be a blot on the councils, the country, and the revolution of America, and a man would hereafter be ashamed to own that he had any hand in it.

But if the deficiency should be still shorter, it would next fall on the fourth head, the means of removing the army from place to place; and, in this case, the army must either stand still where it can be of no use, or seize on horses, carts, wagons, or any means of transportation which it can lay hold of; and in this instance the country suffers. In short, every attempt to do a thing for less than it can he done for, is sure to become at last both a loss and a dishonor.

But the country cannot bear it, say some. This has been the most expensive doctrine that ever was held out, and cost America millions of money for nothing. Can the country bear to be overrun, ravaged, and ruined by an enemy? This will immediately follow where defence is wanting, and defence will ever be wanting, where sufficient revenues are not provided. But this is only one part of the folly. The second is, that when the danger comes, invited in part by our not preparing against it, we have been obliged, in a number of instances, to expend double the sums to do that which at first might have been done for half the money. But this is not all. A third mischief has been, that grain of all sorts, flour, beef fodder, horses, carts, wagons, or whatever was absolutely or immediately wanted, have been taken without pay. Now, I ask, why was all this done, but from that extremely weak and expensive doctrine, that the country could not bear it? That is, that she could not bear, in the first instance, that which would have saved her twice as much at last; or, in proverbial language, that she could not bear to pay a penny to save a pound; the consequence of which has been, that she has paid a pound for a penny. Why are there so many unpaid certificates in almost every man's hands, but from the parsimony of not providing sufficient revenues? Besides, the doctrine contradicts itself; because, if the whole country cannot bear it, how is it possible that a part should? And yet this has been the case: for those things have been had; and they must be had; but the misfortune is, that they have been obtained in a very unequal manner, and upon expensive credit, whereas, with ready money, they might have been purchased for half the price, and nobody distressed.

But there is another thought which ought to strike us, which is, how is the army to bear the want of food, clothing and other necessaries? The man who is at home, can turn himself a thousand ways, and find as many means of ease, convenience or relief: but a soldier's life admits of none of those: their wants cannot be supplied from themselves: for an army, though it is the defence of a state, is at the same time the child of a country, or must be provided for in every thing.

And lastly, the doctrine is false. There are not three millions of people in any part of the universe, who live so well, or have such a fund of ability, as in America. The income of a common laborer, who is industrious, is equal to that of the generality of tradesmen in England. In the mercantile line, I have not heard of one who could be said to be a bankrupt since the war began, and in England they have been without number. In America almost every farmer lives on his own lands, and in England not one in a hundred does. In short, it seems as if the poverty of that country had made them furious, and they were determined to risk all to recover all.

Yet, notwithstanding those advantages on the part of America, true it is, that had it not been for the operation of taxes for our necessary defence, we had sunk into a state of sloth and poverty: for there was more wealth lost by neglecting to till the earth in the years 1776, '77, and '78, than the quota of taxes amounts to. That which is lost by neglect of this kind, is lost for ever: whereas that which is paid, and continues in the country, returns to us again; and at the same time that it provides us with defence, it operates not only as a spur, but as a premium to our industry.

I shall now proceed to the second head, viz., on the several quotas, and the nature of a union.

There was a time when America had no other bond of union, than that of common interest and affection. The whole country flew to the relief of Boston, and, making her cause, their own, participated in her cares and administered to her wants. The fate of war, since that day, has carried the calamity in a ten-fold proportion to the southward; but in the mean time the union has been strengthened by a legal compact of the states, jointly and severally ratified, and that which before was choice, or the duty of affection, is now likewise the duty of legal obligation.

The union of America is the foundation-stone of her independence; the rock on which it is built; and is something so sacred in her constitution, that we ought to watch every word we speak, and every thought we think, that we injure it not, even by mistake. When a multitude, extended, or rather scattered, over a continent in the manner we were, mutually agree to form one common centre whereon the whole shall move to accomplish a particular purpose, all parts must act together and alike, or act not at all, and a stoppage in any one is a stoppage of the whole, at least for a time.

Thus the several states have sent representatives to assemble together in Congress, and they have empowered that body, which thus becomes their centre, and are no other than themselves in representation, to conduct and manage the war, while their constituents at home attend to the domestic cares of the country, their internal legislation, their farms, professions or employments, for it is only by reducing complicated things to method and orderly connection that they can be understood with advantage, or pursued with success. Congress, by virtue of this delegation, estimates the expense, and apportions it out to the several parts of the empire according to their several abilities; and here the debate must end, because each state has already had its voice, and the matter has undergone its whole portion of argument, and can no more be altered by any particular state, than a law of any state, after it has passed, can be altered by any individual. For with respect to those things which immediately concern the union, and for which the union was purposely established, and is intended to secure, each state is to the United States what each individual is to the state he lives in. And it is on this grand point, this movement upon one centre, that our existence as a nation, our happiness as a people, and our safety as individuals, depend.

It may happen that some state or other may be somewhat over or under rated, but this cannot be much. The experience which has been had upon the matter, has nearly ascertained their several abilities. But even in this case, it can only admit of an appeal to the United States, but cannot authorise any state to make the alteration itself, any more than our internal government can admit an individual to do so in the case of an act of assembly; for if one state can do it, then may another do the same, and the instant this is done the whole is undone.

Neither is it supposable that any single state can be a judge of all the comparative reasons which may influence the collective body in arranging the quotas of the continent. The circumstances of the several states are frequently varying, occasioned by the accidents of war and commerce, and it will often fall upon some to help others, rather beyond what their exact proportion at another time might be; but even this assistance is as naturally and politically included in the idea of a union as that of any particular assigned proportion; because we know not whose turn it may be next to want assistance, for which reason that state is the wisest which sets the best example.

Though in matters of bounden duty and reciprocal affection, it is rather a degeneracy from the honesty and ardor of the heart to admit any thing selfish to partake in the government of our conduct, yet in cases where our duty, our affections, and our interest all coincide, it may be of some use to observe their union. The United States will become heir to an extensive quantity of vacant land, and their several titles to shares and quotas thereof, will naturally be adjusted according to their relative quotas, during the war, exclusive of that inability which may unfortunately arise to any state by the enemy's holding possession of a part; but as this is a cold matter of interest, I pass it by, and proceed to my third head, viz., on the manner of collection and expenditure.

It has been our error, as well as our misfortune, to blend the affairs of each state, especially in money matters, with those of the United States; whereas it is our case, convenience and interest, to keep them separate. The expenses of the United States for carrying on the war, and the expenses of each state for its own domestic government, are distinct things, and to involve them is a source of perplexity and a cloak for fraud. I love method, because I see and am convinced of its beauty and advantage. It is that which makes all business easy and understood, and without which, everything becomes embarrassed and difficult.

There are certain powers which the people of each state have delegated to their legislative and executive bodies, and there are other powers which the people of every state have delegated to Congress, among which is that of conducting the war, and, consequently, of managing the expenses attending it; for how else can that be managed, which concerns every state, but by a delegation from each? When a state has furnished its quota, it has an undoubted right to know how it has been applied, and it is as much the duty of Congress to inform the state of the one, as it is the duty of the state to provide the other.

In the resolution of Congress already recited, it is recommended to the several states to lay taxes for raising their quotas of money for the United States, separate from those laid for their own particular use.

This is a most necessary point to be observed, and the distinction should follow all the way through. They should be levied, paid and collected, separately, and kept separate in every instance. Neither have the civil officers of any state, nor the government of that state, the least right to touch that money which the people pay for the support of their army and the war, any more than Congress has to touch that which each state raises for its own use.

This distinction will naturally be followed by another. It will occasion every state to examine nicely into the expenses of its civil list, and to regulate, reduce, and bring it into better order than it has hitherto been; because the money for that purpose must be raised apart, and accounted for to the public separately. But while the, monies of both were blended, the necessary nicety was not observed, and the poor soldier, who ought to have been the first, was the last who was thought of.

Another convenience will be, that the people, by paying the taxes separately, will know what they are for; and will likewise know that those which are for the defence of the country will cease with the war, or soon after. For although, as I have before observed, the war is their own, and for the support of their own rights and the protection of their own property, yet they have the same right to know, that they have to pay, and it is the want of not knowing that is often the cause of dissatisfaction.

This regulation of keeping the taxes separate has given rise to a regulation in the office of finance, by which it is directed:

"That the receivers shall, at the end of every month, make out an exact account of the monies received by them respectively, during such month, specifying therein the names of the persons from whom the same shall have been received, the dates and the sums; which account they shall respectively cause to be published in one of the newspapers of the state; to the end that every citizen may know how much of the monies collected from him, in taxes, is transmitted to the treasury of the United States for the support of the war; and also, that it may be known what monies have been at the order of the superintendent of finance. It being proper and necessary, that, in a free country, the people should be as fully informed of the administration of their affairs as the nature of things will admit."

It is an agreeable thing to see a spirit of order and economy taking place, after such a series of errors and difficulties. A government or an administration, who means and acts honestly, has nothing to fear, and consequently has nothing to conceal; and it would be of use if a monthly or quarterly account was to be published, as well of the expenditures as of the receipts. Eight millions of dollars must be husbanded with an exceeding deal of care to make it do, and, therefore, as the management must be reputable, the publication would be serviceable.

I have heard of petitions which have been presented to the assembly of this state (and probably the same may have happened in other states) praying to have the taxes lowered. Now the only way to keep taxes low is, for the United States to have ready money to go to market with: and though the taxes to be raised for the present year will fall heavy, and there will naturally be some difficulty in paying them, yet the difficulty, in proportion as money spreads about the country, will every day grow less, and in the end we shall save some millions of dollars by it. We see what a bitter, revengeful enemy we have to deal with, and any expense is cheap compared to their merciless paw. We have seen the unfortunate Carolineans hunted like partridges on the mountains, and it is only by providing means for our defence, that we shall be kept from the same condition. When we think or talk about taxes, we ought to recollect that we lie down in peace and sleep in safety; that we can follow our farms or stores or other occupations, in prosperous tranquillity; and that these inestimable blessings are procured to us by the taxes that we pay. In this view, our taxes are properly our insurance money; they are what we pay to be made safe, and, in strict policy, are the best money we can lay out.

It was my intention to offer some remarks on the impost law of five per cent. recommended by Congress, and to be established as a fund for the payment of the loan-office certificates, and other debts of the United States; but I have already extended my piece beyond my intention. And as this fund will make our system of finance complete, and is strictly just, and consequently requires nothing but honesty to do it, there needs but little to be said upon it.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA, March 5, 1782. Table Of Contents
The Crisis No. XI

ON THE KING OF ENGLAND'S SPEECH

2009-02-17T00:23:00.000-08:00

X.
ON THE KING OF ENGLAND'S SPEECH.

OF all the innocent passions which actuate the human mind there is none more universally prevalent than curiosity. It reaches all mankind, and in matters which concern us, or concern us not, it alike provokes in us a desire to know them.

Although the situation of America, superior to every effort to enslave her, and daily rising to importance and opulence, has placed her above the region of anxiety, it has still left her within the circle of curiosity; and her fancy to see the speech of a man who had proudly threatened to bring her to his feet, was visibly marked with that tranquil confidence which cared nothing about its contents. It was inquired after with a smile, read with a laugh, and dismissed with disdain.

But, as justice is due, even to an enemy, it is right to say, that the speech is as well managed as the embarrassed condition of their affairs could well admit of; and though hardly a line of it is true, except the mournful story of Cornwallis, it may serve to amuse the deluded commons and people of England, for whom it was calculated.

"The war," says the speech, "is still unhappily prolonged by that restless ambition which first excited our enemies to commence it, and which still continues to disappoint my earnest wishes and diligent exertions to restore the public tranquillity."

