Eranga the Sri Lankan

The Prince Niccolò Machiavelli

2010-11-14T07:44:00.000-08:00

Dedication

To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De’ Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness.

Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence.

And although I may consider this work unworthy of your countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity that it may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers; which work I have not embellished with swelling or magnificent words, nor stuffed with rounded periods, nor with any extrinsic allurements or adornments whatever, with which so many are accustomed to embellish their works; for I have wished either that no honour should be given it, or else that the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the theme shall make it acceptable.

Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presumption if a man of low and humble condition dare to discuss and settle the concerns of princes; because, just as those who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the plains place themselves upon high mountains, even so to understand the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that if princes it needs to be of the people.

Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit in which I send it; wherein, if it be diligently read and considered by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you should attain that greatness which fortune and your other attributes promise. And if your Magnificence from the summit of your greatness will sometimes turn your eyes to these lower regions, you will see how unmeritedly I suffer a great and continued malignity of fortune.

Chapter 1

How many kinds of Principalities there are, and by what means they are acquired

ALL STATES, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.

Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.

The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.

Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

Chapter 2

Concerning Hereditary Principalities

I WILL leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.

I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.

We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in ’84, nor those of Pope Julius in ’10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.

Chapter 3

Concerning Mixed Principalities

BUT the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition.

In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.

For these reasons Louis XII, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico’s own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was enough for the Duke Lodovico¹ to raise insurrections on the borders; but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.

¹ Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco Sforza, who married Beatrice d’Este. He ruled over Milan from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.

Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.

Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and, although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.

But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.

The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.

Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to these subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.

The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them, there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is for ever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time: — Let us enjoy the benefits of the time — but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.

But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the things mentioned. I will speak of Louis² (and not of Charles³) as the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a state composed of divers elements.

² Louis XII, King of France, “The Father of the People,” born 1462, died 1515.

³ Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.

King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a foothold in Italy, and having no friends there — seeing rather that every door was shut to him owing to the conduct of Charles — he was forced to accept those friendships which he could get, and he would have succeeded very quickly in his design if in other matters he had not made some mistakes. The king, however, having acquired Lombardy, regained at once the authority which Charles had lost: Genoa yielded; the Florentines became his friends; the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivoglio, my lady of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, of Pesaro, of Rimini, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucchesi, the Pisans, the Sienese — everybody made advances to him to become his friend. Then could the Venetians realize the rashness of the course taken by them, which, in order that they might secure two towns in Lombardy, had made the king master of two-thirds of Italy.

Let any one now consider with what little difficulty the king could have maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and kept all his friends secure and protected; for although they were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church, some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have been forced to stand in with him, and by their means he could easily have made himself secure against those who remained powerful. But he was no sooner in Milan than he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And having committed this prime error, he was obliged to follow it up, so much so that, to put an end to the ambition of Alexander, and to prevent his becoming the master of Tuscany, he was himself forced to come into Italy.

And as if it were not enough to have aggrandized the Church, and deprived himself of friends, he, wishing to have the kingdom of Naples, divides it with the King of Spain, and where he was the prime arbiter of Italy he takes an associate, so that the ambitious of that country and the malcontents of his own should have somewhere to shelter; and whereas he could have left in the kingdom his own pensioner as king, he drove him out, to put one there who was able to drive him, Louis, out in turn.

The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame. Therefore, if France could have attacked Naples with her own forces she ought to have done so; if she could not, then she ought not to have divided it. And if the partition which she made with the Venetians in Lombardy was justified by the excuse that by it she got a foothold in Italy, this other partition merited blame, for it had not the excuse of that necessity.

Therefore Louis made these five errors: he destroyed the minor powers, he increased the strength of one of the greater powers in Italy, he brought in a foreign power, he did not settle in the country, he did not send colonies. Which errors, if he had lived, were not enough to injure him had he not made a sixth by taking away their dominions from the Venetians; because, had he not aggrandized the Church, nor brought Spain into Italy, it would have been very reasonable and necessary to humble them; but having first taken these steps, he ought never to have consented to their ruin, for they, being powerful, would always have kept off others from designs on Lombardy, to which the Venetians would never have consented except to become masters themselves there; also because the others would not wish to take Lombardy from France in order to give it to the Venetians, and to run counter to both they would not have had the courage.

And if any one should say: King Louis yielded the Romagna to Alexander and the kingdom to Spain to avoid war, I answer for the reasons given above that a blunder ought never be perpetrated to avoid war, because it is not to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage. And if another should allege the pledge which the king had given to the Pope that he would assist him in the enterprise, in exchange for the dissolution of his marriage⁴ and for the hat to Rouen⁵, to that I reply what I shall write later on concerning the faith of princes, and how it ought to be kept.

⁴ Louis XII divorced his wife, Jeanne, daughter of Louis XI, and married in 1499 Anne of Brittany, widow of Charles VIII, in order to retain the Duchy of Brittany for the crown.

⁵ The Archbishop of Rouen. He was Georges d’Amboise, created a cardinal by Alexander VI. Born 1460, died 1510.

Thus King Louis lost Lombardy by not having followed any of the conditions observed by those who have taken possession of countries and wished to retain them. Nor is there any miracle in this, but much that is reasonable and quite natural. And on these matters I spoke at Nantes with Rouen, when Valentino,⁶ as Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander, was usually called, occupied the Romagna, and on Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness. And in fact it has been seen that the greatness of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power.

⁶ So called — in Italian — from the duchy of Valentinois, conferred on him by Louis XII.

Chapter 4

Why the Kingdom of Darius, conquered by Alexander, did not rebel against the successors of Alexander at his death

CONSIDERING the difficulties which men have had to hold a newly acquired state, some might wonder how, seeing that Alexander the Great became the master of Asia in a few years, and died whilst it was yet scarcely settled (whence it might appear reasonable that the whole empire would have rebelled), nevertheless his successors maintained themselves, and had to meet no other difficulty than that which arose among themselves from their own ambitions.

I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to be governed in two different ways: either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who recognize them as lords and hold them in natural affection. Those states that are governed by a prince and his servants hold their prince in more consideration, because in all the country there is no one who is recognized as superior to him, and if they yield obedience to another they do it as to a minister and official, and they do not bear him any particular affection.

The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.

The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity.

Now if you will consider what was the nature of the government of Darius, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk, and therefore it was only necessary for Alexander, first to overthrow him in the field, and then to take the country from him. After which victory, Darius being killed, the state remained secure to Alexander, for the above reasons. And if his successors had been united they would have enjoyed it securely and at their ease, for there were no tumults raised in the kingdom except those they provoked themselves.

But it is impossible to hold with such tranquillity states constituted like that of France. Hence arose those frequent rebellions against the Romans in Spain, France, and Greece, owing to the many principalities there were in these states, of which, as long as the memory of them endured, the Romans always held an insecure possession; but with the power and long continuance of the empire the memory of them passed away, and the Romans then became secure possessors. And when fighting afterwards amongst themselves, each one was able to attach to himself his own parts of the country, according to the authority he had assumed there; and the family of the former lord being exterminated, none other than the Romans were acknowledged.

When these things are remembered no one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the Empire of Asia, or at the difficulties which others have had to keep an acquisition, such as Pyrrhus and many more; this is not occasioned by the little or abundance of ability in the conqueror, but by the want of uniformity in the subject state.

Chapter 5

Concerning the way to Govern Cities or Principalities which lived under their own laws before they were annexed

WHENEVER those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his friendship and interest, and does its utmost to support him; and therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.

There are, for example, the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes, establishing there an oligarchy, nevertheless they lost them. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. So to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watch-word of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And what ever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as Pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the Florentines.

But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to reside there.

Chapter 6

Concerning new Principalities which are Acquired by one’s own arms and ability

LET no one be surprised if, in speaking of entirely new principalities as I shall do, I adduce the highest examples both of prince and of state; because men, walking almost always in paths beaten by others, and following by imitation their deeds, are yet unable to keep entirely to the ways of others or attain to the power of those they imitate. A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it. Let him act like the clever archers who, designing to hit the mark which yet appears too far distant, and knowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim much higher than the mark, not to reach by their strength or arrow to so great a height, but to be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish to reach.

I say, therefore, that in entirely new principalities, where there is a new prince, more or less difficulty is found in keeping them, accordingly as there is more or less ability in him who has acquired the state. Now, as the fact of becoming a prince from a private station presupposes either ability or fortune, it is clear that one or other of these two things will mitigate in some degree many difficulties. Nevertheless, he who has relied least on fortune is established the strongest. Further, it facilitates matters when the prince, having no other state, is compelled to reside there in person.

But to come to those who, by their own ability and not through fortune, have risen to be princes, I say that Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and such like are the most excellent examples. And although one may not discuss Moses, he having been a mere executor of the will of God, yet he ought to be admired, if only for that favour which made him worthy to speak with God. But in considering Cyrus and others who have acquired or founded kingdoms, all will be found admirable; and if their particular deeds and conduct shall be considered, they will not be found inferior to those of Moses, although he had so great a preceptor. And in examining their actions and lives one cannot see that they owed anything to fortune beyond opportunity, which brought them the material to mould into the form which seemed best to them. Without that opportunity their powers of mind would have been extinguished, and without those powers the opportunity would have come in vain.

It was necessary, therefore, to Moses that he should find the people of Israel in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians, in order that they should be disposed to follow him so as to be delivered out of bondage. It was necessary that Romulus should not remain in Alba, and that he should be abandoned at his birth, in order that he should become King of Rome and founder of the fatherland. It was necessary that Cyrus should find the Persians discontented with the government of the Medes, and the Medes soft and effeminate through their long peace. Theseus could not have shown his ability had he not found the Athenians dispersed. These opportunities, therefore, made those men fortunate, and their high ability enabled them to recognize the opportunity whereby their country was ennobled and made famous.

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it arise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.

If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe. Therefore such as these have great difficulties in consummating their enterprise, for all their dangers are in the ascent, yet with ability they will overcome them; but when these are overcome, and those who envied them their success are exterminated, they will begin to be respected, and they will continue afterwards powerful, secure, honoured, and happy.

To these great examples I wish to add a lesser one; still it bears some resemblance to them, and I wish it to suffice me for all of a like kind: it is Hiero the Syracusan⁷. This man rose from a private station to be Prince of Syracuse, nor did he, either, owe anything to fortune but opportunity; for the Syracusans, being oppressed, chose him for their captain, afterwards he was rewarded by being made their prince. He was of so great ability, even as a private citizen, that one who writes of him says he wanted nothing but a kingdom to be a king. This man abolished the old soldiery, organized the new, gave up old alliances, made new ones; and as he had his own soldiers and allies, on such foundations he was able to build any edifice: thus, whilst he had endured much trouble in acquiring, he had but little in keeping.

⁷ Hiero II, born about 307 B.C., died 216 B.C.

Chapter 7

Concerning new Principalities which are Acquired either by the arms of others or by good fortune

THOSE who solely by good fortune become princes from being private citizens have little trouble in rising, but much in keeping atop; they have not any difficulties on the way up, because they fly, but they have many when they reach the summit. Such are those to whom some state is given either for money or by the favour of him who bestows it; as happened to many in Greece, in the cities of Ionia and of the Hellespont, where princes were made by Darius, in order that they might hold the cities both for his security and his glory; as also were those emperors who, by the corruption of the soldiers, from being citizens came to empire. Such stand simply upon the goodwill and the fortune of him who has elevated them — two most inconstant and unstable things. Neither have they the knowledge requisite for the position; because, unless they are men of great worth and ability, it is not reasonable to expect that they should know how to command, having always lived in a private condition; besides, they cannot hold it because they have not forces which they can keep friendly and faithful.

States that rise unexpectedly, then, like all other things in nature which are born and grow rapidly, cannot have their foundations and correspondencies⁸ with other states fixed in such a way that the first storm will not overthrow them; unless, as is said, those who unexpectedly become princes are men of so much ability that they know they have to be prepared at once to hold that which fortune has thrown into their laps, and that those foundations, which others have laid before they became princes, they must lay afterwards.

⁸ “Le radici e corrispondenze,” their roots (i.e. foundations) and correspondencies or relations with other states — a common meaning of “correspondence” and “correspondency” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Concerning these two methods of rising to be a prince by ability or fortune, I wish to adduce two examples within our own recollection, and these are Francesco Sforza⁹ and Cesare Borgia. Francesco, by proper means and with great ability, from being a private person rose to be Duke of Milan, and that which he had acquired with a thousand anxieties he kept with little trouble. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, called by the people Duke Valentino, acquired his state during the ascendancy of his father, and on its decline he lost it, notwithstanding that he had taken every measure and done all that ought to be done by a wise and able man to fix firmly his roots in the states which the arms and fortunes of others had bestowed on him.

⁹ Francesco Sforza, born 1401, died 1466. He married Bianca Maria Visconti, a natural daughter of Filippo Visconti, the Duke of Milan, on whose death he procured his own elevation to the duchy. Machiavelli was the accredited agent of the Florentine Republic to Cesare Borgia (1478-1507) during the transactions which led up to the assassinations of the Orsini and Vitelli at Sinigalia, and along with his letters to his chiefs in Florence he has left an account, written ten years before “The Prince,” of the proceedings of the duke in his “Descritione del modo tenuto dal duca Valentino nello ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli,” etc., a translation of which is appended to the present work.

Because, as is stated above, he who has not first laid his foundations may be able with great ability to lay them afterwards, but they will be laid with trouble to the architect and danger to the building. If, therefore, all the steps taken by the duke be considered, it will be seen that he laid solid foundations for his future power, and I do not consider it superfluous to discuss them, because I do not know what better precepts to give a new prince than the example of his actions; and if his dispositions were of no avail, that was not his fault, but the extraordinary and extreme malignity of fortune.

Alexander VI, in wishing to aggrandize the duke, his son, had many immediate and prospective difficulties. Firstly, he did not see his way to make him master of any state that was not a state of the Church; and if he was willing to rob the Church he knew that the Duke of Milan and the Venetians would not consent, because Faenza and Rimini were already under the protection of the Venetians. Besides this, he saw the arms of Italy, especially those by which he might have been assisted, in hands that would fear the aggrandizement of the Pope, namely, the Orsini and the Colonna and their following. It behoved him, therefore, to upset this state of affairs and embroil the powers, so as to make himself securely master of part of their states. This was easy for him to do, because he found the Venetians, moved by other reasons, inclined to bring back the French into Italy; he would not only not oppose this, but he would render it more easy by dissolving the former marriage of King Louis. Therefore the king came into Italy with the assistance of the Venetians and the consent of Alexander. He was no sooner in Milan than the Pope had soldiers from him for the attempt on the Romagna, which yielded to him on the reputation of the king. The duke, therefore, having acquired the Romagna and beaten the Colonna, while wishing to hold that and to advance further, was hindered by two things: the one, his forces did not appear loyal to him, the other, the goodwill of France: that is to say, he feared that the forces of the Orsini, which was using, would not stand to him, that not only might they hinder him from winning more, but might themselves seize what he had won, and that the King might also do the same. Of the Orsini he had a warning when, after taking Faenza and attacking Bologna, he saw them go very unwillingly to that attack. And as to the king, he learned his mind when he himself, after taking the duchy of Urbino, attacked Tuscany, and the king made him desist from that undertaking; hence the duke decided to depend no more upon the arms and the luck of others.

For the first thing he weakened the Orsini and Colonna parties in Rome, by gaining to himself all their adherents who were gentlemen, making them his gentlemen, giving them good pay, and, according to their rank, honouring them with office and command in such a way that in a few months all attachment to the factions was destroyed and turned entirely to the duke. After this he awaited an opportunity to crush the Orsini, having scattered the adherents of the Colonna. This came to him soon and he used it well; for the Orsini, perceiving at length that the aggrandizement of the duke and the Church was ruin to them, called a meeting at Magione, in the territory of Perugia. From this sprung the rebellion at Urbino and the tumults in the Romagna, with endless dangers to the duke, all of which he overcame with the help of the French. Having restored his authority, not to leave it at risk by trusting either to the French or other outside forces, he had recourse to his wiles, and he knew so well how to conceal his mind that, by the mediation of Signor Paolo [Orsini] — whom the duke did not fail to secure with all kinds of attention, giving him money, apparel, and horses — the Orsini were reconciled, so that their simplicity brought them into his power at Sinigaglia¹⁰. Having exterminated the leaders, and turned their partisans into his friends, the duke had laid sufficiently good foundations to his power, having all the Romagna and the duchy of Urbino; and the people now beginning to appreciate their prosperity, he gained them all over to himself. And as this point is worthy of notice, and to be imitated by others, I am not willing to leave it out.

¹⁰ Sinigalia, 31st December 1502.

When the duke occupied the Romagna he found it under the rule of weak masters, who rather plundered their subjects than ruled them, and gave them more cause for disunion than for union, so that the country was full of robbery, quarrels, and every kind of violence; and so, wishing to bring back peace and obedience to authority, he considered it necessary to give it a good governor. Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d’Orco¹¹, a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success. Afterwards the duke considered that it was not advisable to confer such excessive authority, for he had no doubt but that he would become odious, so he set up a court of judgment in the country, under a most excellent president, wherein all cities had their advocates. And because he knew that the past severity had caused some hatred against himself, so, to clear himself in the minds of the people, and gain them entirely to himself, he desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practised, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister. Under this pretence he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed.

¹¹ Ramiro d’Orco. Ramiro de Lorqua.

But let us return whence we started. I say that the duke, finding himself now sufficiently powerful and partly secured from immediate dangers by having armed himself in his own way, and having in a great measure crushed those forces in his vicinity that could injure him if he wished to proceed with his conquest, had next to consider France, for he knew that the king, who too late was aware of his mistake, would not support him. And from this time he began to seek new alliances and to temporize with France in the expedition which she was making towards the kingdom of Naples against the Spaniards who were besieging Gaeta. It was his intention to secure himself against them, and this he would have quickly accomplished had Alexander lived.

Such was his line of action as to present affairs. But as to the future he had to fear, in the first place, that a new successor to the Church might not be friendly to him and might seek to take from him that which Alexander had given him, so he decided to act in four ways. Firstly, by exterminating the families of those lords whom he had despoiled, so as to take away that pretext from the Pope. Secondly, by winning to himself all the gentlemen of Rome, so as to be able to curb the Pope with their aid, as has been observed. Thirdly, by converting the college more to himself. Fourthly, by acquiring so much power before the Pope should die that he could by his own measures resist the first shock. Of these four things, at the death of Alexander, he had accomplished three. For he had killed as many of the dispossessed lords as he could lay hands on, and few had escaped; he had won over the Roman gentlemen, and he had the most numerous party in the college. And as to any fresh acquisition, he intended to become master of Tuscany, for he already possessed Perugia and Piombino, and Pisa was under his protection. And as he had no longer to study France (for the French were already driven out of the kingdom of Naples by the Spaniards, and in this way both were compelled to buy his goodwill), he pounced down upon Pisa. After this, Lucca and Siena yielded at once, partly through hatred and partly through fear of the Florentines; and the Florentines would have had no remedy had he continued to prosper, as he was prospering the year that Alexander died, for he had acquired so much power and reputation that he would have stood by himself, and no longer have depended on the luck and the forces of others, but solely on his own power and ability.

But Alexander died five years after he had first drawn the sword. He left the duke with the state of Romagna alone consolidated, with the rest in the air, between two most powerful hostile armies, and sick unto death. Yet there were in the duke such boldness and ability, and he knew so well how men are to be won or lost, and so firm were the foundations which in so short a time he had laid, that if he had not had those armies on his back, or if he had been in good health, he would have overcome all difficulties. And it is seen that his foundations were good, for the Romagna awaited him for more than a month. In Rome, although but half alive, he remained secure; and whilst the Baglioni, the Vitelli, and the Orsini might come to Rome, they could not effect anything against him. If he could not have made Pope him whom he wished, at least the one whom he did not wish would not have been elected. But if he had been in sound health at the death of Alexander¹², everything would have been easy to him. On the day that Julius II¹³ was elected, he told me that he had thought of everything that might occur at the death of his father, and had provided a remedy for all, except that he had never anticipated that, when the death did happen, he himself would be on the point to die.

¹² Alexander VI died of fever, 18th August 1503.

¹³ Julius II was Giuliano della Rovere, Cardinal of San Pietro ad Vincula, born 1443, died 1513.

When all the actions of the duke are recalled, I do not know how to blame him, but rather it appears to me, as I have said, that I ought to offer him for imitation to all those who, by the fortune or the arms of others, are raised to government. Because he, having a lofty spirit and far-reaching aims, could not have regulated his conduct otherwise, and only the shortness of the life of Alexander and his own sickness frustrated his designs. Therefore, he who considers it necessary to secure himself in his new principality, to win friends, to overcome either by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, to be followed and revered by the soldiers, to exterminate those who have power or reason to hurt him, to change the old order of things for new, to be severe and gracious, magnanimous and liberal, to destroy a disloyal soldiery and to create new, to maintain friendship with kings and princes in such a way that they must help him with zeal and offend with caution, cannot find a more lively example than the actions of this man.

Only can he be blamed for the election of Julius II, in whom he made a bad choice, because, as is said, not being able to elect a Pope to his own mind, he could have hindered any other from being elected Pope; and he ought never to have consented to the election of any cardinal whom he had injured or who had cause to fear him if they became pontiffs. For men injure either from fear or hatred. Those whom he had injured, amongst others, were San Pietro ad Vincula, Colonna, San Giorgio, and Ascanio.¹⁴ Any one of the others, on becoming Pope, would have had to fear him, Rouen and the Spaniards excepted; the latter from their relationship and obligations, the former from his influence, the kingdom of France having relations with him. Therefore, above everything, the duke ought to have created a Spaniard Pope, and, failing him, he ought to have consented to Rouen and not San Pietro ad Vincula. He who believes that new benefits will cause great personages to forget old injuries is deceived. Therefore, the duke erred in his choice, and it was the cause of his ultimate ruin.

¹⁴ Julius II had been Cardinal of San Pietro ad Vincula; San Giorgio was Raffaells Riaxis, and Ascanio was Cardinal Ascanio Sforza.

Chapter 8

Concerning those who have obtained a Principality by Wickedness

ALTHOUGH a prince may rise from a private station in two ways, neither of which can be entirely attributed to fortune or genius, yet it is manifest to me that I must not be silent on them, although one could be more copiously treated when I discuss republics. These methods are when, either by some wicked or nefarious ways, one ascends to the principality, or when by the favour of his fellow-citizens a private person becomes the prince of his country. And speaking of the first method, it will be illustrated by two examples — one ancient, the other modern — and without entering further into the subject, I consider these two examples will suffice those who may be compelled to follow them.

Agathocles, the Sicilian¹⁵, became King of Syracuse not only from a private but from a low and abject position. This man, the son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes always led an infamous life. Nevertheless, he accompanied his infamies with so much ability of mind and body that, having devoted himself to the military profession, he rose through its ranks to be Praetor of Syracuse. Being established in that position, and having deliberately resolved to make himself prince and to seize by violence, without obligation to others, that which had been conceded to him by assent, he came to an understanding for this purpose with Hamilcar, the Carthaginian, who, with his army, was fighting in Sicily. One morning he assembled the people and senate of Syracuse, as if he had to discuss with them things relating to the Republic, and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people; these dead, he seized and held the princedom of that city without any civil commotion. And although he was twice routed by the Carthaginians, and ultimately besieged, yet not only was he able to defend his city, but leaving part of his men for its defence, with the others he attacked Africa, and in a short time raised the siege of Syracuse. The Carthaginians, reduced to extreme necessity, were compelled to come to terms with Agathocles, and, leaving Sicily to him, had to be content with the possession of Africa.

¹⁵ Agathocles the Sicilian, born 361 B.C., died 289 B.C.

Therefore, he who considers the actions and the genius of this man will see nothing, or little, which can be attributed to fortune, inasmuch as he attained pre-eminence, as is shown above, not by the favour of any one, but step by step in the military profession, which steps were gained with a thousand troubles and perils, and were afterwards boldly held by him with many hazards and dangers. Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Still, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, together with his greatness of mind in enduring overcoming hardships, it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or to genius.

In our times, during the rule of Alexander VI, Oliverotto da Fermo, having been left an orphan many years before, was brought up by his maternal uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, and in the early days of his youth sent to fight under Paolo Vitelli, that, being trained under his discipline, he might attain some high position in the military profession. After Paolo died, he fought under his brother Vitellozzo, and in a very short time, being endowed with wit and a vigorous body and mind, he became the first man in his profession. But it appearing to him a paltry thing to serve under others, he resolved, with the aid of some citizens of Fermo, to whom the slavery of their country was dearer than its liberty, and with the help of the Vitelli, to seize Fermo. So he wrote to Giovanni Fogliani that, having been away from home for many years, he wished to visit him and his city, and in some measure to look into his patrimony; and although he had not laboured to acquire anything except honour, yet, in order that the citizens should see he had not spent his time in vain, he desired to come honourably, so would be accompanied by one hundred horsemen, his friends and retainers; and he entreated Giovanni to arrange that he should be received honourably by the citizens of Fermo, all of which would be not only to his honour, but also to that of Giovanni himself, who had brought him up.

