3
The Farmer Refuted: or, A more Impartial and Comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies, Intended as a Further Vindication of the Congress: In Answer to a Letter from A. W. Farmer, Intitled A View of the Controversy Between Great-Britain and her Colonies: Including a Mode of Determining the Present Disputes Finally and Effectually, &c (New York, 1775); selection from pp. 1, 11–13, 18.
[Alexander Hamilton]
In The Farmer Refuted, Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804) considered Hume to be an empirical thinker and used Hume’s writings to argue against the loyalist sentiments of the pseudonymous “A.W. Farmer,” the Anglican clergyman Samuel Seabury (1729–96). Seabury’s pamphlet, A View of the Controversy Between Great-Britain and her Colonies (1774), was itself a reply to Hamilton’s pamphlet of the previous year, his first known printed work, A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, &c (1774). The selection from The Farmer Refuted reprinted below is from the first edition. It shows the impact on a sixteen-year-old Hamilton of Hume’s essays, “Of the Independency of Parliament,” and “That Politics may be Reduced to a Science.” Hume’s political maxims percolated in Hamilton’s mind many years prior to his writing of the Federalist essays in 1787. The Farmer Refuted has been reprinted with annotation in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Volume I: 1768–1778 (New York and London, 1961), pp. 81–165; and, more recently, in Richard B. Vernier, ed. The Revolutionary Writings of Alexander Hamilton (Indianapolis, 2008), pp. 41–135. On Hume and Hamilton see Gerald Stourzh, Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government (Stanford, 1970). For the broader context of “Race” in the American Enlightenment, see Enrico Dal Lago’s entry on it in EAE , vol. 2, pp. 862–5; and Trevor Burnard on “Slavery,” vol. 2, pp. 966–8.
___________________________________
SIR,
I resume my pen, in reply to the curious epistle, you have been pleased to favour me with; and can assure you, that, notwithstanding, I am naturally of a grave and phlegmatic disposition, it has been the source of abundant merriment to me. The spirit that breathes throughout is so rancorous, illiberal and imperious: The argumentative part of it so puerile and fallacious: The misrepresentations of facts so palpable and flagrant: The criticisms so illiterate, trifling and absurd: The conceits so low, steril and splenetic, that I will venture to pronounce it one of the most ludicrous performances, which has been exhibited to public view, during all the present controversy.
…
There seems to be, already, a jealousy of our dawning splendour. It is looked upon as portentous of aproaching [sic] independence. This we have reason to believe is one of the principal incitements to the present rigorous and unconstitutional proceedings against us. And though it may have chiefly originated in the calumnies of designing men, yet it does not entirely depend upon adventitious or partial causes; but is also founded in the circumstances of our country and situation. The boundless extent of territory we possess, the wholesome temperament of our climate, the luxuriance and fertility of our soil, the variety of our products, the rapidity of our population, the industry of our country men and the commodiousness of our ports, naturally lead to a suspicion of independence, and would always have an influence pernicious to us. Jealousy is a predominant passion of human nature, and is a source of the greatest evils. Whenever it takes place between rulers and their subjects, it proves the bane of civil society.
The experience of past ages may inform us, that when the circumstances of a people render them distressed, their rulers generally recur to severe, cruel and oppressive measures. Instead of endeavouring to establish their authority in the affection of their subjects, they think they have no security but in their fear. They do not aim at gaining their fidelity and obedience, by making them flourishing, prosperous and happy; but by rendering them abject and dispirited. They think it necessary to intimidate and awe them, to make every accession to their own power, and to impair the people’s as much as possible.
One great engine, to effect this in America, would be a large standing army, maintained out of our own pockets to be at the devotion of our oppressors. This would be introduced under pretence of defending us; but in fact to make our bondage and misery complete.
We might soon expect the martial law, universally prevalent to the abolition of trials by juries, the Habeas Corpus act, and every other bulwark of personal safety, in order to overawe the honest assertors of their country’s cause. A numerous train of court dependents would be created and supported at our expence. The value of all our possessions, by a complication of extorsive methods, would be gradually depreciated, till it became a mere shadow.
This will be called too high wrought a picture, aphantom [sic] of my own deluded imagination. The highest eulogies will be lavished on the wisdom and justice of the British nation. But deplorable is the condition of that people who have nothing else than the wisdom and justice of another to depend upon.
“Political writers (says a celebrated author*) have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave; and to have no other end in all his actions, but private interest. By this interest, we must govern him, and by means of it, make him co operate to public good, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition. Without this, we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find in the end, that we have no security for our liberties and possessions, except the good will of our rulers; that is, we should have no security at all.”
“It is therefore a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave. Though, at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in a private than in a public capacity; and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind. But, where a considerable body of men act together, this check is in a great measure removed; since a man is sure to be approved by his own party, for what promotes the common interest, and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries. To this we may add that every court, or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that if self-interest influences only the majority, (as it will always do) the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one member, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.” What additional force do these observations acquire, when applied to the dominion of one community over another!
…
[T]he authority of the British Parliament over America, would, in all probability, be a more intolerable and excessive species of despotism than an absolute monarchy.* The power of an absolute prince is not temporary, but perpetual.
*Hume, Vol. I. Essay 5th.
*Mr. Hume, in enumerating those political maxims, which will be eternally true, speaks thus: “It may easily be observed, that though free governments have been commonly the most happy, for those who partake of their freedom, yet are they the most ruinous and oppressive to their provinces.” He goes on to give many solid reasons for this, and among other things, observes, that “a free state necessarily makes a great distinction (between herself and the provinces) and must continue to do so, ‘till men learn to love their neighbours as well as themselves.” He confirms his reflections by many historical facts, and concludes them thus: “Compare the pais conquis of France with Ireland, and you will be convinced of this truth; though this latter kingdom being in a good measure peopled from England, possesses so many rights and privileges, as should naturally make it challenge better treatment.”