How easy it is to abuse truth and language, when men, by habitual wickedness, have learned to set justice at defiance. That the very man who began the war, who with the most sullen insolence refused to answer, and even to hear the humblest of all petitions, who has encouraged his officers and his army in the most savage cruelties, and the most scandalous plunderings, who has stirred up the Indians on one side, and the negroes on the other, and invoked every aid of hell in his behalf, should now, with an affected air of pity, turn the tables from himself, and charge to another the wickedness that is his own, can only be equalled by the baseness of the heart that spoke it.

To be nobly wrong is more manly than to be meanly right, is an expression I once used on a former occasion, and it is equally applicable now. We feel something like respect for consistency even in error. We lament the virtue that is debauched into a vice, but the vice that affects a virtue becomes the more detestable: and amongst the various assumptions of character, which hypocrisy has taught, and men have practised, there is none that raises a higher relish of disgust, than to see disappointed inveteracy twisting itself, by the most visible falsehoods, into an appearance of piety which it has no pretensions to.

"But I should not," continues the speech, "answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, nor make a suitable return to my subjects for their constant, zealous, and affectionate attachment to my person, family and government, if I consented to sacrifice, either to my own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which, the future strength and security of this country must principally depend."

That the man whose ignorance and obstinacy first involved and still continues the nation in the most hopeless and expensive of all wars, should now meanly flatter them with the name of a free people, and make a merit of his crime, under the disguise of their essential rights and permanent interests, is something which disgraces even the character of perverseness. Is he afraid they will send him to Hanover, or what does he fear? Why is the sycophant thus added to the hypocrite, and the man who pretends to govern, sunk into the humble and submissive memorialist?

What those essential rights and permanent interests are, on which the future strength and security of England must principally depend, are not so much as alluded to. They are words which impress nothing but the ear, and are calculated only for the sound.

But if they have any reference to America, then do they amount to the disgraceful confession, that England, who once assumed to be her protectress, has now become her dependant. The British king and ministry are constantly holding up the vast importance which America is of to England, in order to allure the nation to carry on the war: now, whatever ground there is for this idea, it ought to have operated as a reason for not beginning it; and, therefore, they support their present measures to their own disgrace, because the arguments which they now use, are a direct reflection on their former policy.

"The favorable appearance of affairs," continues the speech, "in the East Indies, and the safe arrival of the numerous commercial fleets of my kingdom, must have given you satisfaction."

That things are not quite so bad every where as in America may be some cause of consolation, but can be none for triumph. One broken leg is better than two, but still it is not a source of joy: and let the appearance of affairs in the East Indies be ever so favorable, they are nevertheless worse than at first, without a prospect of their ever being better. But the mournful story of Cornwallis was yet to be told, and it was necessary to give it the softest introduction possible.

"But in the course of this year," continues the speech, "my assiduous endeavors to guard the extensive dominions of my crown have not been attended with success equal to the justice and uprightness of my views."- What justice and uprightness there was in beginning a war with America, the world will judge of, and the unequalled barbarity with which it has been conducted, is not to be worn from the memory by the cant of snivelling hypocrisy.

"And it is with great concern that I inform you that the events of war have been very unfortunate to my arms in Virginia, having ended in the loss of my forces in that province."- And our great concern is that they are not all served in the same manner.

"No endeavors have been wanted on my part," says the speech, "to extinguish that spirit of rebellion which our enemies have found means to foment and maintain in the colonies; and to restore to my deluded subjects in America that happy and prosperous condition which they formerly derived from a due obedience to the laws."

The expression of deluded subjects is become so hacknied and contemptible, and the more so when we see them making prisoners of whole armies at a time, that the pride of not being laughed at would induce a man of common sense to leave it off. But the most offensive falsehood in the paragraph is the attributing the prosperity of America to a wrong cause. It was the unremitted industry of the settlers and their descendants, the hard labor and toil of persevering fortitude, that were the true causes of the prosperity of America. The former tyranny of England served to people it, and the virtue of the adventurers to improve it. Ask the man, who, with his axe, has cleared a way in the wilderness, and now possesses an estate, what made him rich, and he will tell you the labor of his hands, the sweat of his brow, and the blessing of heaven. Let Britain but leave America to herself and she asks no more. She has risen into greatness without the knowledge and against the will of England, and has a right to the unmolested enjoyment of her own created wealth.

"I will order," says the speech, "the estimates of the ensuing year to be laid before you. I rely on your wisdom and public spirit for such supplies as the circumstances of our affairs shall be found to require. Among the many ill consequences which attend the continuation of the present war, I most sincerely regret the additional burdens which it must unavoidably bring upon my faithful subjects."

It is strange that a nation must run through such a labyrinth of trouble, and expend such a mass of wealth to gain the wisdom which an hour's reflection might have taught. The final superiority of America over every attempt that an island might make to conquer her, was as naturally marked in the constitution of things, as the future ability of a giant over a dwarf is delineated in his features while an infant. How far providence, to accomplish purposes which no human wisdom could foresee, permitted such extraordinary errors, is still a secret in the womb of time, and must remain so till futurity shall give it birth.

"In the prosecution of this great and important contest," says the speech, "in which we are engaged, I retain a firm confidence in the protection of divine providence, and a perfect conviction in the justice of my cause, and I have no doubt, but, that by the concurrence and support of my Parliament, by the valour of my fleets and armies, and by a vigorous, animated, and united exertion of the faculties and resources of my people, I shall be enabled to restore the blessings of a safe and honorable peace to all my dominions."

The King of England is one of the readiest believers in the world. In the beginning of the contest he passed an act to put America out of the protection of the crown of England, and though providence, for seven years together, has put him out of her protection, still the man has no doubt. Like Pharaoh on the edge of the Red Sea, he sees not the plunge he is making, and precipitately drives across the flood that is closing over his head.

I think it is a reasonable supposition, that this part of the speech was composed before the arrival of the news of the capture of Cornwallis: for it certainly has no relation to their condition at the time it was spoken. But, be this as it may, it is nothing to us. Our line is fixed. Our lot is cast; and America, the child of fate, is arriving at maturity. We have nothing to do but by a spirited and quick exertion, to stand prepared for war or peace. Too great to yield, and too noble to insult; superior to misfortune, and generous in success, let us untaintedly preserve the character which we have gained, and show to future ages an example of unequalled magnanimity. There is something in the cause and consequence of America that has drawn on her the attention of all mankind. The world has seen her brave. Her love of liberty; her ardour in supporting it; the justice of her claims, and the constancy of her fortitude have won her the esteem of Europe, and attached to her interest the first power in that country.

Her situation now is such, that to whatever point, past, present or to come, she casts her eyes, new matter rises to convince her that she is right. In her conduct towards her enemy, no reproachful sentiment lurks in secret. No sense of injustice is left upon the mind. Untainted with ambition, and a stranger to revenge, her progress has been marked by providence, and she, in every stage of the conflict, has blest her with success.

But let not America wrap herself up in delusive hope and suppose the business done. The least remissness in preparation, the least relaxation in execution, will only serve to prolong the war, and increase expenses. If our enemies can draw consolation from misfortune, and exert themselves upon despair, how much more ought we, who are to win a continent by the conquest, and have already an earnest of success?

Having, in the preceding part, made my remarks on the several matters which the speech contains, I shall now make my remarks on what it does not contain.

There is not a syllable in its respecting alliances. Either the injustice of Britain is too glaring, or her condition too desperate, or both, for any neighboring power to come to her support. In the beginning of the contest, when she had only America to contend with, she hired assistance from Hesse, and other smaller states of Germany, and for nearly three years did America, young, raw, undisciplined and unprovided, stand against the power of Britain, aided by twenty thousand foreign troops, and made a complete conquest of one entire army. The remembrance of those things ought to inspire us with confidence and greatness of mind, and carry us through every remaining difficulty with content and cheerfulness. What are the little sufferings of the present day, compared with the hardships that are past? There was a time, when we had neither house nor home in safety; when every hour was the hour of alarm and danger; when the mind, tortured with anxiety, knew no repose, and every thing, but hope and fortitude, was bidding us farewell.

It is of use to look back upon these things; to call to mind the times of trouble and the scenes of complicated anguish that are past and gone. Then every expense was cheap, compared with the dread of conquest and the misery of submission. We did not stand debating upon trifles, or contending about the necessary and unavoidable charges of defence. Every one bore his lot of suffering, and looked forward to happier days, and scenes of rest.

Perhaps one of the greatest dangers which any country can be exposed to, arises from a kind of trifling which sometimes steals upon the mind, when it supposes the danger past; and this unsafe situation marks at this time the peculiar crisis of America. What would she once have given to have known that her condition at this day should be what it now is? And yet we do not seem to place a proper value upon it, nor vigorously pursue the necessary measures to secure it. We know that we cannot be defended, nor yet defend ourselves, without trouble and expense. We have no right to expect it; neither ought we to look for it. We are a people, who, in our situation, differ from all the world. We form one common floor of public good, and, whatever is our charge, it is paid for our own interest and upon our own account.

Misfortune and experience have now taught us system and method; and the arrangements for carrying on the war are reduced to rule and order. The quotas of the several states are ascertained, and I intend in a future publication to show what they are, and the necessity as well as the advantages of vigorously providing for them.

In the mean time, I shall conclude this paper with an instance of British clemency, from Smollett's History of England, vol. xi., printed in London. It will serve to show how dismal the situation of a conquered people is, and that the only security is an effectual defence.

We all know that the Stuart family and the house of Hanover opposed each other for the crown of England. The Stuart family stood first in the line of succession, but the other was the most successful.

In July, 1745, Charles, the son of the exiled king, landed in Scotland, collected a small force, at no time exceeding five or six thousand men, and made some attempts to re-establish his claim. The late Duke of Cumberland, uncle to the present King of England, was sent against him, and on the 16th of April following, Charles was totally defeated at Culloden, in Scotland. Success and power are the only situations in which clemency can be shown, and those who are cruel, because they are victorious, can with the same facility act any other degenerate character.

"Immediately after the decisive action at Culloden, the Duke of Cumberland took possession of Inverness; where six and thirty deserters, convicted by a court martial, were ordered to be executed: then he detached several parties to ravage the country. One of these apprehended The Lady Mackintosh, who was sent prisoner to Inverness, plundered her house, and drove away her cattle, though her husband was actually in the service of the government. The castle of Lord Lovat was destroyed. The French prisoners were sent to Carlisle and Penrith: Kilmarnock, Balmerino, Cromartie, and his son, The Lord Macleod, were conveyed by sea to London; and those of an inferior rank were confined in different prisons. The Marquis of Tullibardine, together with a brother of the Earl of Dunmore, and Murray, the pretender's secretary, were seized and transported to the Tower of London, to which the Earl of Traquaire had been committed on suspicion; and the eldest son of Lord Lovat was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh. In a word, all the jails in Great Britain, from the capital, northwards, were filled with those unfortunate captives; and great numbers of them were crowded together in the holds of ships, where they perished in the most deplorable manner, for want of air and exercise. Some rebel chiefs escaped in two French frigates that arrived on the coast of Lochaber about the end of April, and engaged three vessels belonging to his Britannic majesty, which they obliged to retire. Others embarked on board a ship on the coast of Buchan, and were conveyed to Norway, from whence they travelled to Sweden. In the month of May, the Duke of Cumberland advanced with the army into the Highlands, as far as Fort Augustus, where he encamped; and sent off detachments on all hands, to hunt down the fugitives, and lay waste the country with fire and sword. The castles of Glengary and Lochiel were plundered and burned; every house, hut, or habitation, met with the same fate, without distinction; and all the cattle and provision were carried off; the men were either shot upon the mountains, like wild beasts, or put to death in cold blood, without form of trial; the women, after having seen their husbands and fathers murdered, were subjected to brutal violation, and then turned out naked, with their children, to starve on the barren heaths. One whole family was enclosed in a barn, and consumed to ashes. Those ministers of vengeance were so alert in the execution of their office, that in a few days there was neither house, cottage, man, nor beast, to be seen within the compass of fifty miles; all was ruin, silence, and desolation."