Giovanni, therefore, did not fail in any attentions due to his nephew, and he caused him to be honourably received by the Fermans, and he lodged him in his own house, where, having passed some days, and having arranged what was necessary for his wicked designs, Oliverotto gave a solemn banquet to which he invited Giovanni Fogliani and the chiefs of Fermo. When the viands and all the other entertainments that are usual in such banquets were finished, Oliverotto artfully began certain grave discourses, speaking of the greatness of Pope Alexander and his son Cesare, and of their enterprises, to which discourse Giovanni and others answered; but he rose at once, saying that such matters ought to be discussed in a more private place, and he betook himself to a chamber, whither Giovanni and the rest of the citizens went in after him. No sooner were they seated than soldiers issued from secret places and slaughtered Giovanni and the rest. After these murders Oliverotto, mounted on horseback, rode up and down the town and besieged the chief magistrate in the palace, so that in fear the people were forced to obey him, and to form a government, of which he made himself the prince. He killed all the malcontents who were able to injure him, and strengthened himself with new civil and military ordinances, in such a way that, in the year during which he held the principality, not only was he secure in the city of Fermo, but he had become formidable to all his neighbours. And his destruction would have been as difficult as that of Agathocles if he had not allowed himself to be overreached by Cesare Borgia, who took him with the Orsini and Vitelli at Sinigaglia, as was stated above. Thus one year after he had committed this parricide, he was strangled, together with Vitellozzo, whom he had made his leader in valour and wickedness.

Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities¹⁶ being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is lawful to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one’s security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves.

¹⁶ Mr Burd suggests that this word probably comes near the modern equivalent of Machiavelli’s thought when he speaks of “crudelta” than the more obvious “cruelties.”

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you for them.

Chapter 9

Concerning a Civil Principality

BUT coming to the other point — where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens — this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.

Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you honour yourself, in adversity you have not to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him.

Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.

Nabis¹⁷, Prince of the Spartans, sustained the attack of all Greece, and of a victorious Roman army, and against them he defended his country and his government; and for the overcoming of this peril it was only necessary for him to make himself secure against a few, but this would not have been sufficient if the people had been hostile. And do not let any one impugn this statement with the trite proverb that ‘He who builds on the people, builds on the mud,’ for this is true when a private citizen makes a foundation there, and persuades himself that the people will free him when he is oppressed by his enemies or by the magistrates; wherein he would find himself very often deceived, as happened to the Gracchi in Rome and to Messer Giorgio Scali¹⁸ in Florence. But granted a prince who has established himself as above, who can command, and is a man of courage, undismayed in adversity, who does not fail in other qualifications, and who, by his resolution and energy, keeps the whole people encouraged — such a one will never find himself deceived in them, and it will be shown that he has laid his foundations well.

¹⁷ Nabis, tyrant of Sparta, conquered by the Romans under Flamininus in 195 B.C.; killed 192 B.C.

¹⁸ Messer Giorgio Scali. This event is to be found in Machiavelli’s “Florentine History,” Book III.

These principalities are liable to danger when they are passing from the civil to the absolute order of government, for such princes either rule personally or through magistrates. In the latter case their government is weaker and more insecure, because it rests entirely on the goodwill of those citizens who are raised to the magistracy, and who, especially in troubled times, can destroy the government with great ease, either by intrigue or open defiance; and the prince has not the chance amid tumults to exercise absolute authority, because the citizens and subjects, accustomed to receive orders from magistrates, are not of a mind to obey him amid these confusions, and there will always be in doubtful times a scarcity of men whom he can trust. For such a prince cannot rely upon what he observes in quiet times, when citizens had need of the state, because then every one agrees with him; they all promise, and when death is far distant they all wish to die for him; but in troubled times, when the state has need of its citizens, then he finds but few. And so much the more is this experiment dangerous, inasmuch as it can only be tried once. Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful.

Chapter 10

Concerning the way in which the Strength of all Principalities ought to be measured

IT IS necessary to consider another point in examining the character of these principalities: that is, whether a prince has such power that, in case of need, he can support himself with his own resources, or whether he has always need of the assistance of others. And to make this quite clear I say that I consider those are able to support themselves by their own resources who can, either by abundance of men or money, raise a sufficient army to join battle against any one who comes to attack them; and I consider those always to have need of others who cannot show themselves against the enemy in the field, but are forced to defend themselves by sheltering behind walls. The first case has been discussed, but we will speak of it again should it recur. In the second case one can say nothing except to encourage such princes to provision and fortify their towns, and not on any account to defend the country. And whoever shall fortify his town well, and shall have managed the other concerns of his subjects in the way stated above, and to be often repeated, will never be attacked without great caution, for men are always adverse to enterprises where difficulties can be seen, and it will be seen not to be an easy thing to attack one who has his town well fortified, and is not hated by his people.

The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that every one thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year’s eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them.

Therefore, a prince who has a strong city, and had not made himself odious, will not be attacked, or if any one should attack he will only be driven off with disgrace; again, because that affairs of this world are so changeable, it is almost impossible to keep an army a whole year in the field without being interfered with. And whoever should reply: If the people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget their prince; to this I answer that a powerful and courageous prince will overcome all such difficulties by giving at one time hope to his subjects that the evil will not be for long, at another time fear of the cruelty of the enemy, then preserving himself adroitly from those subjects who seem to him to be too bold.

Further, the enemy would naturally on his arrival at once burn and ruin the country at the time when the spirits of the people are still hot and ready for the defence; and, therefore, so much the less ought the prince to hesitate; because after a time, when spirits have cooled, the damage is already done, the ills are incurred, and there is no longer any remedy; and therefore they are so much the more ready to unite with their prince, he appearing to be under obligations to them now that their houses have been burnt and their possessions ruined in his defence. For it is the nature of men to be bound by the benefits they confer as much as by those they receive. Therefore, if everything is well considered, it wilt not be difficult for a wise prince to keep the minds of his citizens steadfast from first to last, when he does not fail to support and defend them.

Chapter 11

Concerning Ecclesiastical Principalities

IT ONLY remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.

Nevertheless, if any one should ask of me how comes it that the Church has attained such greatness in temporal power, seeing that from Alexander backwards the Italian potentates (not only those who have been called potentates, but every baron and lord, though the smallest) have valued the temporal power very slightly — yet now a king of France trembles before it, and it has been able to drive him from Italy, and to ruin the Venetians — although this may be very manifest, it does not appear to me superfluous to recall it in some measure to memory.

Before Charles, King of France, passed into Italy¹⁹, this country was under the dominion of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These potentates had two principal anxieties: the one, that no foreigner should enter Italy under arms; the other, that none of themselves should seize more territory. Those about whom there was the most anxiety were the Pope and the Venetians. To restrain the Venetians the union of all the others was necessary, as it was for the defence of Ferrara; and to keep down the Pope they made use of the barons of Rome, who, being divided into two factions, Orsini and Colonna, had always a pretext for disorder, and, standing with arms in their hands under the eyes of the Pontiff, kept the pontificate weak and powerless. And although there might arise sometimes a courageous pope, such as Sixtus [IV], yet neither fortune nor wisdom could rid him of these annoyances. And the short life of a pope is also a cause of weakness; for in the ten years, which is the average life of a pope, he can with difficulty lower one of the factions; and if, so to speak, one pope should almost destroy the Colonna, another would arise hostile to the Orsini, who would support their opponents, and yet would not have time to ruin the Orsini. This was the reason why the temporal powers of the pope were little esteemed in Italy.

¹⁹ Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494.

Alexander VI arose afterwards, who of all the pontiffs that have ever been showed how a pope with both money and arms was able to prevail; and through the instrumentality of the Duke Valentino, and by reason of the entry of the French, he brought about all those things which I have discussed above in the actions of the duke. And although his intention was not to aggrandize the Church, but the duke, nevertheless, what he did contributed to the greatness of the Church, which, after his death and the ruin of the duke, became the heir to all his labours.

Pope Julius came afterwards and found the Church strong, possessing all the Romagna, the barons of Rome reduced to impotence, and, through the chastisements Alexander, the factions wiped out; he also found the way open to accumulate money in a manner such as had never been practised before Alexander’s time. Such things Julius not only followed, but improved upon, and he intended to gain Bologna, to ruin the Venetians, and to drive the French out of Italy. All of these enterprises prospered with him, and so much the more to his credit, inasmuch as he did everything to strengthen the Church and not any private person. He kept also the Orsini and Colonna factions within the bounds in which he found them; and although there was among them some mind to make disturbance, nevertheless he held two things firm: the one, the greatness of the church, with which he terrified them; and the other, not allowing them to have their own cardinals, who caused the disorders among them. For whenever these factions have their cardinals they do not remain quiet for long, because cardinals foster the factions in Rome and out of it, and the barons are compelled to support them, and thus from the ambitions of prelates arise disorders and tumults among the barons. For these reasons his Holiness Pope Leo²⁰ found the pontificate most powerful, and it is to be hoped that, if others made it great in arms, he will make it still greater and more venerated by his goodness and infinite other virtues.

²⁰ Pope Leo X was the Cardinal de’ Medici.

Chapter 12

How many kinds of Soldiery there are, and Concerning Mercenaries

HAVING discoursed particularly on the characteristics of such principalities as in the beginning I proposed to discuss, and having considered in some degree the causes of their being good or bad, and having shown the methods by which many have sought to acquire them and to hold them, it now remains for me to discuss generally the means of offence and defence which belong to each of them.

We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;²¹ and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

²¹ “With chalk in hand,” “col gesso.” This is one of the bons mots of Alexander VI, and refers to the ease with which Charles VIII seized Italy, implying that it was only necessary for him to send his quartermasters to chalk up the billets for his soldiers to conquer the country. Cf. “The History of Henry VII,” by Lord Bacon: “King Charles had conquered the realm of Naples, and lost it again, in a kind of a felicity of a dream. He passed the whole length of Italy without resistance: so that it was true what Pope Alexander was wont to say: That the Frenchmen came into Italy with chalk in their hands, to mark up their lodgings, rather than with swords to fight.”

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

Of ancient mercenaries, for example, there are the Carthaginians, who were oppressed by their mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans, although the Carthaginians had their own citizens for captains. After the death of Epaminondas, Philip of Macedon was made captain of their soldiers by the Thebans, and after victory he took away their liberty.

Duke Filippo being dead, the Milanese enlisted Francesco Sforza against the Venetians, and he, having overcome the enemy at Caravaggio²², allied himself with them to crush the Milanese, his masters. His father, Sforza, having been engaged by Queen Johanna²³ of Naples, left her unprotected, so that she was forced to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon, in order to save her kingdom. And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto,²⁴ and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion. Sforza had the Bracceschi always against him, so they watched each other. Francesco turned his ambition to Lombardy; Braccio against the Church and the kingdom of Naples. But let us come to that which happened a short while ago. The Florentines appointed as their captain Paolo Vitelli, a most prudent man, who from a private position had risen to the greatest renown. If this man had taken Pisa, nobody can deny that it would have been proper for the Florentines to keep in with him, for if he became the soldier of their enemies they had no means of resisting, and if they held to him they must obey him. The Venetians, if their achievements are considered, will be seen to have acted safely and gloriously so long as they sent to war their own men, when with armed gentlemen and plebeians they did valiantly. This was before they turned to enterprises on land, but when they began to fight on land they forsook this virtue and followed the custom of Italy. And in the beginning of their expansion on land, through not having much territory, and because of their great reputation, they had not much to fear from their captains; but when they expanded, as under Carmignola²⁵, they had a taste of this mistake; for, having found him a most valiant man (they beat the Duke of Milan under his leadership), and, on the other hand, knowing how lukewarm he was in the war, they feared they would no longer conquer under him, and for this reason they were not willing, nor were they able, to let him go; and so, not to lose again that which they had acquired, they were compelled, in order to secure themselves, to murder him. They had afterwards for their captains Bartolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the Count of Pitigliano²⁶, and the like, under whom they had to dread loss and not gain, as happened afterwards at Vaila²⁷, where in one battle they lost that which in eight hundred years they had acquired with so much trouble. Because from such arms conquests come but slowly, long delayed and inconsiderable, but the losses sudden and portentous.

²² Battle of Caravaggio, 15th September 1448.

²³ Johanna II of Naples, the widow of Ladislao, King of Naples.

²⁴ Giovanni Acuto. An English knight whose name was Sir John Hawkwood. He fought in the English wars in France, and was knighted by Edward III; afterwards he collected a body of troops and went into Italy. These became the famous “White Company.” He took part in many wars, and died in Florence in 1394. He was born about 1320 at Sible Hedingham, a village in Essex. He married Domnia, a daughter of Bernabo Visconti.

²⁵ Carmignuola. Francesco Bussone, born at Carmagnola about 1390, executed at Venice, 5th May 1432.

²⁶ Bartolomeo Colleoni of Bergamo; died 1457. Roberto of San Severino; died fighting for Venice against Sigismund, Duke of Austria, in 1487. “Primo capitano in Italia.”— Machiavelli. Count of Pitigliano; Nicolo Orsini, born 1442, died 1510.

²⁷ Battle of Vaila in 1509.

And as with these examples I have reached Italy, which has been ruled for many years by mercenaries, I wish to discuss them more seriously, in order that, having seen their rise and progress, one may be better prepared to counteract them. You must understand that the empire has recently come to be repudiated in Italy, that the Pope has acquired more temporal power, and that Italy has been divided up into more states, for the reason that many of the great cities took up arms against their nobles, who, formerly favoured by the emperor, were oppressing them, whilst the Church was favouring them so as to gain authority in temporal power: in many others their citizens became princes. From this it came to pass that Italy fell partly into the hands of the Church and of republics, and, the Church consisting of priests and the republic of citizens unaccustomed to arms, both commenced to enlist foreigners.

The first who gave renown to this soldiery was Alberigo da Conio²⁸, a native of the Romagna. From the school of this man sprang, among others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. After these came all the other captains who till now have directed the arms of Italy; and the end of all their valour has been, that she has been overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis, ravaged by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Switzers. The principle that has guided them has been, first, to lower the credit of infantry so that they might increase their own. They did this because, subsisting on their pay and without territory, they were unable to support many soldiers, and a few infantry did not give them any authority; so they were led to employ cavalry, with a moderate force of which they were maintained and honoured; and affairs were brought to such a pass that, in an army of twenty thousand soldiers, there were not to be found two thousand foot soldiers. They had, besides this, used every art to lessen fatigue and danger to themselves and their soldiers, not killing in the fray, but taking prisoners and liberating without ransom. They did not attack towns at night, nor did the garrisons of the towns attack encampments at night; they did not surround the camp either with stockade or ditch, nor did they campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their military rules, and devised by them to avoid, as I have said, both fatigue and dangers; thus they have brought Italy to slavery and contempt.

²⁸ Alberigo da Conio. Alberico da Barbiano, Count of Cunio in Romagna. He was the leader of the famous “Company of St George,” composed entirely of Italian soldiers. He died in 1409.

Chapter 13

Concerning Auxiliaries, mixed soldiery, and one’s own

AUXILIARIES, which are the other useless arm, are employed when a prince is called in with his forces to aid and defend, as was done by Pope Julius in the most recent times; for he, having, in the enterprise against Ferrara, had poor proof of his mercenaries, turned to auxiliaries, and stipulated with Ferdinand²⁹, King of Spain, for his assistance with men and arms. These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive.

²⁹ Ferdinand V (F. II of Aragon and Sicily, F. III of Naples), surnamed “The Catholic,” born 1542, died 1516.

And although ancient histories may be full of examples, I do not wish to leave this recent one of Pope Julius II, the peril of which cannot fall to be perceived; for he, wishing to get Ferrara, threw himself entirely into the hands of the foreigner. But his good fortune brought about a third event, so that he did not reap the fruit of his rash choice; because, having auxiliaries routed at Ravenna, and the Switzers having risen and driven out the conquerors (against all expectation, both his and others), it so came to pass that he did not become prisoner to his enemies, they having fled, nor to his auxiliaries, he having conquered by other arms than theirs.

The Florentines, being entirely without arms, sent ten thousand Frenchmen to take Pisa, whereby they ran more danger than at any other time of their troubles.

The Emperor of Constantinople³⁰, to oppose his neighbours, sent ten thousand Turks into Greece, who, on the war being finished, were not willing to quit; this was the beginning of the servitude of Greece to the infidels.

³⁰ Joannes Cantacuzenus, born 1300, died 1383.

Therefore, let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms, for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy is most dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.

I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.

I was not intending to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan, he being one of those I have named above. This man, as I have said, made head of the army by the Syracusans, soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted like our Italian condottieri, was of no use; and it appearing to him that he could neither keep them nor let them go, he had them all cut to pieces, and afterwards made war with his own forces and not with aliens.

I wish also to recall to memory an instance from the Old Testament applicable to this subject. David offered himself to Saul to fight with Goliath, the Philistine champion, and, to give him courage, Saul armed him with his own weapons; which David rejected as soon as he had them on his back, saying he could make no use of them, and that he wished to meet the enemy with his sling and his knife. In conclusion, the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast.

Charles VII³¹, the father of King Louis XI³², having by good fortune and valour liberated France from the English, recognized the necessity of being armed with forces of his own, and he established in his kingdom ordinances concerning men-at-arms and infantry. Afterwards his son, King Louis, abolished the infantry and began to enlist the Switzers, which mistake, followed by others, is, as is now seen, a source of peril to that kingdom; because, having raised the reputation of the Switzers, he has entirely diminished the value of his own arms, for he has destroyed the infantry altogether; and his men-at-arms he has subordinated to others, for, being as they are so accustomed to fight along with Switzers, it does not appear that they can now conquer without them. Hence it arises that the French cannot stand against the Switzers, and without the Switzers they do not come off well against others. The armies of the French have thus become mixed, partly mercenary and partly national, both of which arms together are much better than mercenaries alone or auxiliaries alone, yet much inferior to one’s own forces. And this example proves it, the kingdom of France would be unconquerable if the ordinance of Charles had been enlarged or maintained.

³¹ Charles VII of France, surnamed “The Victorious,” born 1403, died 1461.

³² Louis XI, son of the above, born 1423, died 1483.

But the scanty wisdom of man, on entering into an affair which looks well at first, cannot discern the poison that is hidden in it, as I have said above of hectic fevers. Therefore, if he who rules a principality cannot recognize evils until they are upon him, he is not truly wise; and this insight is given to few. And if the first disaster to the Roman Empire³³ should be examined, it will be found to have commenced only with the enlisting of the Goths; because from that time the vigour of the Roman Empire began to decline, and all that valour which had raised it passed away to others.

³³ “Many speakers to the House the other night in the debate on the reduction of armaments seemed to show a most lamentable ignorance of the conditions under which the British Empire maintains its existence. When Mr Balfour replied to the allegations that the Roman Empire sank under the weight of its military obligations, he said that this was ‘wholly unhistorical.’ He might well have added that the Roman power was at its zenith when every citizen acknowledged his liability to fight for the State, but that it began to decline as soon as this obligation was no longer recognized.”— Pall Mall Gazette, 15th May 1906.

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And one’s own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependants; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries. And the way to take ready one’s own forces will be easily found if the rules suggested by me shall be reflected upon, and if one will consider how Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and many republics and princes have armed and organized themselves, to which rules I entirely commit myself.

Chapter 14

That which Concerns a Prince on the Subject of the Art of War

A PRINCE ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, through being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his thoughts this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its exercise than in war; this he can do in two ways, the one by action, the other by study.

As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of localities, and gets to find out how the mountains rise, how the valleys open out, how the plains lie, and to understand the nature of rivers and marshes, and in all this to take the greatest care. Which knowledge is useful in two ways. Firstly, he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defence; afterwards, by means of the knowledge and observation of that locality, he understands with ease any other which it may be necessary for him to study hereafter; because the hills, valleys, and plains, and rivers and marshes that are, for instance, in Tuscany, have a certain resemblance to those of other countries, so that with a knowledge of the aspect of one country one can easily arrive at a knowledge of others. And the prince that lacks this skill lacks the essential which it is desirable that a captain should possess, for it teaches him to surprise his enemy, to select quarters, to lead armies, to array the battle, to besiege towns to advantage.

Philopoemen³⁴, Prince of the Achaeans, among other praises which writers have bestowed on him, is commended because in time of peace he never had anything in his mind but the rules of war; and when he was in the country with friends, he often stopped and reasoned with them: “If the enemy should be upon that hill, and we should find ourselves here with our army, with whom would be the advantage? How should one best advance to meet him, keeping the ranks? If we should wish to retreat, how ought we to set about it? If they should retreat, how ought we to pursue?” And he would set forth to them, as he went, all the chances that could befall an army; he would listen to their opinion and state his, confirming it with reasons, so that by these continual discussions there could never arise, in time of war, any unexpected circumstances that he could deal with.

³⁴ Philopoemen, “the last of the Greeks,” born 252 B.C., died 183 B.C.

But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former; and above all do as an illustrious man did, who took as an exemplar one who had been praised and famous before him, and whose achievements and deeds he always kept in his mind, as it is said Alexander the Great imitated Achilles, Caesar Alexander, Scipio Cyrus. And whoever reads the life of Cyrus, written by Xenophon, will recognize afterwards in the life of Scipio how that imitation was his glory, and how in chastity, affability, humanity, and liberality Scipio conformed to those things which have been written of Cyrus by Xenophon. A wise prince ought to observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortune changes it may find him prepared to resist her blows.

Chapter 15

Concerning things for which Men, and especially Princes, are Praised or Blamed

IT REMAINS now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.

Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly, using a Tuscan term (because an avaricious person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.

Chapter 16

Concerning Liberality and Meanness

COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly.

Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.

We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. Pope Julius the Second was assisted in reaching the papacy by a reputation for liberality, yet he did not strive afterwards to keep it up, when he made war on the King of France; and he made many wars without imposing any extraordinary tax on his subjects, for he supplied his additional expenses out of his long thriftiness. The present King of Spain would not have undertaken or conquered in so many enterprises if he had been reputed liberal. A prince, therefore, provided that he has not to rob his subjects, that he can defend himself, that he does not become poor and abject, that he is not forced to become rapacious, ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern.

And if any one should say: Caesar obtained empire by liberality, and many others have reached the highest positions by having been liberal, and by being considered so, I answer: Either you are a prince in fact, or in a way to become one. In the first case this liberality is dangerous, in the second it is very necessary to be considered liberal; and Caesar was one of those who wished to become pre-eminent in Rome; but if he had survived after becoming so, and had not moderated his expenses, he would have destroyed his government. And if any one should reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies, who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects’ or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the price who goes forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is neither yours nor your subjects’ you can be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you.

And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

Chapter 17

Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and whether it is Better to be Loved than Feared

COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.³⁵ Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.

³⁵ During the rioting between the Cancellieri and Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503.

And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:

Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri.³⁶

³⁶ ...against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my pow’rs,
And guard with these severities my shores.
— Christopher Pitt

Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And shortsighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.

Chapter 18

Concerning the way in which Princes should keep Faith³⁷

³⁷ “The present chapter has given greater offence than any other portion of Machiavelli’s writings.” Burd, “Il Principe,” p. 297.

EVERY one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word. You must know there are two ways of contesting³⁸, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man. This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about. Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer. If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance. Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.

³⁸ “Contesting,” i.e. “striving for mastery.” Mr Burd points out that this passage is imitated directly from Cicero’s “De Officiis”:

“Nam cum sint duo genera decertandi, unum per disceptationem,
alterum per vim; cumque illud proprium sit hominis, hoc beluarum;
confugiendum est ad posterius, si uti non licet superiore.”

But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes³⁹, because he well understood this side of mankind.

³⁹ “Nondimanco sempre gli succederono gli inganni (ad votum).” The words “ad votum” are omitted in the Testina addition, 1550.

Alexander never did what he said, Cesare never said what he did. — Italian Proverb.

Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith⁴⁰, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.

⁴⁰ “Contrary to fidelity” or “faith,” “contro alla fede,” and “tutto fede,” “altogether faithful,” in the next paragraph. It is noteworthy that these two phrases, “contro alla fede” and “tutto fede,” were omitted in the Testina edition, which was published with the sanction of the papal authorities. It may be that the meaning attached to the word “fede” was “the faith,” i.e. the Catholic creed, and not as rendered here “fidelity” and “faithful.” Observe that the word “religione” was suffered to stand in the text of the Testina, being used to signify indifferently every shade of belief, as witness “the religion,” a phrase inevitably employed to designate the Huguenot heresy. South in his Sermon IX, p. 69, ed. 1843, comments on this passage as follows: “That great patron and Coryphaeus of this tribe, Nicolo Machiavel, laid down this for a master rule in his political scheme: ‘That the show of religion was helpful to the politician, but the reality of it hurtful and pernicious.’”

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.

One prince⁴¹ of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never preaches anything else but peace and good faith, and to both he is most hostile, and either, if he had kept it, would have deprived him of reputation and kingdom many a time.

⁴¹ Ferdinand of Aragon. “When Machiavelli was writing ‘The Prince’ it would have been clearly impossible to mention Ferdinand’s name here without giving offence.” Burd’s “Il Principe,” p. 308.

Chapter 19

That one should avoid being Despised and Hated

Now, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches.

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get round him.

That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. For this reason a prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers. From the latter he is defended by being well armed and having good allies, and if he is well armed he will have good friends, and affairs will always remain quiet within when they are quiet without, unless they should have been already disturbed by conspiracy; and even should affairs outside be disturbed, if he has carried out his preparations and has lived as I have said, as long as he does not despair, he will resist every attack, as I said Nabis the Spartan did.

