Although the American revolution never involved itself in this horrible labyrinth，where voluntary iniquities can only be covered by necessary misdeeds，and where every earlier crime became the only justification of an hundred later ones；yet did it not altogether escape the misfortune，which seems inseparable from all sudden and violent changes in the civil and political relations of society．The smallness of the resistance it met with，and the moderation of those who conducted it，preserved it from a multitude of cruel，desperate，and dishonorable measures，which have sullied other revolutions；but its warmest friends will not venture to maintain that it was wholly exempt from injustice and violence．The bitterness against the English government，often degenerated into a spirit of persecution，and involved those，who were suspected of a punishable indifference，or of secret connivance，in the sentence of proscription pronounced against tyranny．The hatred between the friends of independence，and the partizans of the ministry，the whigs and the tories，as they were distinguished by names taken from old English parties，broke out，especially amidst the dangers of the war，sometimes in violent scenes，which tore to pieces the internal harmony of neighbourhoods，and sometimes even of families．The reciprocal cruelties，which from time to time were practised upon prisoners，called to mind the peculiar character，which had never wholly abandoned a civil war．The rights of property likewise were often violated by single communities and single states，and，in some few instances，with the co-operation of the supreme authority．The history of the descendents，of the great and benevolent Penn，driven from the paradise，which he had created，and compelled，like other loyalists，to take refuge in the generosity and magnanimity of England，is no honorable page in the annals of North-America.
But what are all these single instances of injustice and oppression，compared with the universal flood of misery and ruin，which the French revolution let loose upon France，and all the neighbouring countries．If，even in America，private hatred，or local circumstances，threatened property or personal security；if here and there even the public authorities became the instruments of injustice，of revenge，and of a persecuting spirit，yet did the poison never flow into every vein of the social body；never，as in France，was the contempt of all rights，and of the very simplest precepts of humanity，made the general maxim of legislation，and the unqualified prescription of systematic tyranny．If in America，the confusion of the moment，the impulse of necessity，or the eruption of the passions，sometimes inflicted misfortune upon innocence，never at least，never as in France，did reason herself，abused，desecrated reason，ascend the theatre of misery，solemnly to justify，by cold blooded，criminal appeals to principles and duties，these revolutionary confusions；and if in America，single families and districts，felt the heavy hand of the revolution and of war，never at least，as in France，were confiscations，banishments，imprisonments，and death，decreed in a mass.
When the American revolution was concluded，the country proceeded with rapid steps to a new，a happy，and a flourishing constitution．Not but that the revolution had left behind it many great and essential ravages：the ties of public order，had，in a long and bloody contest，been on all sides more or less relaxed；peaceful industry had suffered many a violent interruption；the relations of property，the culture of the soil，the internal and foreign trade，the public and private credit，had all considerably suffered by the revolutionary storms，by the insecurity of the external relations，and especially by the devastations of paper money.(12)Even the morals and the character of the people，had been essentially，and not in every respect advantageously affected by the revolution．Although we can draw no conclusion from this circumstance with regard to futurity，yet history must remark with attention，and preserve with care，the confession，which comes from the pen of a calm and impartial witness，the best of all the writers upon the American revolution hitherto（Ramsay）：“That by this revolution，the political，military，and literary talents of the people of the United States，were improved，but their moral qualities were deteriorated.”
A picture of the condition in which the revolution has left France，is by far too great，too complicated，and too formidable a subject to be touched upon even transiently here．The idea itself of a final result from such a revolution as this，must still be in some sort an indefinite，and perhaps a hazarded idea．Thus much，however，may be asserted with confidence，that between the results of the American and those of the French revolution，no sort of comparison can so much as be conceived.
I might have continued the above parallel through many other respects，and perhaps into single points of detail．I believe，however，that the four principal points of view in which I have treated it，with regard to the lawfulness of the origin，character of the conduct，quality of the object，and compass of resistance，sufficiently answer the purpose，I proposed to myself，and it appears，at least to me，evident enough，that every parallel between these two revolutions，will serve much more to display the contrast，than the resemblance between them.