I have here presented the reader with one of the most shocking instances of cruelty ever practised, and I leave it, to rest on his mind, that he may be fully impressed with a sense of the destruction he has escaped, in case Britain had conquered America; and likewise, that he may see and feel the necessity, as well for his own personal safety, as for the honor, the interest, and happiness of the whole community, to omit or delay no one preparation necessary to secure the ground which we so happily stand upon.

Table Of Contents
To The People Of America

THE CRISIS EXTRAORDINARY

2009-02-17T00:20:00.000-08:00

THE CRISIS EXTRAORDINARY
ON THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION.

IT IS impossible to sit down and think seriously on the affairs of America, but the original principles upon which she resisted, and the glow and ardor which they inspired, will occur like the undefaced remembrance of a lovely scene. To trace over in imagination the purity of the cause, the voluntary sacrifices that were made to support it, and all the various turnings of the war in its defence, is at once both paying and receiving respect. The principles deserve to be remembered, and to remember them rightly is repossessing them. In this indulgence of generous recollection, we become gainers by what we seem to give, and the more we bestow the richer we become.

So extensively right was the ground on which America proceeded, that it not only took in every just and liberal sentiment which could impress the heart, but made it the direct interest of every class and order of men to defend the country. The war, on the part of Britain, was originally a war of covetousness. The sordid and not the splendid passions gave it being. The fertile fields and prosperous infancy of America appeared to her as mines for tributary wealth. She viewed the hive, and disregarding the industry that had enriched it, thirsted for the honey. But in the present stage of her affairs, the violence of temper is added to the rage of avarice; and therefore, that which at the first setting out proceeded from purity of principle and public interest, is now heightened by all the obligations of necessity; for it requires but little knowledge of human nature to discern what would be the consequence, were America again reduced to the subjection of Britain. Uncontrolled power, in the hands of an incensed, imperious, and rapacious conqueror, is an engine of dreadful execution, and woe be to that country over which it can be exercised. The names of Whig and Tory would then be sunk in the general term of rebel, and the oppression, whatever it might be, would, with very few instances of exception, light equally on all.

Britain did not go to war with America for the sake of dominion, because she was then in possession; neither was it for the extension of trade and commerce, because she had monopolized the whole, and the country had yielded to it; neither was it to extinguish what she might call rebellion, because before she began no resistance existed. It could then be from no other motive than avarice, or a design of establishing, in the first instance, the same taxes in America as are paid in England (which, as I shall presently show, are above eleven times heavier than the taxes we now pay for the present year, 1780) or, in the second instance, to confiscate the whole property of America, in case of resistance and conquest of the latter, of which she had then no doubt.

I shall now proceed to show what the taxes in England are, and what the yearly expense of the present war is to her- what the taxes of this country amount to, and what the annual expense of defending it effectually will be to us; and shall endeavor concisely to point out the cause of our difficulties, and the advantages on one side, and the consequences on the other, in case we do, or do not, put ourselves in an effectual state of defence. I mean to be open, candid, and sincere. I see a universal wish to expel the enemy from the country, a murmuring because the war is not carried on with more vigor, and my intention is to show, as shortly as possible, both the reason and the remedy.

The number of souls in England (exclusive of Scotland and Ireland) is seven millions,* and the number of souls in America is three millions.

* This is taking the highest number that the people of England have been, or can be rated at.

The amount of taxes in England (exclusive of Scotland and Ireland) was, before the present war commenced, eleven millions six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred and fifty-three pounds sterling; which, on an average, is no less a sum than one pound thirteen shillings and three-pence sterling per head per annum, men, women, and children; besides county taxes, taxes for the support of the poor, and a tenth of all the produce of the earth for the support of the bishops and clergy.* Nearly five millions of this sum went annually to pay the interest of the national debt, contracted by former wars, and the remaining sum of six millions six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred pounds was applied to defray the yearly expense of government, the peace establishment of the army and navy, placemen, pensioners, etc.; consequently the whole of the enormous taxes being thus appropriated, she had nothing to spare out of them towards defraying the expenses of the present war or any other. Yet had she not been in debt at the beginning of the war, as we were not, and, like us, had only a land and not a naval war to carry on, her then revenue of eleven millions and a half pounds sterling would have defrayed all her annual expenses of war and government within each year.

* The following is taken from Dr. Price's state of the taxes of England.

An account of the money drawn from the public by taxes, annually, being the medium of three years before the year 1776.

Amount of customs in England 2,528,275 L.
Amount of the excise in England 4,649,892
Land tax at 3s. 1,300,000
Land tax at 1s. in the pound 450,000
Salt duties 218,739
Duties on stamps, cards, dice, advertisements,
bonds, leases, indentures, newspapers,
almanacks, etc. 280,788
Duties on houses and windows 385,369
Post office, seizures, wine licences, hackney
coaches, etc. 250,000
Annual profits from lotteries 150,000
Expense of collecting the excise in England 297,887
Expense of collecting the customs in England 468,703
Interest of loans on the land tax at 4s. expenses
of collection, militia, etc. 250,000
Perquisites, etc. to custom-house officers, &c.
supposed 250,000
Expense of collecting the salt duties in England
10 1/2 per cent. 27,000
Bounties on fish exported 18,000
Expense of collecting the duties on stamps, cards,
advertisements, etc. at 5 and 1/4 per cent. 18,000

Total 11,642,653 L.

But this not being the case with her, she is obliged to borrow about ten millions pounds sterling, yearly, to prosecute the war that she is now engaged in, (this year she borrowed twelve) and lay on new taxes to discharge the interest; allowing that the present war has cost her only fifty millions sterling, the interest thereon, at five per cent., will be two millions and an half; therefore the amount of her taxes now must be fourteen millions, which on an average is no less than forty shillings sterling, per head, men, women and children, throughout the nation. Now as this expense of fifty millions was borrowed on the hopes of conquering America, and as it was avarice which first induced her to commence the war, how truly wretched and deplorable would the condition of this country be, were she, by her own remissness, to suffer an enemy of such a disposition, and so circumstanced, to reduce her to subjection.

I now proceed to the revenues of America.

I have already stated the number of souls in America to be three millions, and by a calculation that I have made, which I have every reason to believe is sufficiently correct, the whole expense of the war, and the support of the several governments, may be defrayed for two million pounds sterling annually; which, on an average, is thirteen shillings and four pence per head, men, women, and children, and the peace establishment at the end of the war will be but three quarters of a million, or five shillings sterling per head. Now, throwing out of the question everything of honor, principle, happiness, freedom, and reputation in the world, and taking it up on the simple ground of interest, I put the following case:

Suppose Britain was to conquer America, and, as a conqueror, was to lay her under no other conditions than to pay the same proportion towards her annual revenue which the people of England pay: our share, in that case, would be six million pounds sterling yearly. Can it then be a question, whether it is best to raise two millions to defend the country, and govern it ourselves, and only three quarters of a million afterwards, or pay six millions to have it conquered, and let the enemy govern it?

Can it be supposed that conquerors would choose to put themselves in a worse condition than what they granted to the conquered? In England, the tax on rum is five shillings and one penny sterling per gallon, which is one silver dollar and fourteen coppers. Now would it not be laughable to imagine, that after the expense they have been at, they would let either Whig or Tory drink it cheaper than themselves? Coffee, which is so inconsiderable an article of consumption and support here, is there loaded with a duty which makes the price between five and six shillings per pound, and a penalty of fifty pounds sterling on any person detected in roasting it in his own house. There is scarcely a necessary of life that you can eat, drink, wear, or enjoy, that is not there loaded with a tax; even the light from heaven is only permitted to shine into their dwellings by paying eighteen pence sterling per window annually; and the humblest drink of life, small beer, cannot there be purchased without a tax of nearly two coppers per gallon, besides a heavy tax upon the malt, and another on the hops before it is brewed, exclusive of a land-tax on the earth which produces them. In short, the condition of that country, in point of taxation, is so oppressive, the number of her poor so great, and the extravagance and rapaciousness of the court so enormous, that, were they to effect a conquest of America, it is then only that the distresses of America would begin. Neither would it signify anything to a man whether he be Whig or Tory. The people of England, and the ministry of that country, know us by no such distinctions. What they want is clear, solid revenue, and the modes which they would take to procure it, would operate alike on all. Their manner of reasoning would be short, because they would naturally infer, that if we were able to carry on a war of five or six years against them, we were able to pay the same taxes which they do.

I have already stated that the expense of conducting the present war, and the government of the several states, may be done for two millions sterling, and the establishment in the time of peace, for three quarters of a million.*

* I have made the calculations in sterling, because it is a rate generally known in all the states, and because, likewise, it admits of an easy comparison between our expenses to support the war, and those of the enemy. Four silver dollars and a half is one pound sterling, and three pence over.

As to navy matters, they flourish so well, and are so well attended to by individuals, that I think it consistent on every principle of real use and economy, to turn the navy into hard money (keeping only three or four packets) and apply it to the service of the army. We shall not have a ship the less; the use of them, and the benefit from them, will be greatly increased, and their expense saved. We are now allied with a formidable naval power, from whom we derive the assistance of a navy. And the line in which we can prosecute the war, so as to reduce the common enemy and benefit the alliance most effectually, will be by attending closely to the land service.

I estimate the charge of keeping up and maintaining an army, officering them, and all expenses included, sufficient for the defence of the country, to be equal to the expense of forty thousand men at thirty pounds sterling per head, which is one million two hundred thousand pounds.

I likewise allow four hundred thousand pounds for continental expenses at home and abroad.

And four hundred thousand pounds for the support of the several state governments- the amount will then be:

For the army 1,200,000 L.
Continental expenses at home and abroad 400,000
Government of the several states 400,000

Total 2,000,000 L.

I take the proportion of this state, Pennsylvania, to be an eighth part of the thirteen United States; the quota then for us to raise will be two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling; two hundred thousand of which will be our share for the support and pay of the army, and continental expenses at home and abroad, and fifty thousand pounds for the support of the state government.

In order to gain an idea of the proportion in which the raising such a sum will fall, I make the following calculation:

Pennsylvania contains three hundred and seventy-five thousand inhabitants, men, women and children; which is likewise an eighth of the number of inhabitants of the whole United States: therefore, two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling to be raised among three hundred and seventy-five thousand persons, is, on an average, thirteen shillings and four pence per head, per annum, or something more than one shilling sterling per month. And our proportion of three quarters of a million for the government of the country, in time of peace, will be ninety-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds sterling; fifty thousand of which will be for the government expenses of the state, and forty-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds for continental expenses at home and abroad.

The peace establishment then will, on an average, be five shillings sterling per head. Whereas, was England now to stop, and the war cease, her peace establishment would continue the same as it is now, viz. forty shillings per head; therefore was our taxes necessary for carrying on the war, as much per head as hers now is, and the difference to be only whether we should, at the end of the war, pay at the rate of five shillings per head, or forty shillings per head, the case needs no thinking of. But as we can securely defend and keep the country for one third less than what our burden would be if it was conquered, and support the governments afterwards for one eighth of what Britain would levy on us, and could I find a miser whose heart never felt the emotion of a spark of principle, even that man, uninfluenced by every love but the love of money, and capable of no attachment but to his interest, would and must, from the frugality which governs him, contribute to the defence of the country, or he ceases to be a miser and becomes an idiot. But when we take in with it every thing that can ornament mankind; when the line of our interest becomes the line of our happiness; when all that can cheer and animate the heart, when a sense of honor, fame, character, at home and abroad, are interwoven not only with the security but the increase of property, there exists not a man in America, unless he be an hired emissary, who does not see that his good is connected with keeping up a sufficient defence.