But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish, as I said above at length. And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a conspirator are infinite. And as experience shows, many have been the conspiracies, but few have been successful; because he who conspires cannot act alone, nor can he take a companion except from those whom he believes to be malcontents, and as soon as you have opened your mind to a malcontent you have given him the material with which to content himself, for by denouncing you he can look for every advantage; so that, seeing the gain from this course to be assured, and seeing the other to be doubtful and full of dangers, he must be a very rare friend, or a thoroughly obstinate enemy of the prince, to keep faith with you.

And, to reduce the matter into a small compass, I say that, on the side of the conspirator, there is nothing but fear, jealousy, prospect of punishment to terrify him; but on the side of the prince there is the majesty of the principality, the laws, the protection of friends and the state to defend him; so that, adding to all these things the popular goodwill, it is impossible that any one should be so rash as to conspire. For whereas in general the conspirator has to fear before the execution of his plot, in this case he has also to fear the sequel to the crime; because on account of it he has the people for an enemy, and thus cannot hope for any escape.

Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content with one, brought to pass within the memory of our fathers. Messer Annibale Bentivoglio, who was prince in Bologna (grandfather of the present Annibale), having been murdered by the Canneschi, who had conspired against him, not one of his family survived but Messer Giovanni⁴², who was in childhood: immediately after his assassination the people rose and murdered all the Canneschi. This sprung from the popular goodwill which the house of Bentivoglio enjoyed in those days in Bologna; which was so great that, although none remained there after the death of Annibale who were able to rule the state, the Bolognese, having information that there was one of the Bentivoglio family in Florence, who up to that time had been considered the son of a blacksmith, sent to Florence for him and gave him the government of their city, and it was ruled by him until Messer Giovanni came in due course to the government.

⁴² Giovanni Bentivogli, born in Bologna 1438, died at Milan 1508. He ruled Bologna from 1462 to 1506. Machiavelli’s strong condemnation of conspiracies may get its edge from his own very recent experience (February 1513), when he had been arrested and tortured for his alleged complicity in the Boscoli conspiracy.

For this reason I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody. And well-ordered states and wise princes have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation, and to keep the people satisfied and contented, for this is one of the most important objects a prince can have.

Among the best ordered and governed kingdoms of our times is France, and in it are found many good institutions on which depend the liberty and security of the king; of these the first is the parliament and its authority, because he who founded the kingdom, knowing the ambition of the nobility and their boldness, considered that a bit in their mouths would be necessary to hold them in; and, on the other side, knowing the hatred of the people, founded in fear, against the nobles, he wished to protect them, yet he was not anxious for this to be the particular care of the king; therefore, to take away the reproach which he would be liable to from the nobles for favouring the people, and from the people for favouring the nobles, he set up an arbiter, who should be one who could beat down the great and favour the lesser without reproach to the king. Neither could you have a better or a more prudent arrangement, or a greater source of security to the king and kingdom. From this one can draw another important conclusion, that princes ought to leave affairs of reproach to the management of others, and keep those of grace in their own hands. And further, I consider that a prince ought to cherish the nobles, but not so as to make himself hated by the people.

It may appear, perhaps, to some who have examined the lives and deaths of the Roman emperors that many of them would be an example contrary to my opinion, seeing that some of them lived nobly and showed great qualities of soul, nevertheless they have lost their empire or have been killed by subjects who have conspired against them. Wishing, therefore, to answer these objections, I will recall the characters of some of the emperors, and will show that the causes of their ruin were not different to those alleged by me; at the same time I will only submit for consideration those things that are noteworthy to him who studies the affairs of those times.

It seems to me sufficient to take all those emperors who succeeded to the empire from Marcus the philosopher down to Maximinus; they were Marcus and his son Commodus, Pertinax, Julian, Severus and his son Antoninus Caracalla, Macrinus, Heliogabalus, Alexander, and Maximinus.

There is first to note that, whereas in other principalities the ambition of the nobles and the insolence of the people only have to be contended with, the Roman emperors had a third difficulty in having to put up with the cruelty and avarice of their soldiers, a matter so beset with difficulties that it was the ruin of many; for it was a hard thing to give satisfaction both to soldiers and people; because the people loved peace, and for this reason they loved the unaspiring prince, whilst the soldiers loved the warlike prince who was bold, cruel, and rapacious, which qualities they were quite willing he should exercise upon the people, so that they could get double pay and give vent to their greed and cruelty. Hence it arose that those emperors were always overthrown who, either by birth or training, had no great authority, and most of them, especially those who came new to the principality, recognizing the difficulty of these two opposing humours, were inclined to give satisfaction to the soldiers, caring little about injuring the people. Which course was necessary, because, as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavour with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful. Therefore, those emperors who through inexperience had need of special favour adhered more readily to the soldiers than to the people; a course which turned out advantageous to them or not, accordingly as the prince knew how to maintain authority over them.

From these causes it arose that Marcus, [Aurelius], Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honoured, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterwards, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

But Pertinax was created emperor against the wishes of the soldiers, who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus, could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; thus, having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt for his old age, he was overthrown at the very beginning of his administration. And here it should be noted that hatred is acquired as much by good works as by bad ones, therefore, as I said before, a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil; for when that body is corrupt whom you think you have need of to maintain yourself — it may be either the people or the soldiers or the nobles — you have to submit to its humours and to gratify them, and then good works will do you harm.

But let us come to Alexander, who was a man of such great goodness, that among the other praises which are accorded him is this, that in the fourteen years he held the empire no one was ever put to death by him unjudged; nevertheless, being considered effeminate and a man who allowed himself to be governed by his mother, he became despised, the army conspired against him, and murdered him.

Turning now to the opposite characters of Commodus, Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Maximinus, you will find them all cruel and rapacious — men who, to satisfy their soldiers, did not hesitate to commit every kind of iniquity against the people; and all, except Severus, came to a bad end; but in Severus there was so much valour that, keeping the soldiers friendly, although the people were oppressed by him, he reigned successfully; for his valour made him so much admired in the sight of the soldiers and people that the latter were kept in a way astonished and awed and the former respectful and satisfied. And because the actions of this man, as a new prince, were great, I wish to show briefly that he knew well how to counterfeit the fox and the lion, which natures, as I said above, it is necessary for a prince to imitate.

Knowing the sloth of the Emperor Julian, he persuaded the army in Sclavonia, of which he was captain, that it would be right to go to Rome and avenge the death of Pertinax, who had been killed by the praetorian soldiers; and under this pretext, without appearing to aspire to the throne, he moved the army on Rome, and reached Italy before it was known that he had started. On his arrival at Rome, the Senate, through fear, elected him emperor and killed Julian. After this there remained for Severus, who wished to make himself master of the whole empire, two difficulties; one in Asia, where Niger, head of the Asiatic army, had caused himself to be proclaimed emperor; the other in the west where Albinus was, who also aspired to the throne. And as he considered it dangerous to declare himself hostile to both, he decided to attack Niger and to deceive Albinus. To the latter he wrote that, being elected emperor by the Senate, he was willing to share that dignity with him and sent him the title of Caesar; and, moreover, that the Senate had made Albinus his colleague; which things were accepted by Albinus as true. But after Severus had conquered and killed Niger, and settled oriental affairs, he returned to Rome and complained to the Senate that Albinus, little recognizing the benefits that he had received from him, had by treachery sought to murder him, and for this ingratitude he was compelled to punish him. Afterwards he sought him out in France, and took from him his government and life. He who will, therefore, carefully examine the actions of this man will find him a most valiant lion and a most cunning fox; he will find him feared and respected by every one, and not hated by the army; and it need not be wondered at that he, the new man, well, because his supreme renown always protected him from that hatred which the people might have conceived against him for his violence.

But his son Antoninus was a most eminent man, and had very excellent qualities, which made him admirable in the sight of the people and acceptable to the soldiers, for he was a warlike man, most enduring of fatigue, a despiser of all delicate food and other luxuries, which caused him to be beloved by the armies. Nevertheless, his ferocity and cruelties were so great and so unheard of that, after endless single murders, he killed a large number of the people of Rome and all those of Alexandria. He became hated by the whole world, and also feared by those he had around him, to such an extent that he was murdered in the midst of his army by a centurion. And here it must be noted that such-like deaths, which are deliberately inflicted with a resolved and desperate courage, cannot be avoided by princes, because any one who does not fear to die can inflict them; but a prince may fear them the less because they are very rare; he has only to be careful not to do any grave injury to those whom he employs or has around him in the service of the state. Antoninus had not taken this care, but had contumeliously killed a brother of that centurion, whom also he daily threatened, yet retained in his bodyguard; which, as it turned out, was a rash thing to do, and proved the emperor’s ruin.

But let us come to Commodus, to whom it should have been very easy to hold the empire, for, being the son of Marcus, he had inherited it, and he had only to follow in the footsteps of his father to please his people and soldiers; but, being by nature cruel and brutal, he gave himself up to amusing the soldiers and corrupting them, so that he might indulge his rapacity upon the people; on the other hand, not maintaining his dignity, often descending to the theatre to compete with gladiators, and doing other vile things, little worthy of the imperial majesty, he fell into contempt with the soldiers, and being hated by one party and despised by the other, he was conspired against and killed.

It remains to discuss the character of Maximinus. He was a very warlike man, and the armies, being disgusted with the effeminacy of Alexander, of whom I have already spoken, killed him and elected Maximinus to the throne. This he did not possess for long, for two things made him hated and despised; the one, his having kept sheep in Thrace, which brought him into contempt (it being well known to all, and considered a great indignity by every one), and the other, his having at the accession to his dominions deferred going to Rome and taking possession of the imperial seat; he had also gained a reputation for the utmost ferocity by having, through his prefects in Rome and elsewhere in the empire, practised many cruelties, so that the whole world was moved to anger at the meanness of his birth and to fear at his barbarity. First Africa rebelled, then the Senate with all the people of Rome, and all Italy conspired against him, to which may be added his own army: this latter, besieging Aquileia and meeting with difficulties in taking it, were disgusted with his cruelties, and fearing him less when they found so many against him, murdered him.

I do not wish to discuss Heliogabalus, Macrinus, or Julian, who, being thoroughly contemptible, were quickly wiped out; but I will bring this discourse to a conclusion by saying that princes in our times have this difficulty of giving inordinate satisfaction to their soldiers in a far less degree, because, notwithstanding one has to give them some indulgence, that is soon done; none of these princes have armies that are veterans in the governance and administration of provinces, as were the armies of the Roman Empire; and whereas it was then more necessary to give satisfaction to the soldiers than to the people, it is now more necessary to all princes, except the Turk and the Soldan, to satisfy the people rather than the soldiers, because the people are the more powerful.

From the above I have excepted the Turk, who always keeps round him twelve infantry and fifteen thousand cavalry on which depend the security and strength of the kingdom, and it is necessary that, putting aside every consideration for the people, he should keep them his friends. The kingdom of the Soldan is similar; being entirely in the hands of soldiers, follows again that, without regard to the people, he must keep them his friends. But you must note that the state of the Soldan is unlike all other principalities, for the reason that it is like the Christian pontificate, which cannot be called either an hereditary or a newly formed principality; because the sons of the old prince not the heirs, but he who is elected to that position by those who have authority, and the sons remain only noblemen. And this being an ancient custom, it cannot be called a new principality, because there are none of those difficulties in it that are met with in new ones; for although the prince is new, the constitution of the state is old, and it is framed so as to receive him as if he were its hereditary lord.

But returning to the subject of our discourse, I say that whoever will consider it will acknowledge that either hatred or contempt has been fatal to the above-named emperors, and it will be recognized also how it happened that, a number of them acting in one way and a number in another, only one in each way came to a happy end and the rest to unhappy ones. Because it would have been useless and dangerous for Pertinax and Alexander, being new princes, to imitate Marcus, who was heir to the principality; and likewise it would have been utterly destructive to Caracalla, Commodus, and Maximinus to have imitated Severus, they not having sufficient valour to enable them to tread in his footsteps. Therefore a prince, new to the principality, cannot imitate the actions of Marcus, nor, again, is it necessary to follow those of Severus, but he ought to take from Severus those parts which are necessary to found his state, and from Marcus those which are proper and glorious to keep a state that may already be stable and firm.

Chapter 20

Are Fortresses, and many other things to which Princes often resort, advantageous or hurtful?

1. SOME princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects; others have kept their subject towns by factions; others have fostered enmities against themselves; others have laid themselves out to gain over those whom they distrusted in the beginning of their governments; some have built fortresses; some have overthrown and destroyed them. And although one cannot give a final judgment on all one of these things unless one possesses the particulars of those states in which a decision has to be made, nevertheless I will speak as comprehensively as the matter of itself will admit.

2. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependants, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.

3. Our forefathers, and those who were reckoned wise, were accustomed to say that it was necessary to hold Pistoia by factions and Pisa by fortresses; and with this idea they fostered quarrels in some of their tributary towns so as to keep possession of them the more easily. This may have been well enough in those times when Italy was in a way balanced, but I do not believe that it can be accepted as a precept for to-day, because I do not believe that factions can ever be of use; rather it is certain that when the enemy comes upon you in divided cities you are quickly lost, because the weakest party will always assist the outside forces and the other will not be able to resist. The Venetians, moved, as I believe, by the above reasons, fostered the Guelph and Ghibelline factions in their tributary cities; and although they never allowed them to come to bloodshed, yet they nursed these disputes amongst them, so that the citizens, distracted by their differences, should not unite against them. Which, as we saw, did not afterwards turn out as expected, because, after the rout at Vaila, one party at once took courage and seized the state. Such methods argue, therefore, weakness in the prince, because these factions will never be permitted in a vigorous principality; such methods for enabling one the more easily to manage subjects are only useful in times of peace, but if war comes this policy proves fallacious.

4. Without doubt princes become great when they overcome the difficulties and obstacles by which they are confronted, and therefore fortune, especially when she desires to make a new prince great, who has a greater necessity to earn renown than an hereditary one, causes enemies to arise and form designs against him, in order that he may have the opportunity of overcoming them, and by them to mount higher, as by a ladder which his enemies have raised. For this reason many consider that a wise prince, when he has the opportunity, ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may rise higher.

5. Princes, especially new ones, have found more fidelity and assistance in those men who in the beginning of their rule were distrusted than among those who in the beginning were trusted. Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena, ruled his state more by those who had been distrusted than by others. But on this question one cannot speak generally, for it varies so much with the individual; I will only say this, that those men who at the commencement of a princedom have been hostile, if they are of a description to need assistance to support themselves, can always be gained over with the greatest ease, and they will be tightly held to serve the prince with fidelity, inasmuch as they know it to be very necessary for them to cancel by deeds the bad impression which he had formed of them; and thus the prince always extracts more profit from them than from those who, serving him in too much security, may neglect his affairs. And since the matter demands it, I must not fail to warn a prince, who by means of secret favours has acquired a new state, that he must well consider the reasons which induced those to favour him who did so; and if it be not a natural affection towards him, but only discontent with their government, then he will only keep them friendly with great trouble and difficulty, for it will be impossible to satisfy them. And weighing well the reasons for this in those examples which can be taken from ancient and modern affairs, we shall find that it is easier for the prince to make friends of those men who were contented under the former government, and are therefore his enemies, than of those who, being discontented with it, were favourable to him and encouraged him to seize it.

6. It has been a custom with princes, in order to hold their states more securely, to build fortresses that may serve as a bridle and bit to those who might design to work against them, and as a place of refuge from a first attack. I praise this system because it has been made use of formerly. Notwithstanding that, Messer Nicolo Vitelli in our times has been seen to demolish two fortresses in Citta di Castello so that he might keep that state; Guidubaldo, Duke of Urbino, on returning to his dominion, whence he had been driven by Cesare Borgia, razed to the foundations all the fortresses in that province, and considered that without them it would be more difficult to lose it; the Bentivoglio returning to Bologna came to a similar decision. Fortresses, therefore, are useful or not according to circumstances; if they do you good in one way they injure you in another. And this question can be reasoned thus: the prince who has more to fear from the people than from foreigners ought to build fortresses, but he who has more to fear from foreigners than from the people ought to leave them alone. The castle of Milan, built by Francesco Sforza, has made, and will make, more trouble for the house of Sforza than any other disorder in the state. For this reason the best possible fortress is — not to be hated by the people, because, although you may hold the fortresses, yet they will not save you if the people hate you, for there will never be wanting foreigners to assist a people who have taken arms against you. It has not been seen in our times that such fortresses have been of use to any prince, unless to the Countess of Forli⁴³, when the Count Girolamo, her consort, was killed; for by that means she was able to withstand the popular attack and wait for assistance from Milan, and thus recover her state; and the posture of affairs was such at that time that the foreigners could not assist the people. But fortresses were of little value to her afterwards when Cesare Borgia attacked her, and when the people, her enemy, were allied with foreigners. Therefore it would have been safer for her, both then and before, not to have been hated by the people than to have had the fortresses. All these things considered then, I shall praise him who builds fortresses as well as him who does not, and I shall blame whoever, trusting in them, cares little about being hated by the people.

⁴³ Catherine Sforza, a daughter of Galeazzo Sforza and Lucrezia Landriani, born 1463, died 1509. It was to the Countess of Forli that Machiavelli was sent as envy on 1499. A letter from Fortunati to the countess announces the appointment: “I have been with the signori,” wrote Fortunati, “to learn whom they would send and when. They tell me that Nicolo Machiavelli, a learned young Florentine noble, secretary to my Lords of the Ten, is to leave with me at once.” Cf. “Catherine Sforza,” by Count Pasolini, translated by P. Sylvester, 1898.

Chapter 21

How a Prince should conduct himself so as to gain Renown

NOTHING makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example. We have in our time Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain. He can almost be called a new prince, because he has risen, by fame and glory, from being an insignificant king to be the foremost king in Christendom; and if you will consider his deeds you will find them all great and some of them extraordinary. In the beginning of his reign he attacked Granada, and this enterprise was the foundation of his dominions. He did this quietly at first and without any fear of hindrance, for he held the minds of the barons of Castile occupied in thinking of the war and not anticipating any innovations; thus they did not perceive that by these means he was acquiring power and authority over them. He was able with the money of the Church and of the people to sustain his armies, and by that long war to lay the foundation for the military skill which has since distinguished him. Further, always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with a pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors; nor could there be a more admirable example, nor one more rare. Under this same cloak he assailed Africa, he came down on Italy, he has finally attacked France; and thus his achievements and designs have always been great, and have kept the minds of his people in suspense and admiration and occupied with the issue of them. And his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him.

Again, it much assists a prince to set unusual examples in internal affairs, similar to those which are related of Messer Bernabo da Milano, who, when he had the opportunity, by any one in civil life doing some extraordinary thing, either good or bad, would take some method of rewarding or punishing him, which would be much spoken about. And a prince ought, above all things, always to endeavour in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.

A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of him who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.

Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, exhorting them to remain neutral; and on the other hand the Romans urged them to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: “As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or consideration, the guerdon of the conqueror.” Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will entreat you to declare yourself with arms. And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions in a fortune that may rise again.

In the second case, when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer, so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied, because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not with your assistance, he remains at your discretion. And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one. The Venetians joined with France against the Duke of Milan, and this alliance, which caused their ruin, could have been avoided. But when it cannot be avoided, as happened to the Florentines when the Pope and Spain sent armies to attack Lombardy, then in such a case, for the above reasons, the prince ought to favour one of the parties.

Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; rather let it expect to have to take very doubtful ones, because it is found in ordinary affairs that one never seeks to avoid one trouble without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil.

A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability, and to honour the proficient in every art. At the same time he should encourage his citizens to practise their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture, and in every other following, so that the one should not be deterred from improving his possessions for fear lest they be taken away from him or another from opening up trade for fear of taxes; but the prince ought to offer rewards to whoever wishes to do these things and designs in any way to honour his city or state.

Further, he ought to entertain the people with festivals and spectacles at convenient seasons of the year; and as every city is divided into guilds or into societies⁴⁴, he ought to hold such bodies in esteem, and associate with them sometimes, and show himself an example of courtesy and liberality; nevertheless, always maintaining the majesty of his rank, for this he must never consent to abate in anything.

⁴⁴ “Guilds or societies,” “in arti o in tribu.” “Arti” were craft or trade guilds, cf. Florio: “Arte . . . a whole company of any trade in any city or corporation town.” The guilds of Florence are most admirably described by Mr Edgcumbe Staley in his work on the subject (Methuen, 1906). Institutions of a somewhat similar character, called “artel,” exist in Russia to-day, cf. Sir Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,” ed. 1905: “The sons . . . were always during the working season members of an artel. In some of the larger towns there are artels of a much more complex kind — permanent associations, possessing large capital, and pecuniarily responsible for the acts of the individual members.” The word “artel,” despite its apparent similarity, has, Mr Aylmer Maude assures me, no connection with “ars” or “arte.” Its root is that of the verb “rotisya,” to bind oneself by an oath; and it is generally admitted to be only another form of “rota,” which now signifies a “regimental company.” In both words the underlying idea is that of a body of men united by an oath. “Tribu” were possibly gentile groups, united by common descent, and included individuals connected by marriage. Perhaps our words “septs” or “clans” would be most appropriate.

Chapter 22

Concerning the Secretaries of Princes

THE choice of servants is of no little importance to a prince, and they are good or not according to the discrimination of the prince. And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

There were none who knew Messer Antonio da Venafro as the servant of Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena, who would not consider Pandolfo to be a very clever man in having Venafro for his servant. Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless. Therefore, it follows necessarily that, if Pandolfo was not in the first rank, he was in the second, for whenever one has judgment to know good or bad when it is said and done, although he himself may not have the initiative, yet he can recognize the good and the bad in his servant, and the one he can praise and the other correct; thus the servant cannot hope to deceive him, and is kept honest.

But to enable a prince to form an opinion of his servant there is one test which never falls; when you see the servant thinking more of his own interests than of yours, and seeking inwardly his own profit in everything, such a man will never make a good servant, nor will you ever be able to trust him; because he who has the state of another in his hands ought never to think of himself, but always of his prince, and never pay any attention to matters in which the prince is not concerned.

On the other to keep his servant honest the prince ought to study him, honouring him, enriching him, doing him kindnesses, sharing with him the honours and cares; and at the same time let him see that he cannot stand alone, so that many honours not make him desire more, many riches make him wish for more, and that many cares may make him dread changes. When, therefore, servants, and princes towards servants, are thus disposed, they can trust each other, but when it is otherwise, the end will always be disastrous for either one or the other.

Chapter 23

How Flatterers should be Avoided

I DO NOT wish to leave out an important branch of this subject, for it is a danger from which princes are with difficulty preserved, unless they are very careful and discriminating. It is that of flatterers, of whom courts arc full, because men are so self-complacent in their own affairs, and in a way so deceived in them, that they are preserved with difficulty from this pest, and if they wish to defend themselves they run the danger of falling into contempt. Because there is no other way of guarding oneself from flatterers except letting men understand that to tell you the truth does not offend you; but when every one may tell you the truth, respect for you abates.

Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.

I wish on this subject to adduce a modern example. Fra Luca, the man of affairs to Maximilian⁴⁵, the present emperor, speaking of his majesty, said: He consulted with no one, yet never got his own way in anything. This arose because of his following a practice the opposite to the above; for the emperor is a secretive man — he does not communicate his designs to any one, nor does he receive opinions on them. But as in carrying them into effect they become revealed and known, they are at once obstructed by those men whom he has around him, and he, being pliant, is diverted from them. Hence it follows that those things he does one day he undoes the next, and no one ever understands what he wishes or intends to do, and no one can rely on his resolutions.

⁴⁵ Maximilian I, born in 1459, died 1519, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He married, first, Mary, daughter of Charles the Bold; after her death, Bianca Sforza; and thus became involved in Italian politics.

A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage every one from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired; also, on learning that any one, on any consideration, has not told him the truth, he should let his anger be felt.

And if there are some who think that a prince who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him.

But if a prince who is not experienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counsellors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to be found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.

Chapter 24

The Princes of Italy have lost their States

THE previous suggestions, carefully observed, will enable a new prince to appear well established, and render him at once more secure and fixed in the state than if he had been long seated there. For the actions of a new prince are more narrowly observed than those of an hereditary one, and when they are seen to be able they gain more men and bind far tighter than ancient blood; because men are attracted more by the present than by the past, and when they find the present good they enjoy it and seek no further; they will also make the utmost defence for a prince if he fails them not in other things. Thus it will be a double glory to him to have established a new principality, and adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good allies, and with a good example; so will it be a double disgrace to him who, born a prince, shall lose his state by want of wisdom.

And if those seigniors are considered who have lost their states in Italy in our times, such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and others, there will be found in them, firstly, one common defect in regard to arms from the causes which have been discussed at length; in the next place, some one of them will be seen, either to have had the people hostile, or if he has had the people friendly, he has not known how to secure the nobles. In the absence of these defects states that have power enough to keep an army in the field cannot be lost.

Philip of Macedon, not the father of Alexander the Great, but he who was conquered by Titus Quintius, had not much territory compared to the greatness of the Romans and of Greece who attacked him, yet being a warlike man who knew how to attract the people and secure the nobles, he sustained the war against his enemies for many years, and if in the end he lost the dominion of some cities, nevertheless he retained the kingdom.