THE END
————————————————————
(1) Thus，for example，among all the statesmen and literati，who spoke or wrote，either for or against the American revolution，there were only two，who even then foresaw that the loss of the colonies would be no misfortune to England：The one，Adam Smith，was at that time little read，and，perhaps，little understood：The other，Dean Tucker，was held an eccentric visionary.
(2) So long as the colonists had found a paramount advantage in the culture of the land，they would probably have borne their dependence．But when the critical period had arrived，when in the natural progress of society，a considerable part of the capitals would have been employed in manufactures，the English monopoly would have become insupportable.
(3) Lord North formally declared in parliament，that after what had happened，an entire repeal of all the new taxes could not take place，until America should be brought to the feet of Great-Britain.
(4) This great man，who，faithful to the principles of antient policy，and animated with the most unbounded zeal for the glory and welfare of his country，which under his administration had reached the zenith of her greatness，considered the separation of the colonies from England，as the greatest of all evils，said among other things，in a most impressive speech，with which on the 20th of January，1775，he introduced the motion for withdrawing the troops from Boston．“I announce it to you now，my lords，we shall one day be compelled to repeal these oppressive regulations，they must be repealed；you yourselves will retract them．I pledge myself for it；I stake my reputation upon it；I am content to pass for a blockhead，if they are not retracted.”
It is furthermore very remarkable，that the disapprobation of the measures against America，was not confined to the then opposition parties，but was equally shown by several of the principal ministers．The duke of Grafton，who from 1766，to 1770，was first lord of the treasury，and afterwards，from 1771，to 1775，keeper of the seals，had at all times declared himself against the prevailing system；the same sentiments were ascribed to the earl of Dartmouth，secretary of state for America；lord North himself，who from 1770，was considered as first minister，is said to have manifested often in the deliberations of the cabinet，different principles from those he afterwards supported in parliament．But nothing can be more surprising，than that in one of the most violent debates，which took place in the house of lords，in February 1775，even lord Mansfield，a man in high consideration，and of great talents，but whom the whig party considered as an exaggerated partizan of the crown's rights，and as one of the most decided enemies of the Americans，carried away by the heat of the contest，formally declared，that the introduction of imposts，in the year 1767，was the most absurd and most pernicious measure that could have been devised，and had been the real cause of all the subsequent misfortunes.
(5) Most of the colonies were founded before the middle of the seventeenth century；all before the revolution of 1688．The province of Georgia，the most southern of the colonies，and which was originally part of South Carolina，was the only one，which received her separate constitution since the beginning of this century（in 1732）；and was likewise the only one for the settlement and cultivation of which the British government had been at any cost.
(6) This is undoubtedly the greatest failing that can be objected against mixed governments．Fortunately，however，it must be acknowledged，that the probability of such a dissolution is more remote in proportion as the constitution approaches nearer to perfection．For the more easily one of the constituted authorities can resist the other，by its appropriate weight，the less will be the necessity of appealing to arms．On the other hand，the more imperfect the balance is，the greater will be the danger of a civil war．In this lies properly the decided superiority of the British constitution，above all other complicated forms of government，that ever were，or probably ever will be devised constituted authorities can resist the other，by its appropriate weight，the less will be the necessity of appealing to arms．On the other hand，the more imperfect the balance is，the greater will be the danger of a civil war．In this lies properly the decided superiority of the British constitution，above all other complicated forms of government，that ever were，or probably ever will be devised.
(7) In many places the public officers appointed to collect the stamp-tax，were hanged up，or beheaded；but all，only in effigy.
(8) Shortly before，the congress are said to have resolved upon a declaration，by virtue of which，the colonies offered，“not only for the future，in time of war，to pay extraordinary contributions，but likewise，provided they were allowed a free trade，for an hundred years，to pay an annual sum，sufficient in that period to extinguish the whole British national debt，”and to have been deterred from giving their last sanction to this declaration，only by the account of new hostile measures of the parliament．This highly remarkable fact I mention however only upon the authority of a single writer，a very severe antagonist of the ministry，though otherwise very well informed．Belsham's Memoirs of George III．Vol．2．p．166.
(9) I believe that in the first section of this Essay，I have completely shown the lawfulness of the American revolution upon legal principles；and yet in that analysis，it will be found，that the sphere of unalienable rights of man，and the sovereignty of the people，and the like principles，are not once touched upon.