I do not imagine that an instance can be produced in the world, of a country putting herself to such an amazing charge to conquer and enslave another, as Britain has done. The sum is too great for her to think of with any tolerable degree of temper; and when we consider the burden she sustains, as well as the disposition she has shown, it would be the height of folly in us to suppose that she would not reimburse herself by the most rapid means, had she America once more within her power. With such an oppression of expense, what would an empty conquest be to her! What relief under such circumstances could she derive from a victory without a prize? It was money, it was revenue she first went to war for, and nothing but that would satisfy her. It is not the nature of avarice to be satisfied with any thing else. Every passion that acts upon mankind has a peculiar mode of operation. Many of them are temporary and fluctuating; they admit of cessation and variety. But avarice is a fixed, uniform passion. It neither abates of its vigor nor changes its object; and the reason why it does not, is founded in the nature of things, for wealth has not a rival where avarice is a ruling passion. One beauty may excel another, and extinguish from the mind of man the pictured remembrance of a former one: but wealth is the phoenix of avarice, and therefore it cannot seek a new object, because there is not another in the world.

I now pass on to show the value of the present taxes, and compare them with the annual expense; but this I shall preface with a few explanatory remarks.

There are two distinct things which make the payment of taxes difficult; the one is the large and real value of the sum to be paid, and the other is the scarcity of the thing in which the payment is to be made; and although these appear to be one and the same, they are in several instances riot only different, but the difficulty springs from different causes.

Suppose a tax to be laid equal to one half of what a man's yearly income is, such a tax could not be paid, because the property could not be spared; and on the other hand, suppose a very trifling tax was laid, to be collected in pearls, such a tax likewise could not be paid, because they could not be had. Now any person may see that these are distinct cases, and the latter of them is a representation of our own.

That the difficulty cannot proceed from the former, that is, from the real value or weight of the tax, is evident at the first view to any person who will consider it.

The amount of the quota of taxes for this State for the year, 1780, (and so in proportion for every other State,) is twenty millions of dollars, which at seventy for one, is but sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds three shillings sterling, and on an average, is no more than three shillings and five pence sterling per head, per annum, per man, woman and child, or threepence two-fifths per head per month. Now here is a clear, positive fact, that cannot be contradicted, and which proves that the difficulty cannot be in the weight of the tax, for in itself it is a trifle, and far from being adequate to our quota of the expense of the war. The quit-rents of one penny sterling per acre on only one half of the state, come to upwards of fifty thousand pounds, which is almost as much as all the taxes of the present year, and as those quit-rents made no part of the taxes then paid, and are now discontinued, the quantity of money drawn for public-service this year, exclusive of the militia fines, which I shall take notice of in the process of this work, is less than what was paid and payable in any year preceding the revolution, and since the last war; what I mean is, that the quit-rents and taxes taken together came to a larger sum then, than the present taxes without the quit-rents do now.

My intention by these arguments and calculations is to place the difficulty to the right cause, and show that it does not proceed from the weight or worth of the tax, but from the scarcity of the medium in which it is paid; and to illustrate this point still further, I shall now show, that if the tax of twenty millions of dollars was of four times the real value it now is, or nearly so, which would be about two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling, and would be our full quota, this sum would have been raised with more ease, and have been less felt, than the present sum of only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds.

The convenience or inconvenience of paying a tax in money arises from the quantity of money that can be spared out of trade.

When the emissions stopped, the continent was left in possession of two hundred millions of dollars, perhaps as equally dispersed as it was possible for trade to do it. And as no more was to be issued, the rise or fall of prices could neither increase nor diminish the quantity. It therefore remained the same through all the fluctuations of trade and exchange.

Now had the exchange stood at twenty for one, which was the rate Congress calculated upon when they arranged the quota of the several states, the latter end of last year, trade would have been carried on for nearly four times less money than it is now, and consequently the twenty millions would have been spared with much greater ease, and when collected would have been of almost four times the value that they now are. And on the other hand, was the depreciation to be ninety or one hundred for one, the quantity required for trade would be more than at sixty or seventy for one, and though the value of them would be less, the difficulty of sparing the money out of trade would be greater. And on these facts and arguments I rest the matter, to prove that it is not the want of property, but the scarcity of the medium by which the proportion of property for taxation is to be measured out, that makes the embarrassment which we lie under. There is not money enough, and, what is equally as true, the people will not let there be money enough.

While I am on the subject of the currency, I shall offer one remark which will appear true to everybody, and can be accounted for by nobody, which is, that the better the times were, the worse the money grew; and the worse the times were, the better the money stood. It never depreciated by any advantage obtained by the enemy. The troubles of 1776, and the loss of Philadelphia in 1777, made no sensible impression on it, and every one knows that the surrender of Charleston did not produce the least alteration in the rate of exchange, which, for long before, and for more than three months after, stood at sixty for one. It seems as if the certainty of its being our own, made us careless of its value, and that the most distant thoughts of losing it made us hug it the closer, like something we were loth to part with; or that we depreciate it for our pastime, which, when called to seriousness by the enemy, we leave off to renew again at our leisure. In short, our good luck seems to break us, and our bad makes us whole.

Passing on from this digression, I shall now endeavor to bring into one view the several parts which I have already stated, and form thereon some propositions, and conclude.

I have placed before the reader, the average tax per head, paid by the people of England; which is forty shillings sterling.

And I have shown the rate on an average per head, which will defray all the expenses of the war to us, and support the several governments without running the country into debt, which is thirteen shillings and four pence.

I have shown what the peace establishment may be conducted for, viz., an eighth part of what it would be, if under the government of Britain.

And I have likewise shown what the average per head of the present taxes is, namely, three shillings and fivepence sterling, or threepence two-fifths per month; and that their whole yearly value, in sterling, is only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds. Whereas our quota, to keep the payments equal with the expenses, is two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. Consequently, there is a deficiency of one hundred and eighty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds, and the same proportion of defect, according to the several quotas, happens in every other state. And this defect is the cause why the army has been so indifferently fed, clothed and paid. It is the cause, likewise, of the nerveless state of the campaign, and the insecurity of the country. Now, if a tax equal to thirteen and fourpence per head, will remove all these difficulties, and make people secure in their homes, leave them to follow the business of their stores and farms unmolested, and not only drive out but keep out the enemy from the country; and if the neglect of raising this sum will let them in, and produce the evils which might be prevented- on which side, I ask, does the wisdom, interest and policy lie? Or, rather, would it not be an insult to reason, to put the question? The sum, when proportioned out according to the several abilities of the people, can hurt no one, but an inroad from the enemy ruins hundreds of families.

Look at the destruction done in this city [Philadelphia]. The many houses totally destroyed, and others damaged; the waste of fences in the country round it, besides the plunder of furniture, forage, and provisions. I do not suppose that half a million sterling would reinstate the sufferers; and, does this, I ask, bear any proportion to the expense that would make us secure? The damage, on an average, is at least ten pounds sterling per head, which is as much as thirteen shillings and fourpence per head comes to for fifteen years. The same has happened on the frontiers, and in the Jerseys, New York, and other places where the enemy has been- Carolina and Georgia are likewise suffering the same fate.

That the people generally do not understand the insufficiency of the taxes to carry on the war, is evident, not only from common observation, but from the construction of several petitions which were presented to the Assembly of this state, against the recommendation of Congress of the 18th of March last, for taking up and funding the present currency at forty to one, and issuing new money in its stead. The prayer of the petition was, that the currency might be appreciated by taxes (meaning the present taxes) and that part of the taxes be applied to the support of the army, if the army could not be otherwise supported. Now it could not have been possible for such a petition to have been presented, had the petitioners known, that so far from part of the taxes being sufficient for the support of the whole of them falls three-fourths short of the year's expenses.

Before I proceed to propose methods by which a sufficiency of money may be raised, I shall take a short view of the general state of the country.

Notwithstanding the weight of the war, the ravages of the enemy, and the obstructions she has thrown in the way of trade and commerce, so soon does a young country outgrow misfortune, that America has already surmounted many that heavily oppressed her. For the first year or two of the war, we were shut up within our ports, scarce venturing to look towards the ocean. Now our rivers are beautified with large and valuable vessels, our stores filled with merchandise, and the produce of the country has a ready market, and an advantageous price. Gold and silver, that for a while seemed to have retreated again within the bowels of the earth, have once more risen into circulation, and every day adds new strength to trade, commerce and agriculture. In a pamphlet, written by Sir John Dalrymple, and dispersed in America in the year 1775, he asserted that two twenty-gun ships, nay, says he, tenders of those ships, stationed between Albermarle sound and Chesapeake bay, would shut up the trade of America for 600 miles. How little did Sir John Dalrymple know of the abilities of America!

While under the government of Britain, the trade of this country was loaded with restrictions. It was only a few foreign ports which we were allowed to sail to. Now it is otherwise; and allowing that the quantity of trade is but half what it was before the war, the case must show the vast advantage of an open trade, because the present quantity under her restrictions could not support itself; from which I infer, that if half the quantity without the restrictions can bear itself up nearly, if not quite, as well as the whole when subject to them, how prosperous must the condition of America be when the whole shall return open with all the world. By the trade I do not mean the employment of a merchant only, but the whole interest and business of the country taken collectively.

It is not so much my intention, by this publication, to propose particular plans for raising money, as it is to show the necessity and the advantages to be derived from it. My principal design is to form the disposition of the people to the measures which I am fully persuaded it is their interest and duty to adopt, and which need no other force to accomplish them than the force of being felt. But as every hint may be useful, I shall throw out a sketch, and leave others to make such improvements upon it as to them may appear reasonable.

The annual sum wanted is two millions, and the average rate in which it falls, is thirteen shillings and fourpence per head.

Suppose, then, that we raise half the sum and sixty thousand pounds over. The average rate thereof will be seven shillings per head.

In this case we shall have half the supply that we want, and an annual fund of sixty thousand pounds whereon to borrow the other million; because sixty thousand pounds is the interest of a million at six per cent.; and if at the end of another year we should be obliged, by the continuance of the war, to borrow another million, the taxes will be increased to seven shillings and sixpence; and thus for every million borrowed, an additional tax, equal to sixpence per head, must be levied.

The sum to be raised next year will be one million and sixty thousand pounds: one half of which I would propose should be raised by duties on imported goods, and prize goods, and the other half by a tax on landed property and houses, or such other means as each state may devise.

But as the duties on imports and prize goods must be the same in all the states, therefore the rate per cent., or what other form the duty shall be laid, must be ascertained and regulated by Congress, and ingrafted in that form into the law of each state; and the monies arising therefrom carried into the treasury of each state. The duties to be paid in gold or silver.

There are many reasons why a duty on imports is the most convenient duty or tax that can be collected; one of which is, because the whole is payable in a few places in a country, and it likewise operates with the greatest ease and equality, because as every one pays in proportion to what he consumes, so people in general consume in proportion to what they can afford; and therefore the tax is regulated by the abilities which every man supposes himself to have, or in other words, every man becomes his own assessor, and pays by a little at a time, when it suits him to buy. Besides, it is a tax which people may pay or let alone by not consuming the articles; and though the alternative may have no influence on their conduct, the power of choosing is an agreeable thing to the mind. For my own part, it would be a satisfaction to me was there a duty on all sorts of liquors during the war, as in my idea of things it would be an addition to the pleasures of society to know, that when the health of the army goes round, a few drops, from every glass becomes theirs. How often have I heard an emphatical wish, almost accompanied by a tear, "Oh, that our poor fellows in the field had some of this!" Why then need we suffer under a fruitless sympathy, when there is a way to enjoy both the wish and the entertainment at once.

But the great national policy of putting a duty upon imports is, that it either keeps the foreign trade in our own hands, or draws something for the defence of the country from every foreigner who participates in it with us.