Therefore, do not let our princes accuse fortune for the loss of their principalities after so many years’ possession, but rather their own sloth, because in quiet times they never thought there could be a change (it is a common defect in man not to make any provision in the calm against the tempest), and when afterwards the bad times came they thought of flight and not of defending themselves, and they hoped that the people, disgusted with the insolence of the conquerors, would recall them. This course, when others fail, may be good, but it is very bad to have neglected all other expedients for that, since you would never wish to fall because you trusted to be able to find someone later on to restore you. This again either does not happen, or, if it does, it will not be for your security, because that deliverance is of no avail which does not depend upon yourself; those only are reliable, certain, and durable that depend on yourself and your valour.

Chapter 25

What Fortune can effect in Human Affairs, and how to withstand Her

IT is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let chance govern them. This opinion has been more credited in our times because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion. Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions⁴⁶, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.

⁴⁶ Frederick the Great was accustomed to say: “The older one gets the more convinced one becomes that his Majesty King Chance does three-quarters of the business of this miserable universe.” Sorel’s “Eastern Question.”

I compare her to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away the soil from place to place; everything flies before it, all yield to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it; and yet, though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both with defences and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so dangerous. So it happens with fortune, who shows her power where valour has not prepared to resist her, and thither she turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised to constrain her.

And if you will consider Italy, which is the seat of these changes, and which has given to them their impulse, you will see it to be an open country without barriers and without any defence. For if it had been defended by proper valour, as are Germany, Spain, and France, either this invasion would not have made the great changes it has made or it would not have come at all. And this I consider enough to say concerning resistance to fortune in general.

But confining myself more to the particular, I say that a prince may be seen happy to-day and ruined to-morrow without having shown any change of disposition or character. This, I believe, arises firstly from causes that have already been discussed at length, namely, that the prince who relies entirely upon fortune is lost when it changes. I believe also that he will be successful who directs his actions according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not accord with the times will not be successful. Because men are seen, in affairs that lead to the end which every man has before him, namely, glory and riches, to get there by various methods; one with caution, another with haste; one by force, another by skill; one by patience, another by its opposite; and each one succeeds in reaching the goal by a different method. One can also see of two cautious men the one attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they conform in their methods to the spirit of the times. This follows from what I have said, that two men working differently bring about the same effect, and of two working similarly, one attains his object and the other does not.

Changes in estate also issue from this, for if, to one who governs himself with caution and patience, times and affairs converge in such a way that his administration is successful, his fortune is made; but if times and affairs change, he is ruined if he does not change his course of action. But a man is not often found sufficiently circumspect to know how to accommodate himself to the change, both because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to, and also because, having always prospered by acting in one way, he cannot be persuaded that it is well to leave it; and, therefore, the cautious man, when it is time to turn adventurous, does not know how to do it, hence he is ruined; but had he changed his conduct with the times fortune would not have changed.

Pope Julius II went to work impetuously in all his affairs, and found the times and circumstances conform so well to that line of action that he always met with success. Consider his first enterprise against Bologna, Messer Giovanni Bentivogli being still alive. The Venetians were not agreeable to it, nor was the King of Spain, and he had the enterprise still under discussion with the King of France; nevertheless he personally entered upon the expedition with his accustomed boldness and energy, a move which made Spain and the Venetians stand irresolute and passive, the latter from fear, the former from desire to recover all the kingdom of Naples; on the other hand, he drew after him the King of France, because that king, having observed the movement, and desiring to make the Pope his friend so as to humble the Venetians, found it impossible to refuse him soldiers without manifestly offending him. Therefore Julius with his impetuous action accomplished what no other pontiff with simple human wisdom could have done; for if he had waited in Rome until he could get away, with his plans arranged and everything fixed, as any other pontiff would have done, he would never have succeeded. Because the King of France would have made a thousand excuses, and the others would have raised a thousand fears.

I will leave his other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they all succeeded, for the shortness of his life did not let him experience the contrary; but if circumstances had arisen which required him to go cautiously, his ruin would have followed, because he would never have deviated from those ways to which nature inclined him.

I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

Chapter 26

An Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians

HAVING carefully considered the subject of the above discourses, and wondering within myself whether the present times were propitious to a new prince, and whether there were the elements that would give an opportunity to a wise and virtuous one to introduce a new order of things which would do honour to him and good to the people of this country, it appears to me that so many things concur to favour a new prince that I never knew a time more fit than the present.

And if, as I said, it was necessary that the people of Israel should be captive so as to make manifest the ability of Moses; that the Persians should be oppressed by the Medes so as to discover the greatness of the soul of Cyrus; and that the Athenians should be dispersed to illustrate the capabilities of Theseus: then at the present time, in order to discover the virtue of an Italian spirit, it was necessary that Italy should be reduced to the extremity she is now in, that she should be more enslaved than the Hebrews, more oppressed than the Persians, more scattered than the Athenians; without head, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn, overrun; and to have endured every kind of desolation.

Although lately some spark may have been shown by one, which made us think he was ordained by God for our redemption, nevertheless it was afterwards seen, in the height of his career, that fortune rejected him; so that Italy, left as without life, waits for him who shall yet heal her wounds and put an end to the ravaging and plundering of Lombardy, to the swindling and taxing of the kingdom and of Tuscany, and cleanse those sores that for long have festered. It is seen how she entreats God to send someone who shall deliver her from these wrongs and barbarous insolencies. It is seen also that she is ready and willing to follow a banner if only someone will raise it.

Nor is there to be seen at present one in whom she can place more hope than in your illustrious house⁴⁷, with its valour and fortune, favoured by God and by the Church of which it is now the chief, and which could be made the head of this redemption. This will not be difficult if you will recall to yourself the actions and lives of the men I have named. And although they were great and wonderful men, yet they were men, and each one of them had no more opportunity than the present offers, for their enterprises were neither more just nor easier than this, nor was God more their friend than He is yours.

⁴⁷ Giuliano de Medici. He had just been created a cardinal by Leo X. In 1523 Giuliano was elected Pope, and took the title of Clement

With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them. Here there is the greatest willingness, and where the willingness is great the difficulties cannot be great if you will only follow those men to whom I have directed your attention. Further than this, how extraordinarily the ways of God have been manifested beyond example: the sea is divided, a cloud has led the way, the rock has poured forth water, it has rained manna, everything has contributed to your greatness; you ought to do the rest. God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.

And it is not to be wondered at if none of the above-named Italians have been able to accomplish all that is expected from your illustrious house; and if in so many revolutions in Italy, and in so many campaigns, it has always appeared as if military virtue were exhausted, this has happened because the old order of things was not good, and none of us have known how to find a new one. And nothing honours a man more than to establish new laws and new ordinances when he himself was newly risen. Such things when they are well founded and dignified will make him revered and admired, and in Italy there are not wanting opportunities to bring such into use in every form.

Here there is great valour in the limbs whilst it fails in the head. Look attentively at the duels and the hand-to-hand combats, how superior the Italians are in strength, dexterity, and subtlety. But when it comes to armies they do not bear comparison, and this springs entirely from the insufficiency of the leaders, since those who are capable are not obedient, and each one seems to himself to know, there having never been any one so distinguished above the rest, either by valour or fortune, that others would yield to him. Hence it is that for so long a time, and during so much fighting in the past twenty years, whenever there has been an army wholly Italian, it has always given a poor account of itself; as witness Taro, Alessandria, Capua, Genoa, Vaila, Bologna, Mestre.⁴⁸

⁴⁸ The battles of Il Taro, 1495; Alessandria, 1499; Capua, 1501; Genoa, 1507; Vaila, 1509; Bologna, 1511; Mestri, 1513.

If, therefore, your illustrious house wishes to follow those remarkable men who have redeemed their country, it is necessary before all things, as a true foundation for every enterprise, to be provided with your own forces, because there can be no more faithful, truer, or better soldiers. And although singly they are good, altogether they will be much better when they find themselves commanded by their prince, honoured by him, and maintained at his expense. Therefore it is necessary to be prepared with such arms, so that you can be defended against foreigners by Italian valour.

And although Swiss and Spanish infantry may be considered very formidable, nevertheless there is a defect in both, by reason of which a third order would not only be able to oppose them, but might be relied upon to overthrow them. For the Spaniards cannot resist cavalry, and the Switzers are afraid of infantry whenever they encounter them in close combat. Owing to this, as has been and may again be seen, the Spaniards are unable to resist French cavalry, and the Switzers are overthrown by infantry. And although a complete proof of this latter cannot be shown, nevertheless there was some evidence of it at the battle of Ravenna, when the Spanish infantry were confronted by German battalions, who follow the same tactics as the Swiss; when the Spaniards, by agility of body and with the aid of their shields, got in under the pikes of the Germans and stood out of danger, able to attack, while the Germans stood helpless, and, if the cavalry had not dashed up, all would have been over with them. It is possible, therefore, knowing the defects of both these infantries, to invent a new one, which will resist cavalry and not be afraid of infantry; this need not create a new order of arms, but a variation upon the old. And these are the kind of improvements which confer reputation and power upon a new prince.

This opportunity, therefore, ought not to be allowed to pass for letting Italy at last see her liberator appear. Nor can one express the love with which he would be received in all those provinces which have suffered so much from these foreign scourings, with what thirst for revenge, with what stubborn faith, with what devotion, with what tears. What door would be closed to him? Who would refuse obedience to him? What envy would hinder him? What Italian would refuse him homage? To all of us this barbarous dominion stinks. Let, therefore, your illustrious house take up this charge with that courage and hope with which all just enterprises are undertaken, so that under its standard our native country may be ennobled, and under its auspices may be verified that saying of Petrarch:

Virtu contro al Furore
Prendera l’arme, e fia il combatter corto:
Che l’antico valore
Negli italici cuor non e ancor morto.⁴⁹

⁴⁹ Virtue against fury shall advance the fight,
And it i’ th’ combat soon shall put to flight;
For the old Roman, valour is not dead,
Nor in th’ Italians’ breasts extinguished.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

2010-11-14T07:23:00.000-08:00

PREAMBLE

China is one of the countries with the longest histories in the world. The people of all nationalities in China have jointly created a splendid culture and have a glorious revolutionary tradition. Feudal China was gradually reduced after 1840 to a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. The Chinese people waged wave upon wave of heroic struggles for national independence and liberation and for democracy and freedom. Great and earth-shaking historical changes have taken place in China in the 20th century. The Revolution of 1911, led by Dr Sun Yat-sen, abolished the feudal monarchy and gave birth to the Republic of China. But the Chinese people had yet to fulfil their historical task of overthrowing imperialism and feudalism. After waging hard, protracted and tortuous struggles, armed and otherwise, the Chinese people of all nationalities led by the Communist Party of China with Chairman Mao Zedong as its leader ultimately, in 1949, overthrew the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism, won the great victory of the new-democratic revolution and founded the People's Republic of China. Thereupon the Chinese people took state power into their own hands and became masters of the country.

After the founding of the People's Republic, the transition of Chinese society from a new- democratic to a socialist society was effected step by step. The socialist transformation of the private ownership of the means of production was completed, the system of exploitation of man by man eliminated and the socialist system established. The people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants, which is in essence the dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed. The Chinese people and the Chinese People's Liberation Army have thwarted aggression, sabotage and armed provocations by imperialists and hegemonists,safeguarded China's national independence and security and strengthened its national defence. Major successes have been achieved in economic development. An independent and fairly comprehensive socialist system of industry has in the main been established. There has been a marked increase in agricultural production. Significant progress has been made in educational, scientific, cultural and other undertakings, and socialist ideological education has yielded noteworthy results. The living standards of the people have improved considerably. Both the victory of China's new-democratic revolution and the successes of its socialist cause have been achieved by the Chinese people of all nationalities under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and by upholding truth, correcting errors and overcoming numerous difficulties and hardships.

The basic task of the nation in the years to come is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism- Leninism and Mao ZedongThought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and follow the socialist road, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology step by step to turn China into a socialist country with a high level of culture and democracy. The exploiting classes as such have been eliminated in our country. However, class struggle will continue to exist within certain limits for a long time to come. The Chinese people must fight against those forces and elements, both at home and abroad, that are hostile to China's socialist system and try to undermine it. Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland. In building socialism it is imperative to rely on the workers, peasants and intellectuals and unite with all the forces that can be united. In the long years of revolution and construction, there has been formed under the leadership of the Communist Party of China a broad patriotic united front that is composed of democratic parties and people's organizations and embraces all socialist working people, all patriots who support socialism and all patriots who stand for reunification of the motherland. This united front will continue to be consolidated and developed. The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is a broadly representative organization of the united front, which has played a significant historical role and will continue to do so in the political and social life of the country, in promoting friendship with the people of other countries and in the struggle for socialist modernization and for the reunification and unity of the country. The People's Republic of China is a unitary multi-national state built up jointly by the people of all its nationalities. Socialist relations of equality, unity and mutual assistance have been established among them and will continue to be strengthened. In the struggle to safeguard the unity of the nationalities, it is necessary to combat big-nation chauvinism, mainly Han chauvinism, and also necessary to combat local-national chauvinism. The state does its utmost to promote the common prosperity of all nationalities in the country. China's achievements in revolution and construction are inseparable from support by the people of the world. The future of China is closely linked with that of the whole world. China adheres to an independent foreign policy as well as to the five principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence in developing diplomatic relations and economic and cultural exchanges with other countries; China consistently opposes imperialism, hegemonism and colonialism, works to strengthen unity with the people of other countries, supports the oppressed nations and the developing countries in their just struggle to win and preserve national independence and develop their national economies, and strives to safeguard world peace and promote the cause of human progress. This Constitution affirms the achievements of the struggles of the Chinese people of all nationalities and defines the basic system and basic tasks of the state in legal form; it is the fundamental law of the state and has supreme legal authority. The people of all nationalities, all state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and undertakings in the country must take the Constitution as the basic norm of conduct, and they have the duty to uphold the dignity of the Constitution and ensure its implementation.

CHAPTER I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1. The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

Article 2. All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. The organs through which the people exercise state power are the National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at different levels. The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.

Article 3. The state organs of the People's Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism. The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at different levels are instituted through democratic election. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision. All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people's congresses to which they are responsible and under whose supervision they operate. The division of functions and powers between the central and local state organs is guided by the principle of giving full play to the initiative and enthusiasm of the local authorities under the unified leadership of the central authorities.

Article 4. All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops the relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; any acts that undermine the unity of the nationalities or instigate their secession are prohibited. The state helps the areas inhabited by minority nationalities speed up their economic and cultural development in accordance with the peculiarities and needs of the different minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practised in areas where people of minority nationalities live in compact communities; in these areas organs of self- government are established for the exercise of the right of autonomy. All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People's Republic of China. The people of all nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages, and to preserve or reform their own ways and customs.

Article 5. The state upholds the uniformity and dignity of the socialist legal system. No law or administrative or local rules and regulations shall contravene the constitution. All state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and undertakings must abide by the Constitution and the law. All acts in violation of the Constitution and the law must be investigated. No organization or individual may enjoy the privilege of being above the Constitution and the law.

Article 6. The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

Article 7. The state economy is the sector of socialist economy under ownership by the whole people; it is the leading force in the national economy. The state ensures the consolidation and growth of the state economy.

Article 8. Rural people's communes, agricultural producers' co-operatives, and other forms of co- operative economy such as producers' supply and marketing, credit and consumers co-operatives, belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm private plots of cropland and hilly land, engage in household sideline production and raise privately owned livestock. The various forms of co-operative economy in the cities and towns, such as those in the handicraft, industrial, building, transport, commerical and service trades, all belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the urban and rural economic collectives and encourages, guides and helps the growth of the collective economy.

Article 9. Mineral resources, waters, forests, mountains, grassland, unreclaimed land, beaches and other natural resources are owned by the state, that is, by the whole people, with the exception of the forests, mountains, grassland, unreclaimed land and beaches that are owned by collectives in accordance with the law. The state ensures the rational use of natural resources and protects rare animals and plants. The appropriation or damage of natural resources by any organization or individual by whatever means is prohibited.

Article 10. Land in the cities is owned by the state. Land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by collectives except for those portions which belong to the state in accordance with the law; house sites and private plots of cropland and hilly land are also owned by collectives. The state may in the public interest take over land for its use in accordance with the law. No organization or individual may appropriate, buy, sell or lease land, or unlawfully transfer land in other ways. All organizations and individuals who use land must make rational use of the land.

Article 11. The individual economy of urban and rural working people, operated within the limits prescribed by law, is a complement to the socialist public economy. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the individual economy. The state guides, helps and supervises the individual economy by exercising administrative control.

Article 12. Socialist public property is sacred and inviolable. The state protects socialist public property. Appropriation or damage of state or collective property by any organization or individual by whatever means is prohibited.

Article 13. The state protects the right of citizens to own lawfully earned income, savings, houses and other lawful property. The state protects by law the right of citizens to inherit private property.

Article 14. The state continuously raises labour productivity, improves economic results and develops the productive forces by enhancing the enthusiasm of the working people, raising the level of their technical skill, disseminating advanced science and technology, improving the systems of economic administration and enterprise operation and management, instituting the socialist system of responsibility in various forms and improving organization of work. The state practises strict economy and combats waste. The state properly apportions accumulation and consumption, pays attention to the interests of the collective and the individual as well as of the state and, on the basis of expanded production, gradually improves the material and cultural life of the people.

Article 15. The state practises economic planning on the basis of socialist public ownership. It ensures the proportionate and co-ordinated growth of the national economy through overall balancing by economic planning and the supplementary role of regulation by the market. Disturbance of the orderly functioning of the social economy or disruption of the state economic plan by any organization or individual is prohibited.

Article 16. State enterprises have decision-making power in operation and management within the limits prescribed by law, on condition that they submit to unified leadership by the state and fulfil all their obligations under the state plan. State enterprises practise democratic management through congresses of workers and staff and in other ways in accordance with the law.

Article 17. Collective economic organizations have decision-making power in conducting independent economic activities, on condition that they accept the guidance of the state plan and abide by the relevant laws. Collective economic organizations practise democratic management in accordance with the law, with the entire body of their workers electing or removing their managerial personnel and deciding on major issues concerning operation and management.

Article 18. The People's Republic of China permits foreign enterprises, other foreign economic organizations and individual foreigners to invest in China and to enter into various forms of economic co-operation with Chinese enterprises and other economic organizations in accordance with the law of the People's Republic of China. All foreign enterprises and other foreign economic organizations in China, as well as joint ventures with Chinese and foreign investment located in China, shall abide by the law of the People's Republic of China. Their lawful rights and interests are protected by the law of the People's Republic of China.

Article 19. The state develops socialist educational undertakings and works to raise the scientific and cultural level of the whole nation. The state runs schools of various types, makes primary education compulsory and universal, develops secondary, vocational and higher education and promotes pre-school education. The state develops educational facilities of various types in order to wipe out illiteracy and provide political, cultural, scientific, technical and professional education for workers, peasants, state functionaries and other working people. It encourages people to become educated through self- study. The state encourages the collective economic organizations, state enterprises and undertakings and other social forces to set up educational institutions of various types in accordance with the law. The state promotes the nationwide use of Putonghua (common speech based on Beijing pronunciation).

Article 20. The state promotes the development of the natural and social sciences, disseminates scientific and technical knowledge, and commends and rewards achievements in scientific research as well as technological discoveries and inventions.

Article 21. The state develops medical and health services, promotes modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, encourages and supports the setting up of various medical and health facilities by the rural economic collectives, state enterprises and undertakings and neighbourhood organizations, and promotes sanitation activities of a mass character, all to protect the people's health. The state develops physical culture and promotes mass sports activities to build up the people's physique.

Article 22. The state promotes the development of literature and art, the press, broadcasting and television undertakings, publishing and distribution services, libraries, museums, cultural centres and other cultural undertakings, that serve the people and socialism, and sponsors mass cultural activities. The state protects places of scenic and historical interest,valuable cultural monuments and relics and other important items of China's historical and cultural heritage.

Article 23. The state trains specialized personnel in all fields who serve socialism, increases the number of intellectuals and creates conditions to give full scope to their role in socialist modernization.

Article 24. The state strengthens the building of socialist spiritual civilization through spreading education in high ideals and morality, general education and education in discipline and the legal system, and through promoting the formulation and observance of rules of conduct and common pledges by different sections of the people in urban and rural areas. The state advocates the civic virtues of love for the motherland, for the people, for labour, for science and for socialism; it educates the people in patriotism, collectivism, internationalism and communism and in dialectical and historical materialism; it combats the decadent ideas of capitalism and feudalism and other decadent ideas.

Article 25. The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development.

Article 26. The state protects and improves the living environment and the ecological environment, and prevents and controls pollution and other public hazards. The state organizes and encourages afforestation and the protection of forests.

Article 27. All state organs carry out the principle of simple and efficient administration, the system of responsibility for work and the system of training functionaries and appraising their work in order constantly to improve quality of work and efficiency and combat bureaucratism. All state organs and functionaries must rely on the support of the people, keep in close touch with them, heed their opinions and suggestions, accept their supervision and work hard to serve them.

Article 28. The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

Article 29. The armed forces of the People's Republic of China belong to the people. Their tasks are to strengthen national defence, resist aggression, defend the motherland, safeguard the people's peaceful labour, participate in national reconstruction, and work hard to serve the people. The state strengthens the revolutionization, modernization and regularization of the armed forces in order to increase the national defence capability.

Article 30. The administrative division of the People's Republic of China is as follows: (1) The country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government; (2) Provinces and autonomous regions are divided into autonomous prefectures, counties, autonomous counties and cities; (3) Counties and autonomous counties are divided into townships, nationality townships and towns. Municipalities directly under the Central Government and other large cities are divided into districts and counties. Autonomous prefectures are divided into counties, autonomous counties, and cities. All autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties are national autonomous areas.

Article 31. The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary. The systems to be instituted in special administrative regions shall be prescribed by law enacted by the National People's Congress in the light of the specific conditions.

Article 32. The People's Republic of China protects the lawful rights and interests of foreigners within Chinese territory, and while on Chinese territory foreigners must abide by the law of the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China may grant asylum to foreigners who request it for political reasons.

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

Article 33. All persons holding the nationality of the People's Republic of China are citizens of the People's Republic of China. All citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law. Every citizen enjoys the rights and at the same time must perform the duties prescribed by the Constitution and the law.

Article 34. All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited. Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.

Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

Article 42. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right as well as the duty to work. Using various channels, the state creates conditions for employment, strengthens labour protection, improves working conditions and, on the basis of expanded production, increases remuneration for work and social benefits. Work is the glorious duty of every able-bodied citizen. All working people in state enterprises and in urban and rural economic collectives should perform their tasks with an attitude consonant with their status as masters of the country. The state promotes socialist labour emulation, and commends and rewards model and advanced workers. The state encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labour. The state provides necessary vocational training to citizens before they are employed.

Article 43. Working people in the People's Republic of China have the right to rest. The state expands facilities for rest and recuperation of working people, and prescribes working hours and vacations for workers and staff.

Article 44. The state prescribes by law the system of retirement for workers and staff in enterprises and undertakings and for functionaries of organs of state. The livelihood of retired personnel is ensured by the state and society.

Article 45. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to material assistance from the state and society when they are old, ill or disabled. The state develops the social insurance, social relief and medical and health services that are required to enable citizens to enjoy this right. The state and society ensure the livelihood of disabled members of the armed forces, provide pensions to the families of martyrs and give preferential treatment to the families of military personnel. The state and society help make arrangements for the work, livelihood and education of the blind, deaf-mute and other handicapped citizens.

Article 46. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the duty as well as the right to receive education. The state promotes the all-round moral, intellectual and physical development of children and young people.

Article 47. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the freedom to engage in scientific research, literary and artistic creation and other cultural pursuits. The state encourages and assists creative endeavours conducive to the interests of the people made by citizens engaged in education, science, technology, literature, art and other cultural work.

Article 48. Women in the People's Republic of China enjoy equal rights with men in all spheres of life, political, economic, cultural and social, and family life. The state protects the rights and interests of women, applies the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women alike and trains and selects cadres from among women.

Article 49. Marriage, the family, and mother and child are protected by the state. Both husband and wife have the duty to practise family planning. Parents have the duty to rear and educate their minor children, and children who have come of age have the duty to support and assist their parents. Violation of the freedom of marriage is prohibited. Maltreatment of old people, women and children is prohibited.

Article 50. The People's Republic of China protects the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese nationals residing abroad and protects the lawful rights and interests of returned overseas Chinese and of the family members of Chinese nationals residing abroad.

Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

Article 52. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.

Article 53. Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

Article 54. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland.

Article 55. It is the sacred obligation of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to defend the motherland and resist aggression. It is the honourable duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform military service and join the militia in accordance with the law.

Article 56. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to pay taxes in accordance with the law.

CHAPTER III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE STATE

SECTION 1. THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS

Article 57. The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China is the highest organ of state power. Its permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Article 58. The National People's Congress and its Standing Committee exercise the legislative power of the state.

Article 59. The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected by the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and by the armed forces. All the minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation. Election of deputies to the National People's Congress is conducted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The number of deputies to the National People's Congress and the manner of their election are prescribed by law.

Article 60. The National People's Congress is elected for a term of five years. Two months before the expiration of the term of office of a National People's Congress, its Standing Committee must ensure that the election of deputies to the succeeding National People's Congress is completed. Should exceptional circumstances prevent such an election, it may be postponed by decision of a majority vote of more than two- thirds of all those on the Standing Committee of the incumbent National People's Congress, and the term of office of the incumbent National People's Congress may be extended. The election of deputies to the succeeding National People's Congress must be completed within one year after the termination of such exceptional circumstances.