(10) The general opinion，and the unanimous testimony of all the known writers upon American affairs，leave scarce room for a doubt of this fact，though for the honour of the Americans I would most willingly call it in question．His“Common Sense，”is a pamphlet just as contemptible，almost throughout just as remote from sound human sense，as all the others by which，in later times，he has made himself a name．To appreciate the character and tendency of this work，which，perhaps，has never been judged as it deserves，and to obtain a full conviction that it was solely calculated to make an impression upon the mass of the people，and especially upon certain religious sects very extensively spread in America，the reader has only to remark the spirit of the author's favourite arguments，which are all drawn from the Old Testament，and the absurd reasoning，with which he attacks，not the king of England，but monarchy in general，which he treats as an ungodly invention．If such a work could have produced the American revolution，it would have been best for reasonable men to concern themselves no longer with that event．But it was certainly at all times，by the wiser and better men，considered，endured，and perhaps encouraged，only as an instrument to gain over weaker minds to the common cause.
The difference between this writer and the great authorities of the American revolution，such as Dickenson，John Adams，Jay，Franklin，&c．will be still more apparent，if we remark a similar difference between the two parties in England，which accidentally concurring in the same object，but differing infinitely from each other in the choice of means and arguments，declared themselves there in favour of that revolution．Whoever compares，for example，the writings of Dr．Price，（who not withstanding his numerous errors，deserves not，however，to be put in the same class with Paine，） with the speeches and writings of Burke during the American war，will sometimes be scarcely able to convince himself，that both were contending for one and the same thing．And，indeed，it was only nominally，and not substantially，one and the same thing，for which they argued.
Another indirect，but not unimportant，proof of the accuracy and necessity of the distinction here pointed out，lies in the unquestionable aversion of most of the great statesmen in America to the French revolution，and to all what since 1789，has been called revolutionary principles．A remarkable anecdote occurs，testified by a witness unobjectionable upon this point，by Brissot，a man afterwards but too famous；an anecdote which proves how early this aversion had taken place．In a conversation which，shortly before the breaking out of the French revolution，he had with Mr．John Adams，now President of the United States，this gentleman assured him he was firmly convinced，that France，by the approaching revolution，would not even attain the degree of political liberty enjoyed by England；and what is most important，he denied，in perfect consistency with his pure and rigorous principles，that the French had a right to affect such a revolution as they intended．Brissot attempted in vain by appeals to the original compact，to the imprescriptibility of the rights of the people，and the like revolutionary rant，to combat him.—P．Nouveau Voyage dans les Etats Unis de l'Amérique，par Brissot．Vol．I．p．147.
(11) I purposely say，there was nothing of itself illegal in this alliance．For France found the independence of the colonies already founded，when she contracted an alliance with them，and might besides not shrink from the question as to the lawfulness of this independence．Nothing of itself，unnatural，or self destructive；for the principles of the Americans contained immediately nothing，which could in any manner be dangerous to the existence of the French monarchy：and the political and commercial interests of this monarchy seemed in a manner to force its taking a part in the American revolution.
All this however notwithstanding，I believe，with the most intimate conviction，that a more profound policy than that of the count de Vergennes，and a larger and more comprehensive view into futurity，would have prevented France from contracting that alliance．Not to mention the false calculation which burdened with a new debt of one thousand millions of livres，a state already very much disordered in its finances，in order to do its rival，in the most favourable contingency，an uncertain damage．The whole undertaking was resolved on without any real political regard to its remote consequences．The lawfulness of the American revolution，might be ever so clearly demonstrated to a man capable of judging of its origin，and of appreciating the grounds upon which it was supported；the time might come，when without regard to the particular situation of the colonies，the general indefinite principle of insurrection might be taken alone，from their revolution，and applied to justify the most dangerous crimes．The Americans might ever so cautiously keep within their rigorous limits；and neither maintain，nor care for the application of their principles to other states；at the first great commotion，those whom the French cabinet had sent into the republican school，might with the forms consecrated in America，put all the European governments to the ban，and declare lawful and even virtuous under all circumstances，what had been allowable only under certain circumstances．These possible consequences of the co-operation of France would not have escaped the penetration of a truly great statesman，and the world has paid dearly enough for their having been overlooked.