Thus much for the first half of the taxes, and as each state will best devise means to raise the other half, I shall confine my remarks to the resources of this state.

The quota, then, of this state, of one million and sixty thousand pounds, will be one hundred and thirty-three thousand two hundred and fifty pounds, the half of which is sixty-six thousand six hundred and twenty-five pounds; and supposing one fourth part of Pennsylvania inhabited, then a tax of one bushel of wheat on every twenty acres of land, one with another, would produce the sum, and all the present taxes to cease. Whereas, the tithes of the bishops and clergy in England, exclusive of the taxes, are upwards of half a bushel of wheat on every single acre of land, good and bad, throughout the nation.

In the former part of this paper, I mentioned the militia fines, but reserved speaking of the matter, which I shall now do. The ground I shall put it upon is, that two millions sterling a year will support a sufficient army, and all the expenses of war and government, without having recourse to the inconvenient method of continually calling men from their employments, which, of all others, is the most expensive and the least substantial. I consider the revenues created by taxes as the first and principal thing, and fines only as secondary and accidental things. It was not the intention of the militia law to apply the fines to anything else but the support of the militia, neither do they produce any revenue to the state, yet these fines amount to more than all the taxes: for taking the muster-roll to be sixty thousand men, the fine on forty thousand who may not attend, will be sixty thousand pounds sterling, and those who muster, will give up a portion of time equal to half that sum, and if the eight classes should be called within the year, and one third turn out, the fine on the remaining forty thousand would amount to seventy-two millions of dollars, besides the fifteen shillings on every hundred pounds of property, and the charge of seven and a half per cent. for collecting, in certain instances which, on the whole, would be upwards of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling.

Now if those very fines disable the country from raising a sufficient revenue without producing an equivalent advantage, would it not be for the ease and interest of all parties to increase the revenue, in the manner I have proposed, or any better, if a better can be devised, and cease the operation of the fines? I would still keep the militia as an organized body of men, and should there be a real necessity to call them forth, pay them out of the proper revenues of the state, and increase the taxes a third or fourth per cent. on those who do not attend. My limits will not allow me to go further into this matter, which I shall therefore close with this remark; that fines are, of all modes of revenue, the most unsuited to the minds of a free country. When a man pays a tax, he knows that the public necessity requires it, and therefore feels a pride in discharging his duty; but a fine seems an atonement for neglect of duty, and of consequence is paid with discredit, and frequently levied with severity.

I have now only one subject more to speak of, with which I shall conclude, which is, the resolve of Congress of the 18th of March last, for taking up and funding the present currency at forty for one, and issuing new money in its stead.

Every one knows that I am not the flatterer of Congress, but in this instance they are right; and if that measure is supported, the currency will acquire a value, which, without it, it will not. But this is not all: it will give relief to the finances until such time as they can be properly arranged, and save the country from being immediately doubled taxed under the present mode. In short, support that measure, and it will support you.

I have now waded through a tedious course of difficult business, and over an untrodden path. The subject, on every point in which it could be viewed, was entangled with perplexities, and enveloped in obscurity, yet such are the resources of America, that she wants nothing but system to secure success.

COMMON SENSE.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 4, 1780.

P. S. While this paper was preparing for the press, the treachery of General Arnold became known, and engrossed the attention and conversation of the public; and that, not so much on account of the traitor as the magnitude of the treason, and the providence evident in the discovery. The matter, as far as it is at present known, is thus briefly related:

General Arnold about six weeks before had obtained the command of the important post of West Point, situated on the North River, about sixty miles above New York, and an hundred below Albany, there being no other defenceable pass between it and the last mentioned place. At what time, or in what manner, he first entered into a negotiation with the enemy for betraying the fort and garrison into their hands, does not yet appear.

While Arnold commanded at West Point, General Washington and the Minister of France went to Hartford in Connecticut, to consult on matters, in concert with Admiral Terney, commander of the French fleet stationed at Rhode Island. In the mean time Arnold held a conference with Major Andre, Adjutant-General to General Clinton, whom he traitorously furnished with plans of the fort, state of the garrison, minutes of the last council of war, and the manner in which he would post the troops when the enemy should attempt a surprise; and then gave him a pass, by the name of Mr. John Anderson, to go to the lines at the White Plains or lower, if he Mr. Anderson thought proper, he being (the pass said) on public business.

Thus furnished Andre parted from Arnold, set off for New York, and had nearly arrived at the extent of our lines, when he was stopped by a party of militia, to whom he produced his pass, but they, not being satisfied with his account, insisted on taking him before the commanding officer, Lieut. Col. Jamieson. Finding himself in this situation, and hoping to escape by a bribe, he offered them his purse, watch and a promise of any quantity of goods they would accept, which these honest men nobly and virtuously scorned, and confident with their duty took him to the proper officer. On examination there was found on him the above mentioned papers and several others, all in the handwriting of General Arnold, and finding himself thus detected, he confessed his proper name and character. He was accordingly made a close prisoner, and the papers sent off by express to West Point, at which place General Washington had arrived soon after the arrival of the packet. On this disclosure, he went in quest of Arnold, whom he had not seen that day, but all that could be learned was that Arnold had received a letter some short time before which had much confused him, since which he had disappeared. Colonel Hamilton, one of General Washington's aids, with some others were sent after him, but he, having the start, eluded the pursuit, took boat under pretence of a flag, and got on board the Vulture sloop of war lying in the North River; on which it may be truly said, that one vulture was receiving another. From on board this vessel he addressed a letter to General Washington, which, in whatever light it may be viewed, confirms him a finished villain.

The true character of Arnold is that of a desperado. His whole life has been a life of jobs; and where either plunder or profit was the object, no danger deterred, no principle restrained him. In his person he was smart and active, somewhat diminutive, weak in his capacities and trifling in his conversation; and though gallant in the field, was defective in the talents necessary for command. The early convulsion of the times afforded him an introduction into life, to the elegance of which he was before a stranger, and the eagerness of the public to reward and encourage enterprise, procured him at once both applause and promotion. His march to Quebec gave him fame, and the plunder of Montreal put the first stamp to his public character. His behavior, at Danbury and Saratoga once more covered over his crimes, which again broke forth in the plunder of Philadelphia, under pretence of supplying the army. From this time, the true spring of his conduct being known, he became both disregarded and disesteemed, and this last instance of his treachery has proved the public judgment right.

When we take a review of the history of former times it will turn out to the honor of America that, notwithstanding the trying variety of her situation, this is the only instance of defection in a general officer; and even in this case, the unshaken honesty of those who detected him heightens the national character, to which his apostasy serves as a foil. From the nature of his crime, and his disposition to monopolize, it is reasonable to conclude he had few or no direct accomplices. His sole object was to make a monied bargain; and to be consistent with himself, he would as readily betray the side he has deserted to, as that he deserted from.

But there is one reflection results from this black business that deserves notice, which is that it shows the declining power of the enemy. An attempt to bribe is a sacrifice of military fame, and a confession of inability to conquer; as a proud people they ought to be above it, and as soldiers to despise it; and however they may feel on the occasion, the world at large will despise them for it, and consider America superior to their arms.

The Crisis No. X

2009-02-17T00:18:00.000-08:00

IX.
HAD America pursued her advantages with half the spirit that she resisted her misfortunes, she would, before now, have been a conquering and a peaceful people; but lulled in the lap of soft tranquillity, she rested on her hopes, and adversity only has convulsed her into action. Whether subtlety or sincerity at the close of the last year induced the enemy to an appearance for peace, is a point not material to know; it is sufficient that we see the effects it has had on our politics, and that we sternly rise to resent the delusion.

The war, on the part of America, has been a war of natural feelings. Brave in distress; serene in conquest; drowsy while at rest; and in every situation generously disposed to peace; a dangerous calm, and a most heightened zeal have, as circumstances varied, succeeded each other. Every passion but that of despair has been called to a tour of duty; and so mistaken has been the enemy, of our abilities and disposition, that when she supposed us conquered, we rose the conquerors. The extensiveness of the United States, and the variety of their resources; the universality of their cause, the quick operation of their feelings, and the similarity of their sentiments, have, in every trying situation, produced a something, which, favored by providence, and pursued with ardor, has accomplished in an instant the business of a campaign. We have never deliberately sought victory, but snatched it; and bravely undone in an hour the blotted operations of a season.

The reported fate of Charleston, like the misfortunes of 1776, has at last called forth a spirit, and kindled up a flame, which perhaps no other event could have produced. If the enemy has circulated a falsehood, they have unwisely aggravated us into life, and if they have told us the truth, they have unintentionally done us a service. We were returning with folded arms from the fatigues of war, and thinking and sitting leisurely down to enjoy repose. The dependence that has been put upon Charleston threw a drowsiness over America. We looked on the business done- the conflict over- the matter settled- or that all which remained unfinished would follow of itself. In this state of dangerous relaxation, exposed to the poisonous infusions of the enemy, and having no common danger to attract our attention, we were extinguishing, by stages, the ardor we began with, and surrendering by piece-meal the virtue that defended us.

Afflicting as the loss of Charleston may be, yet if it universally rouse us from the slumber of twelve months past, and renew in us the spirit of former days, it will produce an advantage more important than its loss. America ever is what she thinks herself to be. Governed by sentiment, and acting her own mind, she becomes, as she pleases, the victor or the victim.

It is not the conquest of towns, nor the accidental capture of garrisons, that can reduce a country so extensive as this. The sufferings of one part can never be relieved by the exertions of another, and there is no situation the enemy can be placed in that does not afford to us the same advantages which he seeks himself. By dividing his force, he leaves every post attackable. It is a mode of war that carries with it a confession of weakness, and goes on the principle of distress rather than conquest.

The decline of the enemy is visible, not only in their operations, but in their plans; Charleston originally made but a secondary object in the system of attack, and it is now become their principal one, because they have not been able to succeed elsewhere. It would have carried a cowardly appearance in Europe had they formed their grand expedition, in 1776, against a part of the continent where there was no army, or not a sufficient one to oppose them; but failing year after year in their impressions here, and to the eastward and northward, they deserted their capital design, and prudently contenting themselves with what they can get, give a flourish of honor to conceal disgrace.

But this piece-meal work is not conquering the continent. It is a discredit in them to attempt it, and in us to suffer it. It is now full time to put an end to a war of aggravations, which, on one side, has no possible object, and on the other has every inducement which honor, interest, safety and happiness can inspire. If we suffer them much longer to remain among us, we shall become as bad as themselves. An association of vice will reduce us more than the sword. A nation hardened in the practice of iniquity knows better how to profit by it, than a young country newly corrupted. We are not a match for them in the line of advantageous guilt, nor they for us on the principles which we bravely set out with. Our first days were our days of honor. They have marked the character of America wherever the story of her wars are told; and convinced of this, we have nothing to do but wisely and unitedly to tread the well known track. The progress of a war is often as ruinous to individuals, as the issue of it is to a nation; and it is not only necessary that our forces be such that we be conquerors in the end, but that by timely exertions we be secure in the interim. The present campaign will afford an opportunity which has never presented itself before, and the preparations for it are equally necessary, whether Charleston stand or fall. Suppose the first, it is in that case only a failure of the enemy, not a defeat. All the conquest that a besieged town can hope for, is, not to be conquered; and compelling an enemy to raise the siege, is to the besieged a victory. But there must be a probability amounting almost to a certainty, that would justify a garrison marching out to attack a retreat. Therefore should Charleston not be taken, and the enemy abandon the siege, every other part of the continent should prepare to meet them; and, on the contrary, should it be taken, the same preparations are necessary to balance the loss, and put ourselves in a position to co-operate with our allies, immediately on their arrival.