Article 61. The National People's Congress meets in session once a year and is convened by its Standing Committee. A session of the National People's Congress may be convened at any time the Standing Committee deems this necessary, or when more than one-fifth of the deputies to the National People's Congress so propose. When the National People's Congress meets, it elects a presidium to conduct its session.

Article 62. The National People's Congress exercises the following functions and powers:

(1) To amend the Constitution;

(2) To supervise the enforcement of the Constitution;

(3) To enact and amend basic statutes concerning criminal offences, civil affairs, the state organs and other matters;

(4) To elect the President and the Vice-President of the People's Republic of China; (previously translated as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the People's Republic of China--translator's note.)

(5) To decide on the choice of the Premier of the State Council upon nomination by the President of the People's Republic of China, and to decide on the choice of the Vice-Premiers, State Councillors, Ministers in charge of Ministries or Commissions and the Auditor-General and the Secretary-General of the State Council upon nomination by the Premier;

(6) To elect the Chairman of the Central Military Commission and, upon his nomination, to decide on the choice of the other members of the Central Military Commission;

(7) To elect the President of the Supreme People's Court;

(8) To elect the Procurator-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate;

(9) To examine and approve the plan for national economic and social development and the reports on its implementation;

(10) To examine and approve the state budget and the report on its implementation;

(11) To alter or annul inappropriate decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress;

(12) To approve the establishment of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government;

(13) To decide on the establishment of special administrative regions and the systems to be instituted there;

(14) To decide on questions of war and peace; and

(15) To exercise such other functions and powers as the highest organ of state power should exercise.

Article 63. The National People's Congress has the power to recall or remove from office the following persons:

(1) The President and the Vice-President of the People's Republic of China;

(2) The Premier, Vice-Premiers, State Councillors, Ministers in charge of Ministries or Commissions and the Auditor-General and the Secretary-General of the State Council;

(3) The Chairman of the Central Military Commission and others on the commission;

(4) The President of the Supreme People's Court; and

(5) The Procurator-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate.

Article 64. Amendments to the Constitution are to be proposed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or by more than one-fifth of the deputies to the National People's Congress and adopted by a majority vote of more than two-thirds of all the deputies to the Congress. Statutes and resolutions are adopted by a majority vote of more than one half of all the deputies to the National People's Congress.

Article 65. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is composed of the following: The Chairman; The Vice-Chairmen; The Secretary-General; and Members. Minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The National People's Congress elects, and has the power to recall, all those on its Standing Committee. No one on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall hold any post in any of the administrative, judicial or procuratorial organs of the state.

Article 66. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is elected for the same term as the National People's Congress; it exercises its functions and powers until a new Standing Committee is elected by the succeeding National People's Congress. The Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Standing Committee shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.

Article 67. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress exercises the following functions and powers:

(1) To interpret the Constitution and supervise its enforcement;

(2) To enact and amend statutes with the exception of those which should be enacted by the National People's Congress;

(3) To enact,when the National People's Congress is not in session, partial supplements and amendments to statutes enacted by the National People's Congress provided that they do not contravene the basic principles of these statutes;

(4) To interpret statutes;

(5) To examine and approve, when the National People's Congress is not in session, partial adjustments to the plan for national economic and social development and to the state budget that prove necessary in the course of their implementation;

(6) To supervise the work of the State Council,the Central Military Commission, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate;

(7) To annual those administrative rules and regulations, decisions or orders of the State Council that contravene the Constitution or the statutes;

(8) To annul those local regulations or decisions of the organs of state power of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government that contravene the Constitution, the statutes or the administrative rules and regulations;

(9) To decide, when the National People's Congress is not in session, on the choice of Ministers in charge of Ministries or Commissions or the Auditor-General and the Secretary-General of the State Council upon nomination by the Premier of the State Council;

(10) To decide, upon nomination by the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, on the choice of others on the commission, when the National People's Congress is not in session;

(11) To appoint and remove the Vice-Presidents and judges of the Supreme People's Court, members of its Judicial Committee and the President of the Military Court at the suggestion of the President of the Supreme People's Court;

(12) To appoint and remove the Deputy Procurators-General and procurators of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, members of its Procuratorial Committee and the Chief Procurator of the Military Procuratorate at the request of the Procurator-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and to approve the appointment and removal of the chief procurators of the people's procuratorates of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government;

(13) To decide on the appointment and recall of plenipotentiary representatives abroad;

(14) To decide on the ratification and abrogation of treaties and important agreements concluded with foreign states;

(15) To institute systems of titles and ranks for military and diplomatic personnel and of other specific titles and ranks;

(16) To institute state medals and titles of honour and decide on their conferment;

(17) To decide on the granting of special pardons;

(18) To decide, when the National People's Congress is not in session, on the proclamation of a state of war in the event of an armed attack on the country or in fulfillment of international treaty obligations concerning common defence against aggression;

(19) To decide on general mobilization or partial mobilization;

(20) To decide on the enforcement of martial law throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government; and

(21) To exercise such other functions and powers as the National People's Congress may assign to it.

Article 68. The Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress presides over the work of the Standing Committee and convenes its meetings. The Vice-Chairmen and the Secretary-General assist the Chairman in his work. Chairmanship meetings with the participation of the chairman, vice- chairmen and secretary-general handle the important day-to-day work of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Article 69. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is responsible to the National People's Congress and reports on its work to the Congress.

Article 70. The National People's Congress establishes a Nationalities Committee, a Law Committee, a Finance and Economic Committee, an Education, Science, Culture and Public Health Committee, a Foreign Affairs Committee, an Overseas Chinese Committee and such other special committees as are necessary. These special committees work under the direction of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress when the Congress is not in session. The special committees examine, discuss and draw up relevant bills and draft resolutions under the direction of the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee.

Article 71. The National People's Congress and its Standing Committee may, when they deem it necessary, appoint committees of inquiry into specific questions and adopt relevant resolutions in the light of their reports. All organs of state, public organizations and citizens concerned are obliged to supply the necessary information to those committees of inquiry when they conduct investigations.

Article 72. Deputies to the National People's Congress and all those on its Standing Committee have the right, in accordance with procedures prescribed by law, to submit bills and proposals within the scope of the respective functions and powers of the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee.

Article 73. Deputies to the National People's Congress during its sessions, and all those on its Standing Committee during its meetings, have the right to address questions, in accordance with procedures prescribed by law, to the State Council or the ministries and commissions under the State Council, which must answer the questions in a responsible manner.

Article 74. No deputy to the National People's Congress may be arrested or placed on criminal trial without the consent of the Presidium of the current session of the National People's Congress or, when the National People's Congress is not in session, without the consent of its StandingCommittee.

Article 75. Deputies to the National People's Congress may not be called to legal account for their speeches or votes at its meetings.

Article 76. Deputies to the National People's Congress must play an exemplary role in abiding by the Constitution and the law and keeping state secrets and, in production and other work and their public activities, assist in the enforcement of the Constitution and the law. Deputies to the National People's Congress should maintain close contact with the units and people which elected them, listen to and convey their opinions and demands and work hard to serve them.

Article 77. Deputies to the National People's Congress are subject to the supervision of the units which elected them. The electoral units have the power, through procedures prescribed by law, to recall the deputies whom they elected.

Article 78. The organization and working procedures of the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee are prescribed by law.

SECTION 2. THE PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Article 79: The President and Vice-President of the People's Republic of China are elected by the National People's Congress. Citizens of the People's Republic of China who have the right to vote and to stand for election and who have reached the age of 45 are eligible for election as President or Vice-President of the People's Republic of China. The term of office of the President and Vice-President of the People's Republic of China is the same as that of the National People's Congress, and they shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.

Article 80. The President of the People's Republic of China, in pursuance of decisions of the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee, promulgates statutes; appoints and removes the Premier, Vice-Premiers, State Councillors, Ministers in charge of Ministries or Commissions, and the Auditor- General and the Secretary-General of the State Council; confers state medals and titles of honour; issues orders of special pardons; proclaims martial law; proclaims a state of war; and issues mobilization orders.

Article 81. The President of the People's Republic of China receives foreign diplomatic representatives on behalf of the People's Republic of China and, in pursuance of decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, appoints and recalls plenipotentiary representatives abroad, and ratifies and abrogates treaties and important agreements concluded with foreign states.

Article 82. The Vice-President of the People's Republic of China assists the President in his work. The Vice-President of the People's Republic of China may exercise such parts of the functions and powers of the President as the President may entrust to him.

Article 83. The President and Vice-President of the People's Republic of China exercise their functions and powers until the new President and Vice- President elected by the succeeding National People's Congress assume office.

Article 84. In case the office of the President of the People's Republic of China falls vacant, the Vice-President succeeds to the office of President. In case the office of the Vice-President of the People's Republic of China falls vacant, the National People's Congress shall elect a new Vice-President to fill the vacancy. In the event that the offices of both the President and the Vice-President of the People's Republic of China fall vacant, the National People's Congress shall elect a new President and a new Vice-President. Prior to such election, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall temporarily act as the President of the People's Republic of China.

SECTION 3. THE STATE COUNCIL

Article 85. The State Council, that is, the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, is the executive body of the highest organ of state power; it is the highest organ of state administration.

Article 86. The State Council is composed of the following: The Premier; The Vice-Premiers; The State Councillors; The Ministers in charge of Ministries; The Ministers in charge of Commissions; The Auditor- General; and The Secretary-General. The Premier has overall responsibility for the State Council. The Ministers have overall responsibility for the respective ministries or commissions under their charge. The organization of the State Council is prescribed by law.

Article 87. The term of office of the State Council is the same as that of the National People's Congress. The Premier, Vice-Premiers and State Councillors shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.

Article 88. The Premier directs the work of the State Council. The Vice- Premiers and State Councillors assist the Premier in his work. Executive meetings of the State Council are composed of the Premier, the Vice-Premiers, the State Councillors and the Secretary-General of the State Council. The Premier convenes and presides over the executive meetings and plenary meetings of the State Council.

Article 89. The State Council exercises the following functions and powers: (1) To adopt administrative measures,enact administrative rules and regulations and issue decisions and orders in accordance with the Constitution and the statutes; (2) To submit proposals to the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee; (3) To lay down the tasks and responsibilities of the ministries and commissions of the State Council, to exercise unified leadership over the work of the ministries and commissions and to direct all other administrative work of a national character that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the ministries and commissions; (4) To exercise unified leadership over the work of local organs of state administration at different levels throughout the country, and to lay down the detailed division of functions and powers between the Central Government and the organs of state administration of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government; (5) To draw up and implement the plan for national economic and social development and the state budget; (6) To direct and administer economic work and urban and rural development; (7) To direct and administer the work concerning education, science, culture, public health, physical culture and family planning; (8) To direct and administer the work concerning civil affairs, public security, judicial administration, supervision and other related matters; (9) To conduct foreign affairs and conclude treaties and agreements with foreign states; (10) To direct and administer the building of national defence; (11) To direct and administer affairs concerning the nationalities and to safeguard the equal rights of minority nationalities and the right of autonomy of the national autonomous areas; (12) To protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese nationals residing abroad and protect the lawful rights and interests of returned overseas Chinese and of the family members of Chinese nationals residing abroad; (13) To alter or annul inappropriate orders, directives and regulations issued by the ministries or commissions; (14) To alter or annul inappropriate decisions and orders issued by local organs of state administration at different levels; (15) To approve the geographic division of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and to approve the establishment and geographic division of autonomous prefectures, counties, autonomous counties and cities; (16) To decide on the enforcement of martial law in parts of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government; (17) To examine and decide on the size of administrative organs and, in accordance with the law, to appoint, remove and train administrative officers, appraise their work and reward or punish them; and (18) To exercise such other functions and powers as the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee may assign it.

Article 90. The ministers in charge of ministries or commissions of the State Council are responsible for the work of their respective departments and convene and preside over their ministerial meetings or commission meetings that discuss and decide on major issues in the work of their respective departments. The ministries and commissions issue orders, directives and regulations within the jurisdiction of their respective departments and in accordance with the statutes and the administrative rules and regulations, decisions and orders issued by the State Council.

Article 91. The State Council establishes an auditing body to supervise through auditing the revenue and expenditure of all departments under the State Council and of the local governments at different levels, and those of the state financial and monetary organizations and of enterprises and undertakings. Under the direction of the Premier of the State Council,the auditing body independently exercises its power to supervise through auditing in accordance with the law, subject to no interference by any other administrative organ or any public organization or individual.

Article 92. The State Council is responsible, and reports on its work, to the National People's Congress or, when the National People's Congress is not in session, to its Standing Committee.

SECTION 4. THE CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION

Article 93. The Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China directs the armed forces of the country. The Central Military Commission is composed of the following: The Chairman; The Vice-Chairmen; and Members. The Chairman of the Central Military Commission has overall responsibility for the commission. The term of office of the Central Military Commission is the same as that of the National People's Congress.

Article 94. The Chairman of the Central Military Commission is responsible to the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee.

SECTION 5. THE LOCAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS AND THE LOCAL PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

Article 95. People's congresses and people's governments are established in provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, counties, cities, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns. The organization of local people's congresses and local people's governments at different levels is prescribed by law. Organs of self-government are established in autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties. The organization and working procedures of organs of self-government are prescribed by law in accordance with the basic principles laid down in Sections V and VI of Chapter Three of the Constitution.

Article 96. Local people's congresses at different levels are local organs of state power. Local people's congresses at and above the county level establish standing committees.

Article 97. Deputies to the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and cities divided into districts are elected by the people's congresses at the next lower level; deputies to the people'scongresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns are elected directly by their constituencies. The number of deputies to local people's congresses at different levels and the manner of their election are prescribed by law.

Article 98. The term of office of the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts is five years. The term of office of the people's congresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns is three years.

Article 99. Local people's congresses at different levels ensure the observance and implementation of the Constitution, the statutes and the administrative rules and regulations in their respective administrative areas. Within the limits of their authority as prescribed by law, they adopt and issue resolutions and examine and decide on plans for local economic and cultural development and for development of public services. Local people's congresses at and above the county level examine and approve the plans for economic and social development and the budgets of their respective administrative areas, and examine and approve reports on their implementation. They have the power to alter or annul inappropriate decisions of their own standing committees. The people's congresses of nationality townships may, within the limits of their authority as prescribed by law, take specific measures suited to the peculiarities of the nationalities concerned.

Article 100. The people's congresses of provinces and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and their standing committees, may adopt local regulations, which must not contravene the Constitution, the statutes and the administrative rules and regulations, and they shall report such local regulations to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record.

Article 101. At their respective levels, local people's congresses elect, and have the power to recall, governors and deputy governors, or mayors and deputy mayors, or heads and deputy heads of counties, districts, townships and towns. Local people's congresses at and above the county level elect, and have the power to recall, presidents of people's courts and chief procurators of people's procuratorates at the corresponding level. The election or recall of chief procurators of people's procuratorates shall be reported to the chief procurators of the people's procuratorates at the next higher level for submission to the standing committees of the people's congresses at the corresponding level for approval.

Article 102. Deputies to the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities, directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts are subject to supervision by the units which elected them; deputies to the people's congresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns are subject to supervision by their constituencies. The electoral units and constituencies which elect deputies to local people's congresses at different levels have the power, according to procedures prescribed by law, to recall deputies whom they elected.

Article 103. The standing committee of a local people's congress at and above the county level is composed of a chairman, vice-chairmen and members, and is responsible, and reports on its work, to the people's congress at the corresponding level. The local people's congress at and above the county level elects, and has the power to recall, anyone on the standing committee of the people's congress at the corresponding level. No one on the standing committee of a local people's congress at and above the county level shall hold any post in state administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs.

Article 104. The standing committee of a local people's congress at and above the county level discusses and decides on major issues in all fields of work in its administrative area; supervises the work of the people's government, people's court and people's procuratorate at the corresponding level; annuls inappropriate decisions and orders of the people's government at the corresponding level; annuls inappropriate resolutions of the people's congress at the next lower level; decides on the appointment and removal of functionaries of state organs within its jurisdiction as prescribed by law; and, when the people's congress at the corresponding level is not in session, recalls individual deputies to the people's congress at the next higher level and elects individual deputies to fill vacancies in that people's congress.

Article 105. Local people's governments at different levels are the executive bodies of local organs of state power as well as the local organs of state administration at the corresponding level. Local people's governments at different levels practise the system of overall responsibility by governors, mayors, county heads, district heads, township heads and town heads.

Article 106. The term of office of local people's governments at different levels is the same as that of the people's congresses at the corresponding level.

Article 107. Local people's governments at and above the county level, within the limits of their authority as prescribed by law, conduct the administrative work concerning the economy, education, science, culture, public health, physical culture, urban and rural development, finance, civil affairs, public security, nationalities affairs, judicial administration, supervision and family planning in their respective administrative areas; issue decisions and orders; appoint, remove and train administrative functionaries, appraise their work and reward or punish them. People's governments of townships, nationality townships and towns carry out the resolutions of the people's congress at the corresponding level as well as the decisions and orders of the state administrative organs at the next higher level and conduct administrative work in their respective administrative areas. People's governments of provinces and municipalities directly under the Central Government decide on the establishment and geographic division of townships, nationality townships and towns.

Article 108. Local people's governments at and above the county level direct the work of their subordinate departments and of people's governments at lower levels, and have the power to alter or annul inappropriate decisions of their subordinate departments and people's governments at lower levels.

Article 109. Auditing bodies are established by local people's governments at and above the county level. Local auditing bodies at different levels independently exercise their power to supervise through auditing in accordance with the law and are responsible to the people's government at the corresponding level and to the auditing body at the next higher level.

Article 110. Local people's governments at different levels are responsible, and report on their work, to people's congresses at the corresponding level. Local people's governments at and above the county level are responsible, and report on their work, to the standing committee of the people's congress at the corresponding level when the congress is not in session. Local people's governments at different levels are responsible, and report on their work, to the state administrative organs at the next higher level. Local people's governments at different levels throughout the country are state administrative organs under the unified leadership of the State Council and are subordinate to it.

Article 111. The residents' committees and villagers' committees established among urban and rural residents on the basis of their place of residence are mass organizations of self-management at the grass-roots level. The chairman, vice-chairmen and members of each residents' or villagers' committee are elected by the residents. The relationship between the residents' and villagers' committees and the grass-roots organs of state power is prescribed by law. The residents' and villagers' committees establish committees for people's mediation, public security, public health and other matters in order to manage public affairs and social services in their areas, mediate civil disputes, help maintain public order and convey residents' opinions and demands and make suggestions to the people's government.

SECTION 6. THE ORGANS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS AREAS

Article 112. The organs of self-government of national autonomous areas are the people's congresses and people's governments of autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties.

Article 113. In the people's congress of an autonomous region, prefecture or county, in addition to the deputies of the nationality or nationalities exercising regional autonomy in the administrative area, the other nationalities inhabiting the area are also entitled to appropriate representation. The chairmanship and vice- chairmenships of the standing committee of the people's congress of an autonomous region, prefecture or county shall include a citizen or citizens of the nationality or nationalities exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned.

Article 114. The administrative head of an autonomous region, prefecture or county shall be a citizen of the nationality, or of one of the nationalities, exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned.

Article 115. The organs of self-government of autonomous regions, prefectures and counties exercise the functions and powers of local organs of state as specified in Section V of Chapter Three of the Constitution. At the same time, they exercise the right of autonomy within the limits of their authority as prescribed by the Constitution, the law of regional national autonomy and other laws, and implement the laws and policies of the state in the light of the existing local situation.

Article 116. People's congresses of national autonomous areas have the power to enact autonomy regulations and specific regulations in the light of the political, economic and cultural characteristics of the nationality or nationalities in the areas concerned. The autonomy regulations and specific regulations of autonomous regions shall be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval before they go into effect. Those of autonomous prefectures and counties shall be submitted to the standing committees of the people's congresses of provinces or autonomous regions for approval before they go into effect, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record.

Article 117. The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas have the power of autonomy in administering the finances of their areas. All revenues accruing to the national autonomous areas under the financial system of the state shall be managed and used independently by the organs of self- government of those areas.

Article 118. The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas independently arrange for and administer local economic development under the guidance of state plans. In developing natural resources and building enterprises in the national autonomous areas, the state shall give due consideration to the interests of those areas.

Article 119. The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas independently administer educational, scientific, cultural, public health and physical culture affairs in their respective areas, sort out and protect the cultural legacy of the nationalities and work for the development and prosperity of their cultures.

Article 120. The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas may, in accordance with the military system of the state and concrete local needs and with the approval of the State Council, organize local public security forces for the maintenance of public order.

Article 121. In performing their functions, the organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas, in accordance with the autonomy regulations of the respective areas, employ the spoken and written language or languages in common use in the locality.

Article 122. The state gives financial, material and technical assistance to the minority nationalities to accelerate their economic and cultural development. The state helps the national autonomous areas train large numbers of cadres at different levels and specialized personnel and skilled workers of different professions and trades from among the nationality or nationalities in those areas.

SECTION 7. THE PEOPLE'S COURT AND THE PEOPLE'S PROCURATORATES

Article 123. The people's courts in the People's Republic of China are the judicial organs of the state.

Article 124. The People's Republic of China establishes the Supreme People's Court and the local people's courts at different levels, military courts and other special people's courts. The term of office of the President of the Supreme People's Court is the same as that of the National People's Congress; he shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. The organization of people's courts is prescribed by law.

Article 125. All cases handled by the people's courts, except for those involving special circumstances as specified by law, shall be heard in public. The accused has the right of defence.

Article 126. The people's courts shall, in accordance with the law, exercise judicial power independently and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, public organizations or individuals.

Article 127. The Supreme People's Court is the highest judicial organ. The Supreme People's Court supervises the administration of justice by the local people's courts at different levels and by the special people's courts; people's courts at higher levels supervise the administration of justice by those at lower levels.

Article 128. The Supreme People's Court is responsible to the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee. Local people's courts at different levels are responsible to the organs of state power which created them.

Article 129. The people's procuratorates of the People's Republic of China are state organs for legal supervision.

Article 130. The People's Republic of China establishes the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the local people's procuratorates at different levels, military procuratorates and other special people's procuratorates. The term of office of the Procurator-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate is the same as that of the National People's Congress; he shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. The organization of people's procuratorates is prescribed by law.

Article 131. People's procuratorates shall, in accordance with the law, exercise procuratorial power independently and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, public organizations or individuals.

Article 132. The Supreme People's Procuratorate is the highest procuratorial organ. The Supreme People's Procuratorate directs the work of the local people's procuratorates at different levels and of the special people's procuratorates; people's procuratorates at higher levels direct the work of those at lower levels.

Article 133. The Supreme People's Procuratorate is responsible to the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee. Local people's procuratorates at different levels are responsible to the organs of state power at the corresponding levels which created them and to the people's procuratorates at the higher level. Article 134. Citizens of all nationalities have the right to use the spoken and written languages of their own nationalities in court proceedings. The people's courts and people's procuratorates should provide translation for any party to the court proceedings who is not familiar with the spoken or written languages in common use in the locality. In an area where people of a minority nationality live in a compact community or where a number of nationalities live together, hearings should be conducted in the language or languages in common use in the locality; indictments, judgments, notices and other documents should be written, according to actual needs, in the language or languages in common use in the locality.

Article 135. The people's courts, people's procuratorates and public security organs shall, in handling criminal cases, divide their functions, each taking responsibility for its own work, and they shall co- ordinate their efforts and check each other to ensure correct and effective enforcement of law.

CHAPTER IV. THE NATIONAL FLAG, THE NATIONAL EMBLEM AND THE CAPITAL

Article 136. The national flag of the People's Republic of China is a red flag with five stars.

Article 137. The national emblem of the People's Republic of China is Tian'anmen in the centre illuminated by five stars and encircled by ears of grain and a cogwheel.

Article 138. The capital of the People's Republic of China is Beijing.

AMENDENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ONE
(Approved on April 12, 1988, by the 7th NPC at its 1st Session)

1. Article 11 of the Constitution shall include a new paragraph which reads: "The State permits the private sector of the economy to exist and develop within the limits prescribed by law. The private sector of the economy is a complement to the socialist public economy. The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the private sector of the economy, and exercises guidance, supervision and control over the private sector of the economy."

2. The fourth paragraph of Article 10 of the Constitution, which provides that "no organization or individual may appropriate, buy, sell or lease land or otherwise engage in the transfer of land by unlawful means," shall be amended as: "no organization or individual may appropriate, buy, sell or otherwise engage in the transfer of land by unlawful means. The right to the use of land may be transferred according to law."

AMENDMENT TWO
(Approved on March 29, 1993, by the 8th NPC at its 1st Session)

3. The last two sentences of the seventh paragraph of the Preamble which reads "The basic task of the nation in the years to come is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and follow the socialist road, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defense and science and technology step by step to turn China into a socialist country with a high level of culture and democracy," shall be amended as: "China is at the primary stage of socialism. The basic task of the nation is, according to the theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and follow the socialist road, persevere in reform and opening to the outside, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defense and science and technology step by step to turn China into a socialist country with prosperity and power, democracy and culture."

4. At the end of the tenth paragraph of the Preamble, add "The system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation led by the Communist Party of China will exist and develop in China for a long time to come."

5. article 7 which reads "The State economy is the sector of socialist economy under ownership by the whole people; it is the leading force in the national economy. The State ensures the consolidation and growth of the State economy," shall be changed to: "The State-owned economy, that is, the socialist economy under ownership by the whole people, is the leading force in the national economy. The State ensures the consolidation and growth of the State-owned economy."

6. The first item of Article 8 which reads "Rural people's communes, agricultural producers' cooperatives, and other forms of cooperative economy such as producers', supply and marketing, credit and consumers' cooperatives, belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately-owned livestock," shall be amended as: "Rural household-based contract responsibility system with remuneration linked to output, and other forms of cooperative economy such as producers', supply and marketing, credit and consumers' cooperatives, belong to the sector of socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately-owned livestock."

7. Article 15 which reads "The State practices economic planning on the basis of socialist public ownership. It ensures the proportionate and coordinated growth of the national economy through overall balancing by economic planning and the supplementary role of regulation by the market.

Disturbance of the orderly functioning of the social economy or disruption of the State economic plan by any organization or individual is prohibited," shall be changed to: "The state has put into practice a socialist market economy. The State strengthens formulating economic laws, improves macro adjustment and control and forbids according to law any units or individuals from interfering with the social economic order."

8. Article 16 which reads "State enterprises have decision-making power in operation and management within the limits prescribed by law, on condition that they submit to unified leadership by the State and fulfil and their obligations under the State plan.

State enterprises practice democratic management through congresses of workers and staff and in other ways in accordance with the law," shall be revised as: "Stated-owned enterprises have decision-making power in operation and management within the limits prescribed by law. State-owned enterprises practice democratic management through congresses of workers and staff and in other ways in accordance with the law."

9. Article 17 which reads "Collective economic organizations have decision-making power in conducting independent economic activities, on condition that they accept the guidance of the State plan and abide by the relevant laws.

Collective economic organizations practice democratic management in accordance with the law, with the entire body of their workers electing or removing their managerial personnel and deciding on major issues concerning operation and management", shall be amended as: "Collective economic organizations have decision-making power in conducting independent economic activities, on condition that they abide by the relevant laws. Collective economic organizations practice democratic management, elect or remove their managerial personnel and decide on major issue concerning operation and management according to law."

10. The their item of Article 42 which reads "Work is the glorious duty of every able-bodied citizen. All working people in State enterprises and in urban and rural economic collectives should perform their tasks with an attitude consonant with their status as masters of the country. The State promotes socialist labor emulation, and commends and rewards model and advanced workers. The state encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labor," shall be amended as: "Work is the glorious duty of every able-bodied citizen. All working people in State-owned enterprises and in urban and rural economic collectives should perform their tasks with an attitude consonant with their status as masters of the country. The State promotes socialist labor emulation, and commends and rewards model and advanced workers. The State encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labor."

11. Article 98 which reads "The term of office of the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts is five years. The term of office of the people's congresses of countries, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns is three years," shall be revised as: "The term of office of the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, counties, cities and municipal districts is five years. The term of office of the people's congresses of townships, nationality townships and towns is three years."

AMENDMENT THREE
(Approved on March 15, 1999, by the 9th NPC at its 2nd Session)

The original text of paragraph seven in the Preamble of the Constitution is: "Both the victory of China's new-democratic revolution and the successes of its socialist cause have been achieved by the Chinese people of all nationalities under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and by upholding truth, correcting errors and overcoming numerous difficulties and hardships. China is currently in the primary stage of socialism. The basic task of the nation is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization in accordance with the theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship, follow the socialist road, persist in reform and opening-up, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defense and science and technology step by step to turn China into a powerful and prosperous socialist country with a high level of culture and democracy."

It is revised into: "Both the victory of China's new-democratic revolution and the successes of its socialist cause have been achieved by the Chinese people of all nationalities under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and by upholding truth, correcting errors and overcoming numerous difficulties and hardships. China will stay in the primary stage of socialism for a long period of time. The basic task of the nation is to concentrate its efforts on socialist modernization by following the road of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship, follow the socialist road, persist in reform and opening-up, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop a socialist market economy, advance socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defense and science and technology step by step to turn China into a powerful and prosperous socialist country with a high level of culture and democracy."

One section is added to Article Five of the Constitution as the first section: "The People's Republic of China practices ruling the country in accordance with the law and building a socialist country of law."

The original text of Article Six of the Constitution is: "The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people." "The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work'."

It is revised into:"The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work'." "During the primary stage of socialism, the State adheres to the basic economic system with the public ownership remaining dominant and diverse sectors of the economy developing side by side, and to the distribution system with the distribution according to work remaining dominant and the coexistence of a variety of modes of distribution."

The original text of the first section in Article Eight of the Constitution is:"The rural household-based output-related contracted responsibility system and other forms of the cooperative economy such as producers', supply and marketing, credit and consumers' cooperatives belong to the sector of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately owned livestock."

It is revised into:"Rural collective economic organizations practice the double-tier management system that combines unified and separate operations on the basis of the household-based output-related contracted responsibility system. Various forms of the cooperative economy in rural areas such as producers', supply and marketing, credit and consumers' cooperatives belong to the sector of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people.

Working people who are members of rural economic collectives have the right, within the limits prescribed by law, to farm plots of cropland and hilly land allotted for private use, engage in household sideline production and raise privately owned livestock."

The original text of Article 11 of the Constitution is: "The individual economy of urban and rural working people, operating within the limits prescribed by law, is a complement to the socialist public economy. The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the individual economy." "The State guides, helps and supervises the individual economy by exercising administrative control." "The State permits the private economy to exist and develop within the limits prescribed by law. The private economy is a complement to the socialist public economy. The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the private economy, and guides, supervises and administers the private economy."

It is revised into: "Individual, private and other non-public economies that exist within the limits prescribed by law are major components of the socialist market economy." "The State protects the lawful rights and interests of individual and private economies, and guides, supervises and administers individual and private economies."

The original text of Article 28 of the Constitution is: "The State maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals."

It is revised into: "The State maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other criminal activities that endanger State security; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

AMENDMENT FOURTH
(Approved on March 14, 2004, by the 10th NPC at its 2nd Session)

1 "... along the road of building socialism with Chinese characteristics..." and "...under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory..."

Revised to: "... along the road of Chinese-style socialism..." and "...under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of 'Three Represents'..."

2 Seventh paragraph of the Preamble: After "... to modernize the industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology step by step..."

Is added: "... promote the co-ordinated development of the material, political and spiritual civilizations..."

3 The second sentence of the 10th paragraph of the Preamble: "In the long years of revolution and construction, there has been formed under the leadership of the Communist Party of China a broad patriotic united front that is composed of the democratic parties and people's organizations and embraces all socialist working people, all patriots who support socialism, and all patriots who stand for the reunification of the motherland. This united front will continue to be consolidated and developed."

After "... a broad patriotic united front that is composed of the democratic parties and people's organizations and embraces all socialist working people..." is added "... all builders of socialism, ..."

4 Third paragraph of Article 10: "The State may, in the public interest, requisition land for its use in accordance with the law."

Revised to: "The State may, in the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition land for its use and shall make compensation for the land expropriated or requisitioned."

5 Second paragraph of Article 11:"The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the individual and private sectors of the economy, and exercises guidance, supervision and control over individual and the private sectors of the economy."

Revised to: "The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the non-public sectors of the economy such as the individual and private sectors of the economy. The State encourages, supports and guides the development of the non-public sectors of the economy and, in accordance with law, exercises supervision and control over the non-public sectors of the economy."

6 Article 13: "The State protects the right of citizens to own lawfully earned income, savings, houses and other lawful property." and "The State protects according to law the right of citizens to inherit private property."

Revised to: "Citizens' lawful private property is inviolable" and "The State, in accordance with law, protects the rights of citizens to private property and to its inheritance" and "The State may, in the public interest and in accordance with law, expropriate or requisition private property for its use and shall make compensation for the private property expropriated or requisitioned."

7 Article 14 has a fourth paragraph added: "The State establishes a sound social security system compatible with the level of economic development."

8 Article 33 has a third paragraph added: "The State respects and preserves human rights."

9 The first paragraph of Article 59 is revised to: "The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected from the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government and of deputies elected from the armed forces. All the minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation."

Revised to: "The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected from the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the special administrative regions, and of deputies elected from the armed forces. All the minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation."

10 On "State of Emergency"

Subparagraph 20 of Article 67: "... to decide on the imposition of martial law throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government."

Revised to: "... to decide on entering the state of emergency throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government."

Article 80: "The President of the People's Republic of China ... proclaims martial law, ..."

Revised to: "... proclaims entering of the state of emergency, ..."

Subparagraph 16 of Article 89: "... to decide on the imposition of martial law in parts of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government..."

Revised to: "... in accordance with the provisions of law, to decide on entering the state of emergency in parts of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government..."

11 Article 81: "The President of the People's Republic of China receives foreign diplomatic representatives on behalf of the People's Republic of China."

Revised to: "The President of the People's Republic of China, on behalf of the People's Republic of China, engages in activities involving State affairs and receives foreign diplomatic representatives."

12 Article 98: "The term of office of people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, counties, cities and municipal districts is five years. The term of office of the people's congresses of townships, nationality townships and towns is three years."

Revised to: "The term of office of the local people's congresses at various levels is five years."

13 Provision on the National Anthem:

Title of Chapter IV: "The National Flag, the National Emblem and the Capital"

Revised to: "The National Flag, the National Anthem, the National Emblem and the Capital"

Article 136 has a second paragraph added: "The National Anthem of the People's Republic of China is the March of the Volunteers." (Updated on March 22, 2004)

Early Efforts to Establish an International Criminal Court

2010-11-11T04:42:00.000-08:00

Early Efforts to Establish an International Criminal Court

Over a period of many centuries, humanitarian principles regulating armed conflicts
evolved gradually in different civilizations. In the course of this historical evolution,
certain principles at first emerged which restricted what a combatant could
do during the conduct of war. As the laws of chivalry developed during the Middle
Ages in Western Europe, so did rules limiting the means and methods of conducting
war. Heraldic courts developed a code of chivalry that regulated a knight’s conduct
in battle and that Christian princes enforced in their courts. It was the beginning of
what became known as jus ad bellum. In time, the humanitarian principles formed
an inter-woven fabric of norms and rules designed to prevent certain forms of physical
harm and hardships from befalling non-combatants, as well as certain categories
of combatants such as the sick, wounded, shipwrecked and prisoners of war. As the
protective scheme of prescriptions and proscriptions increased both qualitatively and
quantitatively it’s more serious breaches were criminalized. With criminalization of
certain means and methods of warfare, customary international law recognized and
permitted belligerent states to prosecute enemy soldiers in their custody for breach
of the laws and customs of war.
The enforcement of modern international humanitarian law dates back to the
Middle Ages, when the first known war crimes trials were held. The first supranational
criminal tribunal to bring to justice someone responsible for what would today
be characterized as crimes against humanity was convened more than five centuries
ago. In 1474, an ad hoc criminal tribunal of 28 judges from different states allied to the
Roman Empire, tried and convicted Peter Von Hagenbach for murder, rape, perjury
and other crimes in violation of ‘the laws of God and man’ during his occupation of
the town of Breisach on behalf of Charles, the Duke of Burgundy, at a time when
there were no hostilities. Professor M C Bassiouni cites this as the ‘first documented
prosecution for initiating an unjust war’ and essentially as the first ad hoc international
criminal tribunal.
Though additional norms and rules were developed in intervening centuries
strengthening basic principles of humanity, it was to take another five centuries
before the concept of a supranational criminal tribunal was revisited. Until the 19th
century, the residual remains of chivalry, the non-binding theoretical treatises of the
publicists, and the slow accretions of customary law restraints derived from state
practice comprised the legal framework governing conduct in war. However, the
changing nature of warfare spurred by technological advancement and heightened
rivalries between newly consolidated nation-states, revealed the impotence of these
restraints and compelled their revision. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic
wars heralded the dawn of an epoch of unbridled ferocity and marked the birth ofthe nation-at-arms, in which entire populations and industrial bases were mobilized
in support of the war effort, blurring the combatant/non-combatant distinction and
jeopardizing any civilian claims to immunity.
As the modern international system developed in the 19th century and multilateralism
found its voice, efforts began to be made to increase the level of voluntary
compliance and to hold states responsible to the international community
for violations of certain international obligations.10 Unilateral political or military
retaliation and economic sanctions continued to be the main vehicles through which
states were censured for offensive conduct. It was the failure of this informal international
enforcement mechanism that led Gustave Moynier – one of the founders
of the International Committee of the Red Cross – to present a proposal to the
International Committee of the Red Cross calling for the establishment by treaty
of an international tribunal to enforce laws of war and other humanitarian norms
on 3 January 1872.11 Until Moynier suggested a permanent court, almost all trials for
violations of the laws of war were by ad hoc tribunals constituted by one of the belligerents
– usually the victor – rather than by ordinary courts or by an international
criminal court.
Gustave Moynier was not originally in favour of establishing an international
criminal court. Like many humanists of the era, Moynier shared the belief that engaging
reason through an appeal to emotion by gritty descriptions of individual suffering
would shock the public into humanitarian outrage and by extension pressure warring
states to adhere to humanitarian norms and rules.12 Indeed in his 1870 commentary on
the 1864 Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of wounded soldiers,13 he considered
whether an international criminal court should be created to enforce it. However
he rejected this approach in favour of relying on the pressure of public opinion, which
he thought would be sufficient. He noted that ‘a treaty was not a law imposed by a
superior authority on its subordinates (but) only a contract whose signatories cannot
decree penalties against themselves since there would be no one to implement them.
The only reasonable guarantee would lie in the creation of international jurisdiction
with the necessary power to compel obedience, but in this respect, the 1864 GenevaConvention shares an imperfection that is inherent in all treaties’.14 Nevertheless he
believed that public criticism of violations of the 1864 Geneva Convention would be
sufficient, observing that
because public opinion is ultimately the best guardian of the limits it has itself
imposed. The 1864 Geneva Convention in particular, is due to the influence of public
opinion on which we can rely to carry out the orders it has laid down ... The prospect
of those concerned of being arraigned before the tribunal of public conscience if
they do not keep to their commitments, and of being ostracized by civilized nations,
constitutes a powerful enough deterrent for us to believe ourselves correct in thinking
it better than any other.
He also hoped that each of the state parties to the 1864 Geneva Convention would
enact legislation imposing serious penalties for violations. He was to be disappointed
on both accounts.16 Several months after Moynier’s commentary, the Franco-Prussian
War broke out. Fundamentally, the origin of the war lay in a collision of national
interests. For the sake of Prussian (German) unification and expansion, Bismarck
had taken up the cause of German national self-determination whose fulfilment
was possible only at the cost of France. Since 1866, the French had dreaded the
consolidation of a powerful state on their northern frontier, at least without compensation
sufficient to preserve their own relative weight in the European balance.
These were the ingredients of an explosive compound. The catalyst which brought
them together was the abrupt announcement by Germany in the summer of 1870
that a Hohenzollern prince was to be king of Spain.17 Subsequent events created an
atmosphere in which reason and compromise were impossible by igniting nationalistic
passion in France and sweeping away the particularism and distrust of the two
Germanys in a flood of patriotic exaltation.18
On 15 July 1870, France keen to scuttle Bismarck’s unification ambitions and maintain
its preponderant political weight declared war on Germany. By early August,
the numerically and militarily superior Prussian forces had penetrated deeply into
French territory, and in early September, France’s principal army surrendered and
Emperor Napoleon III was captured. Paris fell in January 1871 (by which time the
armies of the French National Defence were largely destroyed), an armistice was
declared in late January, a preliminary peace was signed in February, and the final
peace treaty was signed in Frankfurt on 10 May 1871.19 The press and public opin-ion on both sides of that conflict fanned atrocities. Moynier was forced to recognize
that ‘a purely moral sanction’ was inadequate ‘to check unbridled passions’.20
Moreover, although both sides accused each other of violations, they failed to punish
those responsible or even to enact the necessary legislation. It was at this point that
Moynier developed his proposal for an international criminal court.
It was not surprising that the model for the new international criminal court
was the arbitral tribunal which had been established the year before in Geneva
pursuant to the Treaty of Washington of 8 May 1871 in order to decide claims by
the United States against Britain for damage caused to American shipping by the
Confederate raider, The Alabama.21 A major transformation of international relations
in this period, the rising tendency to settle international conflicts more frequently
than in former times by arbitration, seemed to have influenced Moynier in his conviction
of the efficacy of an international criminal court. Ostensibly, the numerous
arbitrations were a pointer that the international community was inching towards
formal adjudication mechanisms in the implementation of international law and a
rejection of war as a judicial procedure of last resort.22
In developing his proposal, Moynier examined in turn legislative, judicial and
executive powers related to criminal law before concluding that an international institution
was necessary to replace national courts. Since the states had been reluctant
to pass the criminal legislation which he believed that they were morally obligated,
as parties to the 1864 Geneva Convention,23 to enact in order to prevent violations, he
argued that the creation of an international criminal court was necessary. He did not
think that it was appropriate to leave judicial remedies to the belligerents because,
no matter how well respected the judges were, they would at any moment be subjected
to pressure.24
Moynier’s proposal for an international criminal court focused on creating a
formal enforcement mechanism responsible for coercive compliance. The device of a
criminal trial was to be the major way in which the enforcement of limitations and
obligations of international humanitarian law could be achieved. But for the international
justice system to work, the proposal needed the unequivocal co-operation
of states. States had to feel duty bound to discharge their international obligations.
Since law by its nature requires compliance, successful establishment of an inter-national penal process necessarily required that the dictates of the laws of war be
both respected and obeyed; in other words it would not work if states did not feel
obligated to comply. With states rooted in the traditional notion of state sovereignty
which enshrined the state’s supremacy and independence,25 the proposal was
doomed to failure.
Moynier’s proposal led to a flurry of letters from some of the leading experts in
international law of the day, including Francis Lieber, Achille Morin, de Holzendorff,
John Westlake and both Antonio Balbin de Unquera and Gregorio Robledo on
behalf of the Central Committee of the Red Cross of Spain.26 Although some of
these experts welcomed Moynier’s initiative to strengthen implementation of the 1864
Geneva Convention,27 most of them argued that the proposal to establish an international
criminal court would not be as effective as other methods and all were critical
of various aspects of the proposal. This cool reception was owing to the reality that
traditionally, enforcement of international law was based on an informal system, concentrating
on attempting to ensure the voluntary compliance of states rather than a
formal enforcement system. Given the cool reception by the legal experts, no government
publicly took up the proposal and thus its death without mourners or honour.28
The next significant event for international humanitarian law in this period did
not occur until almost three decades after Moynier’s proposal. Technological and
industrial advances which pointed to a major change in the face of warfare led to
the epochal Hague Peace Conference. In 1899, European Powers assembled for the
first International Peace Conference of The Hague to discuss comprehensively the
codification of the laws of war resulting in the ground breaking Hague Conventions
on warfare with the key aim of arms limitation. A second conference was convened
eight years later to revise the conventions emanating from the 1899 effort and to further
broaden the scope of international humanitarian law.
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, through a number of rules on
the means and methods of warfare, established regular means for the pacific settlement
of disputes to allow parties to step back from the brink of war, applicable if and
when war broke out.29 The Hague Conferences and their movement towards pacificsettlement of disputes marked the beginning of the attempts to limit the right of
war both as an instrument of law and as a legally recognized means for the changing
of legal rights.30 The elevation of inter-state and regional relations into international
relations in the context of an international legal system was marked by the adoption
of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which sought to codify universal rules
and norms regarding warfare binding on state parties and also opened the doors to
an era of arms control.31 Laws regulating the means and methods of warfare drafted
at The Hague Conference formed the bedrock of modern laws of war, and are generally
considered by international law scholars to be the crowning achievement of the
effort to humanize war through law.
2.The Path to the Treaty of Versailles
The first major effort to curb international crimes through international penal process
arose after World War I. In 1914, Europe, divided by competing military alliances,
was a powder keg waiting to explode. The fuse was lit when a Serbian nationalist
assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the bridge at Sarajevo. Lacking
any institution with authority to maintain peace, the disputing parties had no choice
but to call upon their allies and resort to force. Without effective international law,
the only alternative was war. By the time the war ended, tens of millions of soldiers
and civilians lay dead or wounded. The total cost in human life was estimated at 22
million dead and eight million casualties. In monetary terms, the war cost 202 billion
dollars, with property destroyed in the war topping 56 billion dollars.32 Of the civilian
death toll, Turkey was the leading perpetrator, massacring between one and two
million Armenians, Greeks and Syrians, accounting for about fifty percent of the
total civilian toll of the entire war.33 All hearts cried out for a more peaceful world.
Reconciliation could not even begin without first bringing to justice those individuals
whose unconscionable atrocities had violated ‘the laws of humanity’ and who had
been responsible as the authors of the war and ‘for supreme offences against international
morality and sanctity of treaties.’34
The devastation of the war provided a catalyst for the first serious attempt in
modern times at international justice. Expectations ran high in 1919. World War Ihad evoked revulsion of war and the logic of realpolitik that rationalized great-power
rivalry, arm races, secret alliances, and balance-of-power politics. The experience led
the policymakers gathered at the Paris peace talks at the Versailles Palace to re-evaluate
assumptions about the rules of statecraft and to search for substitute principles
for building a new world order. The policy-makers at Paris desired that their deliberations
crystallize in policies rooted in the idealism of liberal international relations
theory. The problem was not just to build a peace, but to construct a peaceful
international order that would successfully manage all international conflicts of the
future.35 Idealists also advocated bringing State sovereign excesses under the jurisdiction
of international law through international penal process and the promotion
of international justice.
In a dramatic break with the past, and in a bid to build a normative foundation
of human dignity, the chaos and destruction of the war gave rise to a yearning for
peace and a popular backlash against impunity for atrocity. The war provoked criticism
by many of both the outrageous behaviour by a government towards its own
citizens (Turkey) and aggression against other nations (Germany). Both types of
atrocity evoked demands for increased respect for humanity and the maintenance of
peace. The devastation of the war provided a catalyst for the first serious attempt to
crack the Westphalian notion of sovereignty. This dramatic new attitude was encapsulated
in the enthusiasm for extending criminal jurisdiction over sovereign States
(Germany and Turkey) with the aim of apprehension, trial and punishment of individuals
guilty of committing atrocities under the rubric of ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes
against humanity’. The peace treaties of Versailles and Sevres36 envisaged liability
for individuals even if their crimes were committed in the name of their States.
However, the emerging commitment to human dignity was to be first derailed and
then swept aside by resurgent nationalistic ambitions brewed in the cauldron of sovereignty
and distilled by politics.
The Paris Peace Conference was the centre point of post-World War I efforts
to not only redefine international relations, but also to resolve Europe’s prevalent
militarism and imperialism through a series of negotiated treaties. The Paris Peace
Conference’s activities were extensive attempting to resolve virtually all points of
concern at the international level; from redrawing boundaries, granting mandates,
crafting reparations bills to dismantling empires through the recognition of nations
as independent States.37 Importantly, the Paris Peace Conference was the forumwithin whose framework, the issue of judicial accountability for the atrocities was
addressed. The Conference spawned the Allied Commission on the Responsibility
of the War and on the Enforcement of Penalties (Allied Commission).
The Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of War and on
Enforcement of Penalties was charged with an onerous responsibility. It held closed
meetings for two months and conducted intensive investigations.38 This work was
supposed to culminate in the charging of named individuals for specific war crimes.
Besides German responsibility for the war and its breaches of the laws and customs
of war, the commission also sought to charge Turkish officials and other individuals
for ‘crimes against the laws of humanity’39 based on the so-called Martens Clause
contained in the Preamble of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV).40 That clause states:
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting
Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations
adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection
and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages
established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of
the public conscience.41
The Commission examined, among other offences, ‘barbarous and illegitimate
methods of warfare.’ This included the category of ‘offences against the laws and
customs of war, and the principles of humanity,’ which the French representative of
the Third Sub-Commission,42 Larnaude, insisted was ‘absolutely’ necessary to ensure
human rights.43 The Allied Commission proceeded in its investigation according tothe terms of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV).44 This Convention, part of the 1907
Second Hague Peace Conference package, was intended to give ‘a fresh development
to the humanitarian principles [towards] evolving a lofty conception of the common
welfare of humanity.’45
It was in this context that Nicolas Politis, a member of the commission and Foreign
Minister of Greece, proposed the adoption of a new category of war crimes meant to
cover the massacres committed by Turkey against its minority Armenian population
by, declaring: ‘Technically these acts [the Armenian Massacres] did not come within
the provisions of the penal code, but they constituted grave offences against the law
of humanity.’46 The majority of the commission hesitatingly concurred with Politis.47
A 5 March 1919 report by the commission specified the following violations against
civilian populations as falling within the purview of grave offences against the laws
of humanity: systematic terror; murders and massacres; dishonouring of women;
confiscation of private property; pillage; seizing of goods belonging to communities,
educational establishments and charities; arbitrary destruction of public and private
goods; deportation and forced labour; execution of civilians under false allegations of
war crimes; and violations against civilians as well as military personnel.48
The American and Japanese representatives on the Commission however,
objected to several key aspects of the Allied Commission’s report.49 The rest of the
Commission rejected the American (and Japanese) opposition, and insisted on the
insertion of penal responsibility provisions in the eventual peace treaty. Having overruled
its chairman Robert Lansing (the United States’ Secretary of State), a large
majority of the Commission agreed that at the next renewal of the armistice the
Germans should be required to deliver certain war criminals and also relevant documents;
furthermore, Allied commanders in occupied territory should be ordered tosecure such wanted persons as lived in regions under their control.
The Commission’s final report dated 29 March 1919 concluded that the war had
been premeditated by Austro-Hungary and Germany; that they had deliberately
violated the neutrality of Belgium and Luxembourg; that they had committed massive
violations of the laws and customs of war;50 and determined that ‘rank, however
exalted’, including heads of state, should not protect the holder of it from personal
responsibility.51 The Commission also recommended the establishment of an international
court composed of representatives of victors to try certain categories of
offences, but specifically recommended against charging anyone with the offence of
making aggressive war.52
In addition, the Commission’s final report, also spoke of ‘the clear dictates of
humanity’ which were abused ‘by the Central Empires together with their allies,
Turkey and Bulgaria, by barbarous or illegitimate methods’ including ‘the violation
of ... the laws of humanity.’ The report concluded that ‘all persons belonging to
enemy countries ... who have been guilty of offences against the laws and customs of
war or the laws of humanity, are liable to criminal prosecution.’53 Prompted by the
Belgian jurist Rolin Jaequemeyns, the Commission included, albeit did not sharply
highlight, the crimes which Turkey was accused of having perpetrated against her
Armenian citizens.54 It concluded that ‘[e]very belligerent has, according to international
law, the power and authority to try the individuals alleged to be guilty of [war
crimes] ... if such persons have been taken prisoners or have otherwise fallen into itspower,’55 and recommended that any peace treaty provide for an international tribunal
to prosecute war criminals.56 The commission proffered a series of acts deemed
war crimes which were subsequently codified into international law.57 The acts were
grouped into four categories: (1) offences committed in prison camps against civilians
and soldiers of the Allies; (2) offences committed by officials who issued orders
in the German campaign against Allied armies; (3) offences committed by all persons
of authority, including the German Kaiser, who failed to stop violations of laws
and customs of war despite knowledge of those acts; and (4) any other offences committed
by the Central Powers that national courts should not be allowed to adjudicate.
58
The work of the commission was to feature prominently in the subsequent treaties
of peace negotiated by the representatives of the Allies and those of Germany and
Turkey. In a dramatic break with past precedence, the peace treaties were to contain
penal provisions as opposed to blanket amnesties characteristic of past instruments.
Much of the debate among the Allies addressed issues concerning the prosecution
of Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II, German war criminals, and Turkish officials for
‘crimes against the laws of humanity.’59 However, because of serious disagreement
among the Allies on the desirability of a war crimes tribunal, the recommendations
of the Commission were to be subsequently incorporated only to a limited extent
into the peace treaties of Versailles and Sevres.60
After much compromise, the Allied representatives finally agreed on the terms
of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (Peace
Treaty of Versailles), concluded at Versailles on 28 June 1919.61 Besides other impor-tant matters including reparations, the treaty in Article 227 provided for the creation
of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to prosecute Kaiser Wilhelm II for
initiating the war.62 It further provided in Articles 228 and 229 for the prosecution of
German military personnel accused of violating the laws and customs of war before
Allied Military Tribunals or before the Military Courts of any of the Allies.63
3. Beyond the Treaty of Versailles
The limited incorporation of the recommendations of the Allied Commission with
regard to penal provisions was to prove fatal because the treaty provisions pertaining
to war crimes ultimately proved inadequate in the post-war political context.64
The attempt to try war criminals failed for a number of reasons, including: the enormity
of the undertaking; deficiencies in international law and in the specific provisions
of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which proved to be unworkable; the failure of
the Allies to present a united front to the Germans and to take strong measures to
enforce the treaty; and strong German nationalism. The victors’ lack of control over
affairs within Germany ultimately defeated the Allied attempt to bring accused war
criminals to justice.65
Subsequently, the two major provisions of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, Articles
227 and 228, were not implemented as geopolitical considerations dominated thepost-World War I era. Regarding prosecution of the Kaiser under Article 227, the
Allies blamed the Netherlands government for its refusal to extradite him and some
saw this as a way to avoid establishing a tribunal pursuant to Article 227. The Allies
were not ready to create the precedent of prosecuting a head of state for a new international
crime. Indeed, this was evident in the choice of words used by the Allies in
drafting Article 227, authored primarily by representatives of Great Britain:
The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II of Hohenzollern,
formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality
and the sanctity of treaties. A special tribunal will be constituted to try the accused,
thereby assuring him the guarantees essential to the right of defence ... In its decision
the tribunal will be guided by the highest motives of international policy, with
a view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the
validity of international morality ... The Allied and Associated Powers will address
a request to the Government of the Netherlands for the surrender to them of the
ex-Emperor in order that he may be put on trial.66
Considering that the text of Article 227 does not refer to a known international
crime, but defines the purported crime of aggression in a manner more analogous to
a ‘political’ crime, the Dutch government had a valid legal basis to reject the Allies’
attempt to secure the surrender of the Kaiser for trial. Article 227, quite possibly, was
intended to fail. It offered a concession to the European masses, who saw the Kaiser
as an ogre of war, and to the French and Belgian Governments, who wanted to
humiliate Germany for initiating the war. Additionally, the notion of prosecuting the
Kaiser troubled many. In particular, the British67 (and obviously some of the Allies)
feared that their Heads of State could be exposed to similar risks, thus subverting
one of the cardinal tenets of international law – sovereign immunity.
As for the prosecutions intended by Articles 228 and 229, protracted political
tussles resulted in a lengthy delay. By 1921 when the provisions finally got a realistic
chance for implementation, the zest of the Allies to set up joint or even separate
military tribunals had waned, and new developments in Europe required that
Germany not be further humiliated. Though crimes against humanity were not ultimately
included in the list of offences drawn up by the commission,68 largely due
to objections by the United States and Japan,69 nevertheless, by 1920, the Allies hadcompiled a list of approximately 20,000 Germans who were to be investigated for
war crimes.70 These crimes included torture, use of human shields, rape, and the torpedoing
of hospital ships by German submarines.71 While there is no question that
these terrible crimes were covered by the international law of armed conflict as it
then existed, the Allies were apprehensive of trying so many German officials and
personnel as this posed a political problem for the Allies. After all, Germany was
trying to reconstruct and the extensive trials might jeopardize the stability of the
already vulnerable Weimar Republic and expose it to revolutionary Bolshevik influence.
72 ‘Many politicians argued against prosecution, preferring instead to look to the
future.’73 However, since many of these crimes were truly heinous, complete freedom
from prosecution was also unacceptable. An alternative solution was therefore proposed.
Instead of setting up an international tribunal, Germany would conduct the
prosecutions. An agreement was thus made, allowing the German government to
prosecute a limited number of war criminals before the Supreme Court of Germany
(Reichsgericht) in Leipzig instead of establishing an Allied Tribunal, as provided for
in Article 228.
In response to the Allied request to undertake prosecutions, Germany, which
had previously passed a national law to implement provisions of Articles 228 and 229
of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, passed new legislation to assume jurisdiction under
its national laws in order to prosecute accused offenders before its Supreme Court,
sitting at Leipzig as a way of placating public opinion in the Allied countries. Under
German law, the Procurator General of the Supreme Court had the right to decide
which cases would be brought to trial.74 By refusing to surrender German nationals
to the Allies for trial, the German government virtually repudiated Article 228
of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which stipulated such a surrender. Field Marshal von
der Goltz’s scornful declaration that ‘[t]he world must realize that ... no catchpoll
shall hand Germans over to the Allies,’75 was symptomatic of the powerful resistance
among Germans to which the Allies eventually succumbed. The outcome of
the Leipzig proceedings was dismal by any standard of retributive justice. The original
list of 20,000 names was whittled down by the Allies to 896 cases.76 Of this, 884suspects were either acquitted or summarily dismissed. Only twelve trials were held;
half resulted in acquittals and half in convictions with light sentences. Allied disappointment
at the popular exaltation of the defendants and subversion of justice led
the Allies to appoint a Commission of Allied Jurists to examine the effect of the
popular response on the proceedings. The Commission unanimously recommended
to the Supreme Council that the Leipzig trials be suspended and the remaining
defendants be tried before Allied Courts. Its recommendations however failed to
yield the desired results.77
Nine months after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Versailles,78 a treaty of
peace was presented to Turkey on 11 May 1920. It was signed on 10 August at Sevres.79
Based on the recommendations of the 1919 Allied Commission on the Responsibilities
of the Authors of War and on Enforcement of Penalties, several articles stipulating
the trial and punishment of those responsible for the Armenian genocide were incorporated
into the Peace Treaty of Sevres.80 Under Article 226, ‘the Turkish government
recognized the right of trial and punishment by the Allied Powers, ‘notwithstanding
any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Turkey.’81 Moreover, Turkey was
obligated to surrender ‘all persons accused of having committed an act in violation
of the laws and customs of war, who are specified either by name or by rank, office
or employment which they held under Turkish authorities.’82 Under Article 230 of
the peace treaty, Turkey was further obligated to hand over to the Allied Powers the
persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the
massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory whichformed part of the Turkish Empire on 1 August 1914. The Allied powers reserved to
themselves the right to designate the tribunal which would try the persons so accused,
and the Turkish government was obligated to recognize such a tribunal.83 The Peace
Treaty of Sevres, therefore, provided for international adjudication of the crimes perpetrated
by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians during World War I.
The Turkish response to the demand by the Allies for the surrender of arrested
criminal suspects for trial before an international tribunal or inter-allied tribunal
paralleled the German response. Not only did the Foreign Minister of the Istanbul
government object to surrendering Turkish nationals to the Allies, but Mustafa
Kemal, the head of the antagonistic Ankara government, rejected the very idea of
‘recognizing a kind of right of jurisdiction on the part of a foreign government over
the acts of a Turkish subject in the interior of Turkey herself.’84 In the end, the penal
provisions enshrined in the Peace Treaty of Sevres were to prove to be an empty,
hollow threat. With the effort at international penal process dead, the attention now
shifted to the Special Turkish Military Tribunal that was investigating war crimes
committed against the Armenians.
Ultimately, the resulting courts-martial proved a judicial fiasco, confirming
once again that a nation-state can rarely be expected to indict and convict itself.85
Despite the fact that the Istanbul trials tried dozens of defendants86 as opposed to
the dozen at Leipzig, both outcomes were rather uninspiring. Though the Turkish
trials were successful in documenting the crimes that had been committed against
the Armenian people, they failed dismally, however, in punishing the war criminals.
At the abrupt ending of the Turkish courts-martial, only three minor officials were
executed.87 Significantly though, the fact that even these three officials were foundguilty and executed, encapsulated the shift in international justice from impunity to
retributive justice. Another significant feature of the Turkish domestic process was
that the Turkish authorities did invoke norms concerning the laws of humanity and
crimes against humanity to justify the prosecution and punishment of the Turkish
war criminals.88
The greatest milestone by the Turkish Courts-Martial was made in its verdict
at the end of the Yozgat trial series. The Tribunal asserted that the perpetrators had
violated the principle of ‘human sentiments’ [hissiyat-l insaniye].89 These invocations,
which went beyond Turkish municipal law and possess attributes of international
law, may best be explained as attempts to apply a general principle of law that recognises
certain crimes against humanity that need not be criminalised by domestic
statute in order to be punishable.90 Although ultimately ineffectual, the prosecution
of the Turkish leaders implicated in the Armenian genocide before Turkish Courts
Martial, which resulted in a series of indictments, verdicts and sentences, was of
extraordinary, though unrecognised, significance. For the first time in history, deliberate
mass murder was designated ‘a crime under international law,’91 and adjudicated
in accordance with international norms within the ambit of a domestic penal
code, thus substituting national laws for the rules of international law.
The Leipzig and Istanbul trials exemplified the sacrifice of justice on the altars
of international and domestic politics.92 The treaties commitment to try and punish
offenders if Germany and Turkey failed to do so was never carried out. The political
leaders of the major powers of that time were more concerned with ensuring the
future peace of Europe than pursuing justice.93 Indeed, it was a common belief that
World War I was ‘the war to end all wars,’ and that the League of Nations wouldusher a new world order that would prevent future wars.94
The League of Nations represented an ambitious move to curb sovereign military
excesses and guarantee world peace. It was during its chequered existence that two
issues of significance which continue to plague the international community crept
into the international agenda – terrorism and the limitation on the use of military
force. With the formation of the League of Nations, the freedom of states to resort
to military force became more and more restricted. The right of self-defence gained
in significance displacing the expansive right of self-preservation. It was, however,
the matter of terrorism rather than the aggressive use of force that would generate
mild but renewed interest in the establishment of an International Criminal Court.
The birth of modern terrorism during the French Revolution represented practices
of mass repression employed by the state, before metamorphosing into a revolutionary
mechanism in the late 19th to early 20th century.95 By the 1930s, modern
terrorism had undergone a rebirth to re-emerge in its original form.96 It was now used
less to refer to revolutionary movements and violence directed against governments
and their leaders, and more to describe the practices of mass repression employed by
totalitarian states and their authoritarian leaders against their own citizens.
Despite the rebirth of terror as an intrinsic component of Fascist and Nazi governance,
it remained an integral operational component of many shadowy, Radićal
organizations in various parts of Europe. In the face of lack of ample military power
or political legitimacy various Radićal nationalist organizations used terrorism as a
major instrument in their overall strategy. It was through the actions of these groups
that terrorism came to the League (and international) agenda amidst a background
of the undermining of the collective security regime which the League had as the
central pivot to curb aggression and other unwarranted uses of force.
On 9 October 1934, Mussolini, Italy’s fascist leader told cheering masses at thePiazza del Duomo in Milano amidst a forest of green-white-red flags and Fascist
standards, that the failure of Italy’s wartime Allies to concede to Italy her rightful
place in the sun after World War I was a grave mistake.97 Importantly, the speech had
an edge against Yugoslavia: ‘We cannot maintain a passive attitude toward neighbouring
countries. Our attitude is either friendly or hostile toward them.’ On the
same day that the Mussolini made the speech, a double assassination was committed
in Marseille: King Alexander I of Yugoslavia and Jean Louis Barthou, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of France, were killed by fanatic Croatian assassins98 from the
Ustaši, the terrorist and extreme nationalist Croatian fascist organization.99
The most important consequence of the double assassination was that terrorism
became an active and emotive concern for the international system. This induced the
League of Nations in 1937 to adopt the first convention on terrorism the Convention
for the prevention and punishment of terrorism.100 Simultaneously, a convention for
the creation of an international criminal court to enforce the terrorism convention
was presented for adoption and ratification. Twenty-four states became signatories
to the terrorism Convention, though it is telling that only one state, India, ratified it.
The Criminal Court Convention did not receive a single ratification!101
Naturally in the volatile and charged nationalistic and militaristic atmosphere
in Europe at the time, terrorism was not viewed as a separate generic issue that
demanded attention in the same way that attempting to preserve the crumbling collective
security regime and/or reinforce military alliances was. In any case Europe
(and the world) was already heading down the slippery slope of excessive state hegemonic
ambition that would lead to World War II in less than three years.
The weak processes of international criminal justice following World War I and
the dysfunctional collective regime of the League of Nations not only failed to deter
the military leaders who initiated World War I, but enhanced their cynicism. It
was to take another round of carnage and destruction in World War II before the
international community broke through the bastions of State sovereignty to make
individuals responsible before international tribunals for their own violations of
international criminal law at the international military tribunals at Nuremberg and
Tokyo Tribunals.