We are not now fighting our battles alone, as we were in 1776; England, from a malicious disposition to America, has not only not declared war against France and Spain, but, the better to prosecute her passions here, has afforded those powers no military object, and avoids them, to distress us. She will suffer her West India islands to be overrun by France, and her southern settlements to be taken by Spain, rather than quit the object that gratifies her revenge. This conduct, on the part of Britain, has pointed out the propriety of France sending a naval and land force to co-operate with America on the spot. Their arrival cannot be very distant, nor the ravages of the enemy long. The recruiting the army, and procuring the supplies, are the two things most necessary to be accomplished, and a capture of either of the enemy's divisions will restore to America peace and plenty.

At a crisis, big, like the present, with expectation and events, the whole country is called to unanimity and exertion. Not an ability ought now to sleep, that can produce but a mite to the general good, nor even a whisper to pass that militates against it. The necessity of the case, and the importance of the consequences, admit no delay from a friend, no apology from an enemy. To spare now, would be the height of extravagance, and to consult present ease, would be to sacrifice it perhaps forever.

America, rich in patriotism and produce, can want neither men nor supplies, when a serious necessity calls them forth. The slow operation of taxes, owing to the extensiveness of collection, and their depreciated value before they arrived in the treasury, have, in many instances, thrown a burden upon government, which has been artfully interpreted by the enemy into a general decline throughout the country. Yet this, inconvenient as it may at first appear, is not only remediable, but may be turned to an immediate advantage; for it makes no real difference, whether a certain number of men, or company of militia (and in this country every man is a militia-man), are directed by law to send a recruit at their own expense, or whether a tax is laid on them for that purpose, and the man hired by government afterwards. The first, if there is any difference, is both cheapest and best, because it saves the expense which would attend collecting it as a tax, and brings the man sooner into the field than the modes of recruiting formerly used; and, on this principle, a law has been passed in this state, for recruiting two men from each company of militia, which will add upwards of a thousand to the force of the country.

But the flame which has broken forth in this city since the report from New York, of the loss of Charleston, not only does honor to the place, but, like the blaze of 1776, will kindle into action the scattered sparks throughout America. The valor of a country may be learned by the bravery of its soldiery, and the general cast of its inhabitants, but confidence of success is best discovered by the active measures pursued by men of property; and when the spirit of enterprise becomes so universal as to act at once on all ranks of men, a war may then, and not till then, be styled truly popular.

In 1776, the ardor of the enterprising part was considerably checked by the real revolt of some, and the coolness of others. But in the present case, there is a firmness in the substance and property of the country to the public cause. An association has been entered into by the merchants, tradesmen, and principal inhabitants of the city [Philadelphia], to receive and support the new state money at the value of gold and silver; a measure which, while it does them honor, will likewise contribute to their interest, by rendering the operations of the campaign convenient and effectual.

Nor has the spirit of exertion stopped here. A voluntary subscription is likewise begun, to raise a fund of hard money, to be given as bounties, to fill up the full quota of the Pennsylvania line. It has been the remark of the enemy, that every thing in America has been done by the force of government; but when she sees individuals throwing in their voluntary aid, and facilitating the public measures in concert with the established powers of the country, it will convince her that the cause of America stands not on the will of a few but on the broad foundation of property and popularity.

Thus aided and thus supported, disaffection will decline, and the withered head of tyranny expire in America. The ravages of the enemy will be short and limited, and like all their former ones, will produce a victory over themselves.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA, June 9, 1780.

P. S. At the time of writing this number of the Crisis, the loss of Charleston, though believed by some, was more confidently disbelieved by others. But there ought to be no longer a doubt upon the matter. Charleston is gone, and I believe for the want of a sufficient supply of provisions. The man that does not now feel for the honor of the best and noblest cause that ever a country engaged in, and exert himself accordingly, is no longer worthy of a peaceable residence among a people determined to be free.

C. S.

Table Of Contents
The Crisis No. X

The Crisis No. VIII

2009-02-17T00:16:00.000-08:00

VII.
TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

THERE are stages in the business of serious life in which to amuse is cruel, but to deceive is to destroy; and it is of little consequence, in the conclusion, whether men deceive themselves, or submit, by a kind of mutual consent, to the impositions of each other. That England has long been under the influence of delusion or mistake, needs no other proof than the unexpected and wretched situation that she is now involved in: and so powerful has been the influence, that no provision was ever made or thought of against the misfortune, because the possibility of its happening was never conceived.

The general and successful resistance of America, the conquest of Burgoyne, and a war in France, were treated in parliament as the dreams of a discontented opposition, or a distempered imagination. They were beheld as objects unworthy of a serious thought, and the bare intimation of them afforded the ministry a triumph of laughter. Short triumph indeed! For everything which has been predicted has happened, and all that was promised has failed. A long series of politics so remarkably distinguished by a succession of misfortunes, without one alleviating turn, must certainly have something in it systematically wrong. It is sufficient to awaken the most credulous into suspicion, and the most obstinate into thought. Either the means in your power are insufficient, or the measures ill planned; either the execution has been bad, or the thing attempted impracticable; or, to speak more emphatically, either you are not able or heaven is not willing. For, why is it that you have not conquered us? Who, or what has prevented you? You have had every opportunity that you could desire, and succeeded to your utmost wish in every preparatory means. Your fleets and armies have arrived in America without an accident. No uncommon fortune has intervened. No foreign nation has interfered until the time which you had allotted for victory was passed. The opposition, either in or out of parliament, neither disconcerted your measures, retarded or diminished your force. They only foretold your fate. Every ministerial scheme was carried with as high a hand as if the whole nation had been unanimous. Every thing wanted was asked for, and every thing asked for was granted.

A greater force was not within the compass of your abilities to send, and the time you sent it was of all others the most favorable. You were then at rest with the whole world beside. You had the range of every court in Europe uncontradicted by us. You amused us with a tale of commissioners of peace, and under that disguise collected a numerous army and came almost unexpectedly upon us. The force was much greater than we looked for; and that which we had to oppose it with, was unequal in numbers, badly armed, and poorly disciplined; beside which, it was embodied only for a short time, and expired within a few months after your arrival. We had governments to form; measures to concert; an army to train, and every necessary article to import or to create. Our non-importation scheme had exhausted our stores, and your command by sea intercepted our supplies. We were a people unknown, and unconnected with the political world, and strangers to the disposition of foreign powers. Could you possibly wish for a more favorable conjunction of circumstances? Yet all these have happened and passed away, and, as it were, left you with a laugh. There are likewise, events of such an original nativity as can never happen again, unless a new world should arise from the ocean.

If any thing can be a lesson to presumption, surely the circumstances of this war will have their effect. Had Britain been defeated by any European power, her pride would have drawn consolation from the importance of her conquerors; but in the present case, she is excelled by those that she affected to despise, and her own opinions retorting upon herself, become an aggravation of her disgrace. Misfortune and experience are lost upon mankind, when they produce neither reflection nor reformation. Evils, like poisons, have their uses, and there are diseases which no other remedy can reach. It has been the crime and folly of England to suppose herself invincible, and that, without acknowledging or perceiving that a full third of her strength was drawn from the country she is now at war with. The arm of Britain has been spoken of as the arm of the Almighty, and she has lived of late as if she thought the whole world created for her diversion. Her politics, instead of civilizing, has tended to brutalize mankind, and under the vain, unmeaning title of "Defender of the Faith," she has made war like an Indian against the religion of humanity. Her cruelties in the East Indies will never be forgotten, and it is somewhat remarkable that the produce of that ruined country, transported to America, should there kindle up a war to punish the destroyer. The chain is continued, though with a mysterious kind of uniformity both in the crime and the punishment. The latter runs parallel with the former, and time and fate will give it a perfect illustration.

When information is withheld, ignorance becomes a reasonable excuse; and one would charitably hope that the people of England do not encourage cruelty from choice but from mistake. Their recluse situation, surrounded by the sea, preserves them from the calamities of war, and keeps them in the dark as to the conduct of their own armies. They see not, therefore they feel not. They tell the tale that is told them and believe it, and accustomed to no other news than their own, they receive it, stripped of its horrors and prepared for the palate of the nation, through the channel of the London Gazette. They are made to believe that their generals and armies differ from those of other nations, and have nothing of rudeness or barbarity in them. They suppose them what they wish them to be. They feel a disgrace in thinking otherwise, and naturally encourage the belief from a partiality to themselves. There was a time when I felt the same prejudices, and reasoned from the same errors; but experience, sad and painful experience, has taught me better. What the conduct of former armies was, I know not, but what the conduct of the present is, I well know. It is low, cruel, indolent and profligate; and had the people of America no other cause for separation than what the army has occasioned, that alone is cause sufficient.

The field of politics in England is far more extensive than that of news. Men have a right to reason for themselves, and though they cannot contradict the intelligence in the London Gazette, they may frame upon it what sentiments they please. But the misfortune is, that a general ignorance has prevailed over the whole nation respecting America. The ministry and the minority have both been wrong. The former was always so, the latter only lately so. Politics, to be executively right, must have a unity of means and time, and a defect in either overthrows the whole. The ministry rejected the plans of the minority while they were practicable, and joined in them when they became impracticable. From wrong measures they got into wrong time, and have now completed the circle of absurdity by closing it upon themselves.

I happened to come to America a few months before the breaking out of hostilities. I found the disposition of the people such, that they might have been led by a thread and governed by a reed. Their suspicion was quick and penetrating, but their attachment to Britain was obstinate, and it was at that time a kind of treason to speak against it. They disliked the ministry, but they esteemed the nation. Their idea of grievance operated without resentment, and their single object was reconciliation. Bad as I believed the ministry to be, I never conceived them capable of a measure so rash and wicked as the commencing of hostilities; much less did I imagine the nation would encourage it. I viewed the dispute as a kind of law-suit, in which I supposed the parties would find a way either to decide or settle it. I had no thoughts of independence or of arms. The world could not then have persuaded me that I should be either a soldier or an author. If I had any talents for either, they were buried in me, and might ever have continued so, had not the necessity of the times dragged and driven them into action. I had formed my plan of life, and conceiving myself happy, wished every body else so. But when the country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. Those who had been long settled had something to defend; those who had just come had something to pursue; and the call and the concern was equal and universal. For in a country where all men were once adventurers, the difference of a few years in their arrival could make none in their right.

The breaking out of hostilities opened a new suspicion in the politics of America, which, though at that time very rare, has since been proved to be very right. What I allude to is, "a secret and fixed determination in the British Cabinet to annex America to the crown of England as a conquered country." If this be taken as the object, then the whole line of conduct pursued by the ministry, though rash in its origin and ruinous in its consequences, is nevertheless uniform and consistent in its parts. It applies to every case and resolves every difficulty. But if taxation, or any thing else, be taken in its room, there is no proportion between the object and the charge. Nothing but the whole soil and property of the country can be placed as a possible equivalent against the millions which the ministry expended. No taxes raised in America could possibly repay it. A revenue of two millions sterling a year would not discharge the sum and interest accumulated thereon, in twenty years.

Reconciliation never appears to have been the wish or the object of the administration; they looked on conquest as certain and infallible, and, under that persuasion, sought to drive the Americans into what they might style a general rebellion, and then, crushing them with arms in their hands, reap the rich harvest of a general confiscation, and silence them for ever. The dependents at court were too numerous to be provided for in England. The market for plunder in the East Indies was over; and the profligacy of government required that a new mine should be opened, and that mine could be no other than America, conquered and forfeited. They had no where else to go. Every other channel was drained; and extravagance, with the thirst of a drunkard, was gaping for supplies.

If the ministry deny this to have been their plan, it becomes them to explain what was their plan. For either they have abused us in coveting property they never labored for, or they have abused you in expending an amazing sum upon an incompetent object. Taxation, as I mentioned before, could never be worth the charge of obtaining it by arms; and any kind of formal obedience which America could have made, would have weighed with the lightness of a laugh against such a load of expense. It is therefore most probable that the ministry will at last justify their policy by their dishonesty, and openly declare, that their original design was conquest: and, in this case, it well becomes the people of England to consider how far the nation would have been benefited by the success.