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Southern Rhodesia) (November 11, 1965)

2010-11-11T04:17:00.000-08:00

The Unilateral Declaration of
Independence (Southern Rhodesia)
(November 11, 1965)

Whereas in the course of human affairs history has shown that
it may become necessary for a people to resolve the political affiliations
which have connected them with another people and
to assume amongst other nations the separate and equal status
to which they are entitled:
And whereas in such event a respect for the opinions of
mankind requires them to declare to other nations the causes
which impel them to assume full responsibility for their own
affairs:
Now therefore, we, the Government of Rhodesia, do hereby
declare:
That it is an indisputable and accepted historic fact that since
1923 the Government of Rhodesia have exercised the powers
of self-government and have been responsible for the progress,
development and welfare of their people;
That the people of Rhodesia having demonstrated their loyalty
to the Crown and to their kith and kin in the United Kingdom
and elsewhere through two world wars, and having prepared
to shed their blood and give of what their substance in
they believed to be the mutual interests of freedom-loving people,
now see all that they have cherished, about to be shattered
on the rocks of expediency;
That the people of Rhodesia have witnessed a process which
is destructive of those very precepts upon which civilization in
a primitive country has been built; they have seen the principles
of Western democracy, responsible government and moral
standards crumble elsewhere; nevertheless they have remained
steadfast;

That the people of Rhodesia fully support the requests of
their Government for sovereign independence but have witnessed
the consistent refusal of the Government of the United
Kingdom to accede to their entreaties;
That the Government of the United Kingdom have thus
demonstrated that they are not prepared to grant sovereign independence
to Rhodesia on terms acceptable to the people of
Rhodesia, thereby persisting in maintaining an unwarrantable
jurisdiction over Rhodesia, obstructing laws and treaties with
other states and the conduct of affairs with other nations and
refusing assent to laws necessary for the public good; all this to
the detriment of the future peace, prosperity and good government
of Rhodesia;
That the Government of Rhodesia have for a long period patiently
and in good faith negotiated with the Government of the
United Kingdom for the removal of the remaining limitations
placed upon them and for the grant of sovereign independence;
That in the belief that procrastination and delay strike at and
injure the very life of the nation, the Government of Rhodesia
consider it essential that Rhodesia should attain, without delay,
sovereign independence, the justice of which is beyond question;
Now therefore, we, the Government of Rhodesia, in humble
submission to Almighty God who controls the destinies of nations,
conscious that the people of Rhodesia have always shown
unswerving loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty the Queen and
earnestly praying that we and the people of Rhodesia will not
be hindered in our determination to continue exercising our
undoubted right to demonstrate the same loyalty and devotion,
and seeking to promote the common good so that the dignity
and freedom of all men may be assured, do, by this Proclamation,
adopt, enact and give to the people of Rhodesia the Constitution
annexed hereto.
God save the Queen.
Given under Our Hand at Salisbury, this eleventh day of November
in The Year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-five.
Source: Independence Documents of the World, ed. Albert P. Blaustein, Jay Sigler,
and Benjamin R. Beede, 2 vols. (New York, 1977), II, 587.

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948)

2010-11-11T04:14:00.000-08:00

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
(May 14, 1948)

ERETZ ISRAEL* was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here
their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here
they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national
and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal
Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept
faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to
pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it
of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews
strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves
in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in
their masses. Pioneers, ma’pilim† and defenders, they made
deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and
towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own
economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend
itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants,
and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
* The Land of Israel.
† Immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation.
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father
of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist
Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people
to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the
2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the
League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction
to the historic connection between the Jewish people and
Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its
National Home.
The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people—
the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe—was another clear
demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its
homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State,
which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every
Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fullyprivileged
member of the comity of nations.
Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews
from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-
Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and
never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom
and honest toil in their national homeland.
In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this
country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom-
and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wick-
edness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort,
gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who
founded the United Nations.
On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General
Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a
Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the
inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary
on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This
recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish
people to establish their State is irrevocable.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters
of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign
State.
Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representatives
of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the
Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination
of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of
our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution
of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare
the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known
as the State of Israel.
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the
termination of the Mandate, being tonight, the eve of Sabbath,
the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of
the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with
the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent
Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s
Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its
executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional
Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.
The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and
for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development
of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based
on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of
Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political
rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex;
it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education
and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions;
and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of
the United Nations.
The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies
and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the
resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November,
1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of
the whole of Eretz-Israel.
We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people
in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel
into the comity of nations.
We appeal—in the very midst of the onslaught launched
against us now for months—to the Arab inhabitants of the State
of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of
the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation
in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their
peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal
to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help
with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The
State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for
the advancement of the entire Middle East.
We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora
to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration
and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle
for the realization of the age-old dream—the redemption of
Israel.
Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to
this proclamation at this session of the Provisional Council of
State, on the soil of the homeland, in the city of Tel-Aviv, on
this Sabbath eve, the 5th day of Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).
Source: Independence Documents of the World, ed. Albert P. Blaustein, Jay Sigler,
and Benjamin R. Beede, 2 vols. (New York, 1977), I, 371.

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam (September 2, 1945)

2010-11-11T04:08:00.000-08:00

Declaration of Independence of the
Democratic Republic of Viet Nam
(September 2, 1945)

All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of
Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a
broader sense, this means: All the peoples on earth are equal
from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and
free.
The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on
the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: “All men are born
free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and
have equal rights.”
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists,
abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,
have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens.
Their have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every
democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three
distinct political regimes in the North, the Centre and the
South of Viet Nam in order to wreck our national unity and
prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly
slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in
rivers of blood.
They have fettered public opinion; they have practised obscurantism
against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone,
impoverished our people and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our ricefields, our mines, our forests
and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of
bank-notes and the export trade.
They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced
our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme
poverty.
They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie;
they have mercilessly exploited our workers.
In the autumn of 1940 when the Japanese fascists violated
Indo-China’s territory to establish new bases in their fight
against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their
bended knees and handed over our country to them.
Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double
yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and
miseries increased. The result was that from the end of last
year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri province to
the North of Viet Nam, more than two millions of our fellowcitizens
died from starvation. On the 9th of March, the French
troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists
either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable
of “protecting” us, but that, in the span of five years,
they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.
On several occasions before the 9th of March, the Viet Minh
League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the
Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists
so intensified their terrorist activities against the Viet
Minh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number
of our political prisoners at Yen Bay and Cao Bang.
Notwithstanding all this, our fellow-citizens have always
manifested towards the French a tolerant and humane attitude.
Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Viet Minh
League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued
some of them from Japanese jails and protected French lives
and property.
From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to
be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.
After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole
people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the
Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.
The truth is that we have wrested our independence from
the Japanese and not from the French.
The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor
Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the
chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have
won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same
time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned
supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established
the present Democratic Republic.
For these reasons we, members of the Provisional Government,
representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that
from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character
with France; we repeal all the international obligation that
France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet Nam and we
abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired
in our Fatherland.
The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose,
are determined to fight to the bitter end against any
attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.
We are convinced that the Allied nations which at Teheran
and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination
and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge
the independence of Viet Nam.
A people who have courageously opposed French domination
for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side
by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last
years, such a people must be free and independent.
For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government
of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, solemnly declare
to the world that Viet Nam has the right to be a free and
independent country—and in fact it is so already. The entire
Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical
and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in
order to safeguard their independence and liberty.
Source: Ho Chi Minh, Selected Works, 4 vols. (Hanoi, 1960–1962), III, 17–21.