In a general view, there are few conquests that repay the charge of making them, and mankind are pretty well convinced that it can never be worth their while to go to war for profit's sake. If they are made war upon, their country invaded, or their existence at stake, it is their duty to defend and preserve themselves, but in every other light, and from every other cause, is war inglorious and detestable. But to return to the case in question-

When conquests are made of foreign countries, it is supposed that the commerce and dominion of the country which made them are extended. But this could neither be the object nor the consequence of the present war. You enjoyed the whole commerce before. It could receive no possible addition by a conquest, but on the contrary, must diminish as the inhabitants were reduced in numbers and wealth. You had the same dominion over the country which you used to have, and had no complaint to make against her for breach of any part of the contract between you or her, or contending against any established custom, commercial, political or territorial. The country and commerce were both your own when you began to conquer, in the same manner and form as they had been your own a hundred years before. Nations have sometimes been induced to make conquests for the sake of reducing the power of their enemies, or bringing it to a balance with their own. But this could be no part of your plan. No foreign authority was claimed here, neither was any such authority suspected by you, or acknowledged or imagined by us. What then, in the name of heaven, could you go to war for? Or what chance could you possibly have in the event, but either to hold the same country which you held before, and that in a much worse condition, or to lose, with an amazing expense, what you might have retained without a farthing of charges?

War never can be the interest of a trading nation, any more than quarrelling can be profitable to a man in business. But to make war with those who trade with us, is like setting a bull-dog upon a customer at the shop-door. The least degree of common sense shows the madness of the latter, and it will apply with the same force of conviction to the former. Piratical nations, having neither commerce or commodities of their own to lose, may make war upon all the world, and lucratively find their account in it; but it is quite otherwise with Britain: for, besides the stoppage of trade in time of war, she exposes more of her own property to be lost, than she has the chance of taking from others. Some ministerial gentlemen in parliament have mentioned the greatness of her trade as an apology for the greatness of her loss. This is miserable politics indeed! Because it ought to have been given as a reason for her not engaging in a war at first. The coast of America commands the West India trade almost as effectually as the coast of Africa does that of the Straits; and England can no more carry on the former without the consent of America, than she can the latter without a Mediterranean pass.

In whatever light the war with America is considered upon commercial principles, it is evidently the interest of the people of England not to support it; and why it has been supported so long, against the clearest demonstrations of truth and national advantage, is, to me, and must be to all the reasonable world, a matter of astonishment. Perhaps it may be said that I live in America, and write this from interest. To this I reply, that my principle is universal. My attachment is to all the world, and not to any particular part, and if what I advance is right, no matter where or who it comes from. We have given the proclamation of your commissioners a currency in our newspapers, and I have no doubt you will give this a place in yours. To oblige and be obliged is fair.

Before I dismiss this part of my address, I shall mention one more circumstance in which I think the people of England have been equally mistaken: and then proceed to other matters.

There is such an idea existing in the world, as that of national honor, and this, falsely understood, is oftentimes the cause of war. In a Christian and philosophical sense, mankind seem to have stood still at individual civilization, and to retain as nations all the original rudeness of nature. Peace by treaty is only a cessation of violence for a reformation of sentiment. It is a substitute for a principle that is wanting and ever will be wanting till the idea of national honor be rightly understood. As individuals we profess ourselves Christians, but as nations we are heathens, Romans, and what not. I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the time of peace, "That the city of Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war." I do not ask whether this is Christianity or morality, I ask whether it is decency? whether it is proper language for a nation to use? In private life we call it by the plain name of bullying, and the elevation of rank cannot alter its character. It is, I think, exceedingly easy to define what ought to be understood by national honor; for that which is the best character for an individual is the best character for a nation; and wherever the latter exceeds or falls beneath the former, there is a departure from the line of true greatness.

I have thrown out this observation with a design of applying it to Great Britain. Her ideas of national honor seem devoid of that benevolence of heart, that universal expansion of philanthropy, and that triumph over the rage of vulgar prejudice, without which man is inferior to himself, and a companion of common animals. To know who she shall regard or dislike, she asks what country they are of, what religion they profess, and what property they enjoy. Her idea of national honor seems to consist in national insult, and that to be a great people, is to be neither a Christian, a philosopher, or a gentleman, but to threaten with the rudeness of a bear, and to devour with the ferocity of a lion. This perhaps may sound harsh and uncourtly, but it is too true, and the more is the pity.

I mention this only as her general character. But towards America she has observed no character at all; and destroyed by her conduct what she assumed in her title. She set out with the title of parent, or mother country. The association of ideas which naturally accompany this expression, are filled with everything that is fond, tender and forbearing. They have an energy peculiar to themselves, and, overlooking the accidental attachment of common affections, apply with infinite softness to the first feelings of the heart. It is a political term which every mother can feel the force of, and every child can judge of. It needs no painting of mine to set it off, for nature only can do it justice.

But has any part of your conduct to America corresponded with the title you set up? If in your general national character you are unpolished and severe, in this you are inconsistent and unnatural, and you must have exceeding false notions of national honor to suppose that the world can admire a want of humanity or that national honor depends on the violence of resentment, the inflexibility of temper, or the vengeance of execution.

I would willingly convince you, and that with as much temper as the times will suffer me to do, that as you opposed your own interest by quarrelling with us, so likewise your national honor, rightly conceived and understood, was no ways called upon to enter into a war with America; had you studied true greatness of heart, the first and fairest ornament of mankind, you would have acted directly contrary to all that you have done, and the world would have ascribed it to a generous cause. Besides which, you had (though with the assistance of this country) secured a powerful name by the last war. You were known and dreaded abroad; and it would have been wise in you to have suffered the world to have slept undisturbed under that idea. It was to you a force existing without expense. It produced to you all the advantages of real power; and you were stronger through the universality of that charm, than any future fleets and armies may probably make you. Your greatness was so secured and interwoven with your silence that you ought never to have awakened mankind, and had nothing to do but to be quiet. Had you been true politicians you would have seen all this, and continued to draw from the magic of a name, the force and authority of a nation.

Unwise as you were in breaking the charm, you were still more unwise in the manner of doing it. Samson only told the secret, but you have performed the operation; you have shaven your own head, and wantonly thrown away the locks. America was the hair from which the charm was drawn that infatuated the world. You ought to have quarrelled with no power; but with her upon no account. You had nothing to fear from any condescension you might make. You might have humored her, even if there had been no justice in her claims, without any risk to your reputation; for Europe, fascinated by your fame, would have ascribed it to your benevolence, and America, intoxicated by the grant, would have slumbered in her fetters.

But this method of studying the progress of the passions, in order to ascertain the probable conduct of mankind, is a philosophy in politics which those who preside at St. James's have no conception of. They know no other influence than corruption and reckon all their probabilities from precedent. A new case is to them a new world, and while they are seeking for a parallel they get lost. The talents of Lord Mansfield can be estimated at best no higher than those of a sophist. He understands the subtleties but not the elegance of nature; and by continually viewing mankind through the cold medium of the law, never thinks of penetrating into the warmer region of the mind. As for Lord North, it is his happiness to have in him more philosophy than sentiment, for he bears flogging like a top, and sleeps the better for it. His punishment becomes his support, for while he suffers the lash for his sins, he keeps himself up by twirling about. In politics, he is a good arithmetician, and in every thing else nothing at all.

There is one circumstance which comes so much within Lord North's province as a financier, that I am surprised it should escape him, which is, the different abilities of the two countries in supporting the expense; for, strange as it may seem, England is not a match for America in this particular. By a curious kind of revolution in accounts, the people of England seem to mistake their poverty for their riches; that is, they reckon their national debt as a part of their national wealth. They make the same kind of error which a man would do, who after mortgaging his estate, should add the money borrowed, to the full value of the estate, in order to count up his worth, and in this case he would conceive that he got rich by running into debt. Just thus it is with England. The government owed at the beginning of this war one hundred and thirty-five millions sterling, and though the individuals to whom it was due had a right to reckon their shares as so much private property, yet to the nation collectively it was so much poverty. There are as effectual limits to public debts as to private ones, for when once the money borrowed is so great as to require the whole yearly revenue to discharge the interest thereon, there is an end to further borrowing; in the same manner as when the interest of a man's debts amounts to the yearly income of his estate, there is an end to his credit. This is nearly the case with England, the interest of her present debt being at least equal to one half of her yearly revenue, so that out of ten millions annually collected by taxes, she has but five that she can call her own.

The very reverse of this was the case with America; she began the war without any debt upon her, and in order to carry it on, she neither raised money by taxes, nor borrowed it upon interest, but created it; and her situation at this time continues so much the reverse of yours that taxing would make her rich, whereas it would make you poor. When we shall have sunk the sum which we have created, we shall then be out of debt, be just as rich as when we began, and all the while we are doing it shall feel no difference, because the value will rise as the quantity decreases.

There was not a country in the world so capable of bearing the expense of a war as America; not only because she was not in debt when she began, but because the country is young and capable of infinite improvement, and has an almost boundless tract of new lands in store; whereas England has got to her extent of age and growth, and has not unoccupied land or property in reserve. The one is like a young heir coming to a large improvable estate; the other like an old man whose chances are over, and his estate mortgaged for half its worth.

In the second number of the Crisis, which I find has been republished in England, I endeavored to set forth the impracticability of conquering America. I stated every case, that I conceived could possibly happen, and ventured to predict its consequences. As my conclusions were drawn not artfully, but naturally, they have all proved to be true. I was upon the spot; knew the politics of America, her strength and resources, and by a train of services, the best in my power to render, was honored with the friendship of the congress, the army and the people. I considered the cause a just one. I know and feel it a just one, and under that confidence never made my own profit or loss an object. My endeavor was to have the matter well understood on both sides, and I conceived myself tendering a general service, by setting forth to the one the impossibility of being conquered, and to the other the impossibility of conquering. Most of the arguments made use of by the ministry for supporting the war, are the very arguments that ought to have been used against supporting it; and the plans, by which they thought to conquer, are the very plans in which they were sure to be defeated. They have taken every thing up at the wrong end. Their ignorance is astonishing, and were you in my situation you would see it. They may, perhaps, have your confidence, but I am persuaded that they would make very indifferent members of Congress. I know what England is, and what America is, and from the compound of knowledge, am better enabled to judge of the issue than what the king or any of his ministers can be.

In this number I have endeavored to show the ill policy and disadvantages of the war. I believe many of my remarks are new. Those which are not so, I have studied to improve and place in a manner that may be clear and striking. Your failure is, I am persuaded, as certain as fate. America is above your reach. She is at least your equal in the world, and her independence neither rests upon your consent, nor can it be prevented by your arms. In short, you spend your substance in vain, and impoverish yourselves without a hope.

But suppose you had conquered America, what advantages, collectively or individually, as merchants, manufacturers, or conquerors, could you have looked for? This is an object you seemed never to have attended to. Listening for the sound of victory, and led away by the frenzy of arms, you neglected to reckon either the cost or the consequences. You must all pay towards the expense; the poorest among you must bear his share, and it is both your right and your duty to weigh seriously the matter. Had America been conquered, she might have been parcelled out in grants to the favorites at court, but no share of it would have fallen to you. Your taxes would not have been lessened, because she would have been in no condition to have paid any towards your relief. We are rich by contrivance of our own, which would have ceased as soon as you became masters. Our paper money will be of no use in England, and silver and gold we have none. In the last war you made many conquests, but were any of your taxes lessened thereby? On the contrary, were you not taxed to pay for the charge of making them, and has not the same been the case in every war?

To the Parliament I wish to address myself in a more particular manner. They appear to have supposed themselves partners in the chase, and to have hunted with the lion from an expectation of a right in the booty; but in this it is most probable they would, as legislators, have been disappointed. The case is quite a new one, and many unforeseen difficulties would have arisen thereon. The Parliament claimed a legislative right over America, and the war originated from that pretence. But the army is supposed to belong to the crown, and if America had been conquered through their means, the claim of the legislature would have been suffocated in the conquest. Ceded, or conquered, countries are supposed to be out of the authority of Parliament. Taxation is exercised over them by prerogative and not by law. It was attempted to be done in the Grenadas a few years ago, and the only reason why it was not done was because the crown had made a prior relinquishment of its claim. Therefore, Parliament have been all this while supporting measures for the establishment of their authority, in the issue of which, they would have been triumphed over by the prerogative. This might have opened a new and interesting opposition between the Parliament and the crown. The crown would have said that it conquered for itself, and that to conquer for Parliament was an unknown case. The Parliament might have replied, that America not being a foreign country, but a country in rebellion, could not be said to be conquered, but reduced; and thus continued their claim by disowning the term. The crown might have rejoined, that however America might be considered at first, she became foreign at last by a declaration of independence, and a treaty with France; and that her case being, by that treaty, put within the law of nations, was out of the law of Parliament, who might have maintained, that as their claim over America had never been surrendered, so neither could it be taken away. The crown might have insisted, that though the claim of Parliament could not be taken away, yet, being an inferior, it might be superseded; and that, whether the claim was withdrawn from the object, or the object taken from the claim, the same separation ensued; and that America being subdued after a treaty with France, was to all intents and purposes a regal conquest, and of course the sole property of the king. The Parliament, as the legal delegates of the people, might have contended against the term "inferior," and rested the case upon the antiquity of power, and this would have brought on a set of very interesting and rational questions.

1st, What is the original fountain of power and honor in any country?
2d, Whether the prerogative does not belong to the people?
3d, Whether there is any such thing as the English constitution?
4th, Of what use is the crown to the people?
5th, Whether he who invented a crown was not an enemy to mankind?
6th, Whether it is not a shame for a man to spend a million a year
and do no good for it, and whether the money might not be better applied? 7th, Whether such a man is not better dead than alive?
8th, Whether a Congress, constituted like that of America, is not the most happy and consistent form of government in the world?- With a number of others of the same import.

In short, the contention about the dividend might have distracted the nation; for nothing is more common than to agree in the conquest and quarrel for the prize; therefore it is, perhaps, a happy circumstance, that our successes have prevented the dispute.

If the Parliament had been thrown out in their claim, which it is most probable they would, the nation likewise would have been thrown out in their expectation; for as the taxes would have been laid on by the crown without the Parliament, the revenue arising therefrom, if any could have arisen, would not have gone into the exchequer, but into the privy purse, and so far from lessening the taxes, would not even have been added to them, but served only as pocket money to the crown. The more I reflect on this matter, the more I am satisfied at the blindness and ill policy of my countrymen, whose wisdom seems to operate without discernment, and their strength without an object.

To the great bulwark of the nation, I mean the mercantile and manufacturing part thereof, I likewise present my address. It is your interest to see America an independent, and not a conquered country. If conquered, she is ruined; and if ruined, poor; consequently the trade will be a trifle, and her credit doubtful. If independent, she flourishes, and from her flourishing must your profits arise. It matters nothing to you who governs America, if your manufactures find a consumption there. Some articles will consequently be obtained from other places, and it is right that they should; but the demand for others will increase, by the great influx of inhabitants which a state of independence and peace will occasion, and in the final event you may be enriched. The commerce of America is perfectly free, and ever will be so. She will consign away no part of it to any nation. She has not to her friends, and certainly will not to her enemies; though it is probable that your narrow-minded politicians, thinking to please you thereby, may some time or other unnecessarily make such a proposal. Trade flourishes best when it is free, and it is weak policy to attempt to fetter it. Her treaty with France is on the most liberal and generous principles, and the French, in their conduct towards her, have proved themselves to be philosophers, politicians, and gentlemen.

To the ministry I likewise address myself. You, gentlemen, have studied the ruin of your country, from which it is not within your abilities to rescue her. Your attempts to recover her are as ridiculous as your plans which involved her are detestable. The commissioners, being about to depart, will probably bring you this, and with it my sixth number, addressed to them; and in so doing they carry back more Common Sense than they brought, and you likewise will have more than when you sent them.

Having thus addressed you severally, I conclude by addressing you collectively. It is a long lane that has no turning. A period of sixteen years of misconduct and misfortune, is certainly long enough for any one nation to suffer under; and upon a supposition that war is not declared between France and you, I beg to place a line of conduct before you that will easily lead you out of all your troubles. It has been hinted before, and cannot be too much attended to.

Suppose America had remained unknown to Europe till the present year, and that Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander, in another voyage round the world, had made the first discovery of her, in the same condition that she is now in, of arts, arms, numbers, and civilization. What, I ask, in that case, would have been your conduct towards her? For that will point out what it ought to be now. The problems and their solutions are equal, and the right line of the one is the parallel of the other. The question takes in every circumstance that can possibly arise. It reduces politics to a simple thought, and is moreover a mode of investigation, in which, while you are studying your interest the simplicity of the case will cheat you into good temper. You have nothing to do but to suppose that you have found America, and she appears found to your hand, and while in the joy of your heart you stand still to admire her, the path of politics rises straight before you.

Were I disposed to paint a contrast, I could easily set off what you have done in the present case, against what you would have done in that case, and by justly opposing them, conclude a picture that would make you blush. But, as, when any of the prouder passions are hurt, it is much better philosophy to let a man slip into a good temper than to attack him in a bad one, for that reason, therefore, I only state the case, and leave you to reflect upon it.

To go a little back into politics, it will be found that the true interest of Britain lay in proposing and promoting the independence of America immediately after the last peace; for the expense which Britain had then incurred by defending America as her own dominions, ought to have shown her the policy and necessity of changing the style of the country, as the best probable method of preventing future wars and expense, and the only method by which she could hold the commerce without the charge of sovereignty. Besides which, the title which she assumed, of parent country, led to, and pointed out the propriety, wisdom and advantage of a separation; for, as in private life, children grow into men, and by setting up for themselves, extend and secure the interest of the whole family, so in the settlement of colonies large enough to admit of maturity, the same policy should be pursued, and the same consequences would follow. Nothing hurts the affections both of parents and children so much, as living too closely connected, and keeping up the distinction too long. Domineering will not do over those, who, by a progress in life, have become equal in rank to their parents, that is, when they have families of their own; and though they may conceive themselves the subjects of their advice, will not suppose them the objects of their government. I do not, by drawing this parallel, mean to admit the title of parent country, because, if it is due any where, it is due to Europe collectively, and the first settlers from England were driven here by persecution. I mean only to introduce the term for the sake of policy and to show from your title the line of your interest.

When you saw the state of strength and opulence, and that by her own industry, which America arrived at, you ought to have advised her to set up for herself, and proposed an alliance of interest with her, and in so doing you would have drawn, and that at her own expense, more real advantage, and more military supplies and assistance, both of ships and men, than from any weak and wrangling government that you could exercise over her. In short, had you studied only the domestic politics of a family, you would have learned how to govern the state; but, instead of this easy and natural line, you flew out into every thing which was wild and outrageous, till, by following the passion and stupidity of the pilot, you wrecked the vessel within sight of the shore.

Having shown what you ought to have done, I now proceed to show why it was not done. The caterpillar circle of the court had an interest to pursue, distinct from, and opposed to yours; for though by the independence of America and an alliance therewith, the trade would have continued, if not increased, as in many articles neither country can go to a better market, and though by defending and protecting herself, she would have been no expense to you, and consequently your national charges would have decreased, and your taxes might have been proportionably lessened thereby; yet the striking off so many places from the court calendar was put in opposition to the interest of the nation. The loss of thirteen government ships, with their appendages, here and in England, is a shocking sound in the ear of a hungry courtier. Your present king and ministry will be the ruin of you; and you had better risk a revolution and call a Congress, than be thus led on from madness to despair, and from despair to ruin. America has set you the example, and you may follow it and be free.

I now come to the last part, a war with France. This is what no man in his senses will advise you to, and all good men would wish to prevent. Whether France will declare war against you, is not for me in this place to mention, or to hint, even if I knew it; but it must be madness in you to do it first. The matter is come now to a full crisis, and peace is easy if willingly set about. Whatever you may think, France has behaved handsomely to you. She would have been unjust to herself to have acted otherwise than she did; and having accepted our offer of alliance she gave you genteel notice of it. There was nothing in her conduct reserved or indelicate, and while she announced her determination to support her treaty, she left you to give the first offence. America, on her part, has exhibited a character of firmness to the world. Unprepared and unarmed, without form or government, she, singly opposed a nation that domineered over half the globe. The greatness of the deed demands respect; and though you may feel resentment, you are compelled both to wonder and admire.

Here I rest my arguments and finish my address. Such as it is, it is a gift, and you are welcome. It was always my design to dedicate a Crisis to you, when the time should come that would properly make it a Crisis; and when, likewise, I should catch myself in a temper to write it, and suppose you in a condition to read it. That time has now arrived, and with it the opportunity for conveyance. For the commissioners- poor commissioners! having proclaimed, that "yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," have waited out the date, and, discontented with their God, are returning to their gourd. And all the harm I wish them is, that it may not wither about their ears, and that they may not make their exit in the belly of a whale.

COMMON SENSE.

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 21, 1778.

P.S.- Though in the tranquillity of my mind I have concluded with a laugh, yet I have something to mention to the commissioners, which, to them, is serious and worthy their attention. Their authority is derived from an Act of Parliament, which likewise describes and limits their official powers. Their commission, therefore, is only a recital, and personal investiture, of those powers, or a nomination and description of the persons who are to execute them. Had it contained any thing contrary to, or gone beyond the line of, the written law from which it is derived, and by which it is bound, it would, by the English constitution, have been treason in the crown, and the king been subject to an impeachment. He dared not, therefore, put in his commission what you have put in your proclamation, that is, he dared not have authorised you in that commission to burn and destroy any thing in America. You are both in the act and in the commission styled commissioners for restoring peace, and the methods for doing it are there pointed out. Your last proclamation is signed by you as commissioners under that act. You make Parliament the patron of its contents. Yet, in the body of it, you insert matters contrary both to the spirit and letter of the act, and what likewise your king dared not have put in his commission to you. The state of things in England, gentlemen, is too ticklish for you to run hazards. You are accountable to Parliament for the execution of that act according to the letter of it. Your heads may pay for breaking it, for you certainly have broke it by exceeding it. And as a friend, who would wish you to escape the paw of the lion, as well as the belly of the whale, I civilly hint to you, to keep within compass.

Sir Harry Clinton, strictly speaking, is as accountable as the rest; for though a general, he is likewise a commissioner, acting under a superior authority. His first obedience is due to the act; and his plea of being a general, will not and cannot clear him as a commissioner, for that would suppose the crown, in its single capacity, to have a power of dispensing with an Act of Parliament. Your situation, gentlemen, is nice and critical, and the more so because England is unsettled. Take heed! Remember the times of Charles the First! For Laud and Stafford fell by trusting to a hope like yours.

Having thus shown you the danger of your proclamation, I now show you the folly of it. The means contradict your design: you threaten to lay waste, in order to render America a useless acquisition of alliance to France. I reply, that the more destruction you commit (if you could do it) the more valuable to France you make that alliance. You can destroy only houses and goods; and by so doing you increase our demand upon her for materials and merchandise; for the wants of one nation, provided it has freedom and credit, naturally produce riches to the other; and, as you can neither ruin the land nor prevent the vegetation, you would increase the exportation of our produce in payment, which would be to her a new fund of wealth. In short, had you cast about for a plan on purpose to enrich your enemies, you could not have hit upon a better.

C. S.

Table Of Contents
The Crisis No. VIII