2010-11-11T04:02:00.000-08:00

Declaration of Independence of
the Czechoslovak Nation
(October 18, 1918)

At this grave moment, when the Hohenzollerns are offering
peace in order to stop the victorious advance of the Allied armies
and to prevent the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary
and Turkey, and when the Habsburgs are promising the federalization
of the Empire and autonomy to the dissatisfied nationalities
committed to their rule, we, the Czechoslovak National
Council, recognized by the Allied and American Governments
as the Provisional Government of the Czechoslovak State and
Nation, in complete accord with the declaration of the Czech
Deputies made in Prague on January 6, 1918, and realizing that
federalization, and still more, autonomy, mean nothing under a
Habsburg dynasty, do hereby make and declare this our Declaration
of Independence.
We do this because of our belief that no people should be
forced to live under a sovereignty they do not recognize, and
because of our knowledge and firm conviction that our nation
cannot freely develop in a Habsburg mock-federation, which is
only a new form of the denationalizing oppression under which
we have suffered for the past three hundred years.We consider
freedom to be the first pre-requisite for federalization, and believe
that the free nations of Central and Eastern Europe may
easily federate should they find it necessary.
We make this declaration on the basis of our historic and
natural right.We have been an independent state since the seventh
century; and, in 1526, as an independent state, consisting
of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, we joined with Austria and
Hungary in a defensive union against the Turkish danger. We
have never voluntarily surrendered our rights as an independent
state in this confederation. The Habsburgs broke their
compact with our nation by illegally transgressing our rights
and violating the Constitution of our state which they had
pledged themselves to uphold, and we therefore refuse longer
to remain a part of Austria-Hungary in any form.
We claim the right of Bohemia to be re-united with her
Slovak brethren of Slovakia, once part of our national state,
later torn from our national body, and fifty years ago incorporated
into the Hungarian state of the Magyars, who, by their
unspeakable violence and ruthless oppression of their subject
races have lost all moral and human right to rule anybody but
themselves.
The world knows the history of our struggle against the
Habsburg oppression, intensified and systematized by the
Austro-Hungarian Dualistic Compromise of 1867. This dualism
is only a shameless organization of brute force and exploitation
of the majority by the minority; it is a political conspiracy of
the Germans and Magyars against our own as well as the other
Slav and the Latin nations of the Monarchy. The world knows
the justice of our claims, which the Habsburgs themselves dared
not deny. Francis Joseph, in the most solemn manner repeatedly
recognized the sovereign rights of our nation. The Germans
and Magyars opposed this recognition, and Austria-Hungary,
bowing before the Pan-Germans, became a colony of
Germany, and as her vanguard to the east, provoked the last
Balkan conflict, as well as the present world-war, which was begun
by the Habsburgs alone without the consent of the representatives
of the people.
We cannot and will not continue to live under the rule—direct
or indirect—of the violators of Belgium, France, and Serbia,
the would-be murderers of Russia and Rumania, the murderers
of tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers of our
blood, and the accomplices in numberless unspeakable crimes
committed in this war against humanity by the two degenerate
and irresponsible dynasties.We will not remain a part of a State
which has no justification for existence, and which, refusing to
accept the fundamental principles of modern world-organization,
remains only an artificial and immoral political structure,
hindering every movement toward democratic and social progress.
The Habsburg dynasty, weighed down by a huge inheritance
of error and crime, is a perpetual menace to the peace of
the world, and we deem it our duty toward humanity and civilization
to aid in bringing about its downfall and destruction.
We reject the sacrilegious assertion that the power of the
Habsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties is of divine origin; we
refuse to recognize the divine right of kings. Our nation elected
the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia of its own free will and
by the same right deposes them. We hereby declare the Habsburg
dynasty unworthy of leading our nation, and deny all of
their claims to rule in the Czechoslovak Land, which we here
and now declare shall henceforth be a free and independent
people and nation.
We accept and shall adhere to the ideals of modern democracy,
as they have been the ideals of our nation for centuries.
We accept the American principles as laid down by President
Wilson: the principles of liberated mankind—of the actual
equality of nations—and of governments deriving all their just
powers from the consent of the governed. We, the nation of
Comenius, cannot but accept these principles expressed in the
American Declaration of Independence, the principles of Lincoln,
and of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen. For these principles our nation shed its blood in the
memorable Hussite Wars five hundred years ago, for these
same principles, beside her Allies in Russia, Italy, and France,
our nation is shedding its blood today.
We shall outline only the main principles of the Constitution
of the Czechoslovak Nation; the final decision as to the Constitution
itself falls to the legally chosen representatives of the liberated
and united people.
The Czechoslovak State shall be a republic. In constant endeavor
for progress it will guarantee complete freedom of conscience,
religion and science, literature and art, speech, the
press and the right of assembly and petition. The Church shall
be separated from the state. Our democracy shall rest on universal
suffrage; women shall be placed on an equal footing with
men, politically, socially, and culturally. The rights of the minority
shall be safeguarded by proportional representation; national
minorities shall enjoy equal rights. The government shall
be parliamentary in form and shall recognize the principles of
initiative and referendum. The standing army will be replaced
by militia.
The Czechoslovak Nation will carry out far-reaching social
and economic reforms; the large estates will be redeemed for
home colonization, patents of nobility will be abolished. Our
nation will assume its part of the Austro-Hungarian pre-war
debt;—the debts for this war we leave to those who incurred
them.
In its foreign policy the Czechoslovak Nation will accept its
full share of responsibility in the reorganization of Eastern Europe.
It accepts fully the democratic and social principle of nationalism
and subscribes to the doctrine that all covenants and
treaties shall be entered into openly and frankly without secret
diplomacy.
Our constitution shall provide an efficient, rational, and just
government, which will exclude all special privileges and prohibit
class legislation.
Democracy has defeated theocratic autocracy. Militarism is
overcome,—democracy is victorious;—on the basis of democracy
mankind will be reorganized. The forces of darkness have
served the victory of light,—the longed-for age of humanity is
dawning.
We believe in democracy,—we believe in liberty,—and liberty
evermore.

Given in Paris, on the 18th day of October 1918.
Professor Thomas G. Masaryk
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
General Dr. Milan R. Stefanik
Minister of National Defense
Dr. Edward Benes
Minister of Foreign
Affairs and of Interior

Source: George J. Kovtun, The Czechoslovak Declaration of Independence: A History
of the Document (Washington, D.C., 1985), 53–55.

2010-11-11T03:59:00.000-08:00

A Declaration of Independence by the Representatives
of the People of the Commonwealth of Liberia
(July 16, 1847)

We the representatives of the people of the Commonwealth of
Liberia, in Convention assembled, invested with authority for
forming a new government, relying upon the aid and protection
of the Great Arbiter of human events, do hereby, in the
name, and on the behalf of the people of this Commonwealth,
publish and declare the said commonwealth a FREE, SOVEREIGN,
AND INDEPENDENT STATE, by the name and title of
the REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA.
While announcing to the nations of the world the new position
which the people of this Republic have felt themselves
called upon to assume, courtesy to their opinion seems to demand
a brief accompanying statement of the causes which induced
them, first to expatriate themselves from the land of
their nativity and to form settlements on this barbarous coast,
and now to organize their government by the assumption of a
sovereign and independent character. Therefore we respectfully
ask their attention to the following facts.
We recognise in all men, certain natural and inalienable
rights: among these are life, liberty, and the right to acquire,
possess, enjoy and defend property. By the practice and consent
of men in all ages, some system or form of government is
proven to be necessary to exercise, enjoy and secure those
rights; and every people have a right to institute a government,
and to choose and adopt that system or form of it, which in
their opinion will most effectively accomplish these objects,
and secure their happiness, which does not interfere with the
just rights of others. The right therefore to institute government,
and to all the powers necessary to conduct it is an inalienable
right, and cannot be resisted without the grossest injustice.
We the people of the Republic of Liberia were originally the
inhabitants of the United States of North America.
In some parts of that country, we were debarred by law from
all rights and privileges of men—in other parts, public sentiment,
more powerful than law, frowned us down.
We were every where shut out from all civil office.
We were excluded from all participation in the government.
We were taxed without our consent.
We were compelled to contribute to the resources of a
country, which gave us no protection.
We were made a separate and distinct class, and against us
every avenue to improvement was effectually closed. Strangers
from all lands of a color different from ours, were preferred
before us.
We uttered our complaints, but they were unattended to, or
only met by alledging the peculiar institutions of the country.
All hope of a favorable change in our country was thus
wholly extinguished in our bosoms, and we looked with anxiety
abroad for some asylum from the deep degradation.
The Western coast of Africa was the place selected by
American benevolence and philanthropy, for our future home.
Removed beyond those influences which depressed us in our
native land, it was hoped we would be enabled to enjoy those
rights and privileges, and exercise and improve those faculties,
which the God of nature has given us in common with the rest
of mankind.
Under the auspices of the American Colonization Society,
we established ourselves here, on land acquired by purchase
from the Lords of the soil.
In an original compact with this Society, we, for important
reasons delegated to it certain political powers; while this institution
stipulated that whenever the people should become capable
of conducting the government, or whenever the people
should desire it, this institution would resign the delegated
power, peacefully withdraw its supervision, and leave the people
to the government of themselves.
Under the auspices and guidance of this institution, which
has nobly and in perfect faith redeemed its pledges to the people,
we have grown and prospered.
From time to time, our number has been increased by mi-
gration from America, and by accessions from native tribes;
and from time to time, as circumstances required it, we have
extended our borders by the acquisition of land by honorable
purchase from the natives of the country.
As our territory has extended, and our population increased
our commerce has also increased. The flags of most of the civilized
nations of the earth float in our harbors, and their merchants
are opening an honorable and profitable trade. Until
recently, these visits have been of a uniformly harmonious character,
but as they have become more frequent, and to more numerous
points of our extending coast, questions have arisen,
which it is supposed can be adjusted only by agreement between
sovereign powers.
For years past, the American Colonization Society has virtually
withdrawn from all direct and active part in the administration
of the government, except in the appointment of the Governor,
who is also a colonist, for the apparent purpose of
testing the ability of the people to conduct the affairs of government,
and no complaint of crude legislation, nor of mismanagement,
nor of mal-administration has yet been heard.
In view of these facts, this institution, the American Colonization
Society, with that good faith which has uniformly
marked all its dealings with us, did by a set of resolutions in
January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred
and Forty-Six, dissolve all political connexion with the people
of this Republic, returned the power with which it was delegated,
and left the people to the government of themselves.
The people of the Republic of Liberia, then, are of right, and
in fact, a free, sovereign, and independent State; possessed of
all the rights, powers, and functions of government.
In assuming the momentous responsibilities of the position
they have taken, the people of this Republic feel justified by the
necessities of the case, and with this conviction they throw
themselves with confidence upon the candid consideration of
the civilized world.
Liberia is not the offspring of grasping ambition, nor the
tool of avaricious speculation.
No desire for territorial aggrandizement brought us to these
shores; nor do we believe so sordid a motive entered into
the high consideration of those who aided us in providing this
asylum.
Liberia is an asylum from the most grinding oppression.
In coming to the shores of Africa, we indulged the pleasing
hope that we would be permitted to exercise and improve
those faculties which impart to man his dignity—to nourish in
our hearts the flame of honorable ambition, to cherish and indulge
those aspirations, which a beneficent Creator had implanted
in every human heart, and to evince to all who despise,
ridicule, and oppress our race, that we possess with
them a common nature; are with them susceptible of equal refinement,
and capable of equal advancement in all that adorns
and dignifies man.
We were animated with the hope that here we should be at
liberty to train up our children in the way they should go—to
inspire them with the love of an honorable fame, to kindle
within them, the flame of a lofty philanthropy, and to form
strong within them, the principles of humanity, virtue, and religion.
Amongst the strongest motives to leave our native land—to
abandon forever the scenes of our childhood and to sever the
most endeared connexions, was the desire for a retreat where,
free from the agitations of fear and molestation, we could in
composure and security approach in worship, the God of our
fathers.
Thus far our highest hopes have been realized.
Liberia is already the happy home of thousands, who were
once the doomed victims of oppression, and if left unmolested
to go on with her natural and spontaneous growth; if her movements
be left free from the paralysing intrigues of jealous, ambitious
and unscrupulous avarice, she will throw open wider
and yet a wider door for thousands, who are now looking with
an anxious eye for some land of rest.
Our courts of justice are open equally to the stranger and
the citizen for the redress of grievances, for the remedy of injuries,
and for the punishment of crime.
Our numerous and well attended schools attest our efforts,
and our desire for the improvement of our children.
Our churches for the worship of our Creator, every where
to be seen, bear testimony to our piety, and to our acknowledgment
of His Providence.
The native African bowing down with us before the altar of
the living God, declares that from us, feeble as we are, the light
of Christianity has gone forth, while upon that curse of curses,
the slave trade, a deadly blight has fallen as far as our influence
extends.
Therefore in the name of humanity, and virtue and religion—
in the name of the Great God, our common Creator,
and our common Judge, we appeal to the nations of Christendom,
and earnestly and respectfully ask of them, that they will
regard us with the sympathy and friendly consideration, to
which the peculiarities of our condition entitle us, and to extend
to us, that comity which marks the friendly intercourse of
civilized and independent communities.
Source: The Independent Republic of Liberia; Its Constitution and Declaration of Independence
. . . with Other Documents; Issued Chiefly for the Use of the Free People of
Color (Philadelphia, 1848), 8–9.

2010-11-11T03:55:00.000-08:00

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence
made by the Delegates of the People of Texas
(March 2, 1836)

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and
property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are
derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted;
and so far from being a guarantee for their inestimable
and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of
evil rulers for their oppression. When the federal republican
constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support,
no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature
of their government has been forcibly changed, without
their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed
of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism,
in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army
and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty,
the ever ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of
tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed,
moderation is at length so far lost by those in power,
that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms
themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from
their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents
who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies
sent forth to enforce a new government upon them at the
point of the bayonet.
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abduction
on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and
civil society is dissolved into its original elements, in such a crisis,
the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent
and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first
principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands
in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a
sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government,
and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them
from impending dangers, and to secure their welfare and happiness.
Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to
the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our
grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification
of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of
severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and
assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the
earth.
The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited
and induced the Anglo American population of Texas to colonize
its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution,
that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional
liberty and republican government to which they had
been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of
America.
In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch
as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes
made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa
Anna, who, having overturned the constitution of his country,
now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our
homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most
intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword
and the priesthood.
It hath sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by
which our interests have been continually depressed through a
jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant
seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown
tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the
humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government,
and have, in accordance with the provisions of the
national constitution, presented to the general congress a republican
constitution, which was, without a just cause, contemptuously
rejected.
It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens,
for no other cause but a zealous endeavour to procure the
acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state
government.
It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right
Texas Declaration of Independence (March 2, 1836) 213
of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe
guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.
It has failed to establish any public system of education, although
possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public
domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that
unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect
the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self
government.
It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among
us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyranny, thus
trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizen, and rendering
the military superior to the civil power.
It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state congress of
Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for
their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of
the fundamental political right of representation.
It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens,
and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into
the interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in
defiance of the laws and the constitution.
It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning
foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize
our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant
ports for confiscation.
It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according
to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a na-
tional religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of
its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and
living God.
It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential
to our defence—the rightful property of freemen—and
formidable only to tyrannical governments.
It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent
to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes;
and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on
against us a war of extermination.
It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage,
with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants
of our defenceless frontiers.
It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with
it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions,
and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of
a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government.
These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the
people of Texas until they reached that point at which forbearance
ceases to be a virtue.We then took up arms in defence of
the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren
for assistance: our appeal has been made in vain; though
months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been
heard from the interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy
conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in
Texas Declaration of Independence (March 2, 1836) 215
the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therefor of
a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable
of self government.
The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees
our eternal political separation.
We, therefore, the delegates, with plenary powers, of the
people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing
to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do
hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with
the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of
Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign, and independent republic,
and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes
which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious
of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently
commit the issue to the decision of the supreme Arbiter of the
destinies of nations.
Source: The Papers of the Texas Revolution, 1835–1836, gen. ed. John H. Jenkins,
10 vols. (Austin, 1973), IV, 493–496.

2010-11-11T01:53:00.000-08:00

Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand
(October 28, 1835)

1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the
Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi
in the Bay of Islands on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare
the Independence of our Country, which is hereby constituted
and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation
of The United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories
of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside
entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads
of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they
will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves
in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of
government to be exercised within the said territories, unless
by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority
of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in
Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose
of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation
of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade; and
they cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their pri-
vate animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our
common country, by joining the Confederation of the United
Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His
Majesty the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgement
of their flag; and in return for the friendship and
protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such
of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its
shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that he will continue
to be the parent of their infant State, and that he will become
its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.
Agreed to unanimously on this 28th day of October, 1835,
in the presence of His Britannic Majesty’s Resident.
Source: Fac-Similes of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi
(Wellington, NZ, 1877), 4.

2010-11-11T01:40:00.000-08:00

The Venezuelan Declaration of Independence
(July 5, 1811)

In the Name of the All-powerful God,
We, the Representatives of the united Provinces of Caracas,
Cumana, Varinas, Margarita, Barcelona, Merida, and Truxillo,
forming the American Confederation of Venezuela, in the
South Continent, in Congress assembled, considering the full
and absolute possession of our Rights, which we recovered
justly and legally from the 19th of April, 1810, in consequence
of the occurrences in Bayona, and the occupation of the Spanish
Throne by conquest, and the succession of a new Dynasty, constituted
without our consent: are desirous, before we make use
of those Rights, of which we have been deprived by force for
more than three ages, but now restored to us by the political
order of human events, to make known to the world the reasons
which have emanated from these same occurrences, and
which authorise us in the free use we are now about to make of
our own Sovereignty.
We do not wish, nevertheless, to begin by alledging the
rights inherent in every conquered country, to recover its state
of property and independence; we generously forget the long
series of ills, injuries, and privations, which the sad right of
conquest has indistinctly caused, to all the descendants of the
Discoverers, Conquerors, and Settlers of these Countries,
plunged into a worse state by the very same cause that ought to
have favoured them; and drawing a veil over the 300 years of
Spanish dominion in America, we will now only present the authentic
and well-known facts, which ought to have wrested
from one world, the right over the other, by the inversion, disorder,
and conquest, that have already dissolved the Spanish
Nation.
This disorder has increased the ills of America, by rendering
void its claims and remonstrances, enabling the Governors of
Spain to insult and oppress us this part of the Nation, thus leaving
it without the succour and guarantee of the Laws.
It is contrary to order, impossible to the Government of
Spain, and fatal to the welfare of America, that the latter, possessed
of a range of country infinitely more extensive, and a
population incomparably more numerous, should depend and
be subject to a Peninsular Corner of the European Continent.
The Cessions and Abdications made at Bayona, the Revolutions
of the Escurial and Aranjuez, and the Orders of the Royal
Substitute, the Duke of Berg, sent to America, suffice to give
virtue to the rights, which till then the Americans had sacrificed
to the unity and integrity of the Spanish Nation.
Venezuela was the first to acknowledge, and generously to
preserve, this integrity; not to abandon the cause of its brothers,
as long as the same retained the least hope of salvation.
America was called into a new existence, since she could,
and ought, to take upon herself the charge of her own fate and
preservation; as Spain might acknowledge, or not, the rights of
a King, who had preferred his own existence to the dignity of
the Nation over which he governed.
All the Bourbons concurred to the invalid stipulations of
Bayona, abandoning the country of Spain, against the will of the
People;—they violated, disdained, and trampled on the sacred
duty they had contracted with the Spaniards of both Worlds,
when with their blood and treasure they had placed them on
the Throne, in despite of the House of Austria. By such a conduct,
they were left disqualified and incapable of governing a
Free People, whom they have delivered up like a flock of
Slaves.
The intrusive Governments that arrogated to themselves the
National Representation, took advantage of the dispositions
which the good faith, distance, oppression, and ignorance, created
in the Americans, against the new Dynasty that had entered
Spain by means of force; and, contrary to their own
principles, they sustained amongst us the illusion in favour of
Ferdinand, in order to devour and harass us with impunity: at
most, they promised to us liberty, equality, and fraternity, conveyed
in pompous discourses and studied phrases, for the purpose
of covering the snare laid by a cunning, useless, and degrading
Representation.
As soon as they were dissolved, and had substituted and de-
stroyed amongst themselves the various forms of the Government
of Spain; and as soon as the imperious law of necessity
had dictated to Venezuela the urgency of preserving itself, in
order to guard and maintain the rights of her King, and to offer
an asylum to her European brethren against the ills that threatened
them; their former conduct was divulged: they varied
their principles, and gave their appellations of insurrection,
perfidy, and ingratitude, to the same acts that had served as
models for the Governments of Spain; because then was closed
to them the gate to the monopoly of administration, which they
meant to perpetuate, under the name of an imaginary King.
Notwithstanding our protests, our moderation, generosity,
and the inviolability of our principles, contrary to the wishes of
our brethren in Europe, we were declared in a state of rebellion;
we were blockaded; war was declared against us; agents
were sent amongst us, to excite us one against the other, endeavouring
to take away our credit with the other Nations of
Europe, by imploring their assistance to oppress us.
Without taking the least notice of our reasons, without presenting
them to the impartial judgment of the world, and without
any other judges than our own enemies, we are condemned
to a mournful incommunication with our brethren; and, to
add contempt to calumny, empowered agents are named for us
against our own express will, that in their Cortes they may arbitrarily
dispose of our interests, under the influence and force
of our enemies.
In order to crush and suppress the effects of our Representation,
when they were obliged to grant it to us, we were submitted
to a paltry and diminutive scale; and the form of election
was subjected to the passive voice of the Municipal Bodies, degraded
by the despotism of the Governors: which amounted to
an insult to our plain dealing and good faith, more than a consideration
of our incontestable political importance.
Always deaf to the cries of justice on our part, the Governments
of Spain have endeavoured to discredit all our efforts, by
declaring us criminal, and stamping with infamy, and rewarding
with the scaffold and confiscation, every attempt, which at different
periods some Americans have made, for the felicity of
their country: as was that which lately our own security dictated
to us, that we might not be driven into a state of disorder
which we foresaw, and hurried to that horrid fate which we are
about to remove for ever from before us. By means of such
atrocious policy, they have succeeded in making our brethren
insensible to our misfortunes; in arming them against us; in
erasing from their bosoms the sweet impressions of friendship,
of consanguinity; and converting into enemies a part of our
own great family.
At a time that we, faithful to our promises, were sacrificing
our security and civil dignity, not to abandon the rights which
we have generously preserved to Ferdinand of Bourbon, we
have seen that, to the relations of force which bound him to the
Emperor of the French, he has added the ties of blood and
friendship; in consequence of which, even the Governments of
Spain have already declared their resolution only to acknowledge
him conditionally.
In this mournful alternative we have remained three years,
in a state of political indecision and ambiguity, so fatal and dangerous,
that this alone would suffice to authorise the resolution,
which the faith of our promises and the bonds of fraternity had
caused us to defer, till necessity has obliged us to go beyond
what we at first proposed, impelled by the hostile and unnatural
conduct of the Governments of Spain, which have disburdened
us of our conditional oath, by which circumstance, we
are called to the august representation we now exercise.
But we, who glory in grounding our proceedings on better
principles, and not wishing to establish our felicity on the
misfortunes of our fellow-beings, do consider and declare as
friends, companions of our fate, and participators of our felicity
those who, united to us by the ties of blood, language, and religion,
have suffered the same evils in the anterior order of
things, provided they acknowledge our absolute independence of
the same, and of any other foreign power whatever; and that
they aid us to sustain it with their lives, fortune, and sentiments;
declaring and acknowledging them (as well as to every
other nation,) in war enemies, and in peace friends, brothers,
and co-patriots.
In consequence of all these solid, public, and incontestible
reasons of policy, which so powerfully urge the necessity of recovering
our natural dignity, restored to us by the order of
events; and in compliance with the imprescriptible rights enjoyed
by nations, to destroy every pact, agreement, or association,
which does not answer the purposes for which governments
were established; we believe that we cannot, nor ought
not, to preserve the bonds which hitherto kept us united to the
Government of Spain: and that, like all the other nations of the
world, we are free, and authorised not to depend on any other
authority than our own, and to take amongst the powers of the
earth the place of equality which the Supreme Being and Nature
assign to us, and to which we are called by the succession
of human events, and urged by our own good and utility.
Notwithstanding we are aware of the difficulties that attend,
and the obligations imposed upon us, by the rank we are about
to take in the political order of the world; as well as the powerful
influence of forms and habitudes, to which unfortunately
we have been accustomed: we at the same time know, that the
shameful submission to them, when we can throw them off,
would be still more ignominious for us, and more fatal to our
posterity, than our long and painful slavery; and that it now becomes
an indispensable duty to provide for our preservation,
security, and felicity, by essentially varying all the forms of our
former constitution.
In consequence whereof, considering, by the reasons thus
alledged, that we have satisfied the respect which we owe to the
opinions of the human race, and the dignity of other nations, in
the number of whom we are about to enter, and on whose
communication and friendship we rely: We, the Representatives
of the United Provinces of Venezuela, calling on the SUPREME
BEING to witness the justice of our proceedings and
the rectitude of our intentions, do implore his divine and celestial
help; and ratifying, at the moment in which we are born to
the dignity to which his Providence restores to us, the desire
we have of living and dying free, and of believing and defending
the holy Catholic and Apostolic Religion of Jesus Christ. We,
therefore, in the name and by the will and authority which we
hold from the virtuous People of Venezuela, DO declare solemnly
to the world, that its united Provinces are, and ought to
be, from this day, by act and right, Free, Sovereign and Independent
States; and that they are absolved from every submission
and dependence on the Throne of Spain, or on those who
do, or may call themselves, its Agents and Representatives; and
that a free and independent State, thus constituted, has full
power to take that form of Government which may be conformable
to the general will of the People, to declare war,
make peace, form alliances, regulate treaties of commerce, limits,
and navigation; and to do and transact every act, in like manner
as other free and independent States. And that this, our solemn
Declaration, may be held valid, firm, and durable, we
hereby pledge our lives, fortunes, and the sacred tie of our national
honour. Done in the Federal Palace of Caracas; signed by
our own hands, sealed with the great Provisional Seal of the
Confederation, and countersigned by the Secretary to the Congress,
on the 5th day of July, 1811, the first of our Independence.
Source: Interesting Official Documents Relating to The United Provinces of Venezuela
(London, 1812), 3–19.

2010-11-11T01:35:00.000-08:00

The Haitian Declaration of Independence
(January 1, 1804)

The General in Chief to the People of Hayti,
Citizens,
It is not enough to have expelled from your country the barbarians
who have for ages stained it with blood—it is not enough
to have curbed the factions which, succeeding each other by
turns, sported with a phantom of liberty which France exposed
to their eyes. It is become necessary, by a last act of national authority,
to ensure for ever the empire of liberty in the country
which has given us birth. It is necessary to deprive an inhuman
government, which has hitherto held our minds in a state of the
most humiliating torpitude, of every hope of being enabled
again to enslave us. Finally, it is necessary to live independent,
or die. Independence or Death! Let these sacred words serve to
rally us—let them be signals of battle, and of our re-union.
Citizens—Countrymen—I have assembled on this solemn
day, those courageous chiefs, who, on the eve of receiving the
last breath of expiring liberty, have lavished their blood to preserve
it. These generals, who have conducted your struggles
against tyranny, have not yet done. The French name still dark-
ens our plains: every thing recalls the remembrance of the
cruelties of that barbarous people. Our laws, our customs,
our cities, every thing bears the characteristic of the French,—
Hearken to what I say!—the French still have a footing in our
island! and you believe yourselves free and independent of that
republic, which has fought all nations, it is true, but never conquered
those who would be free! What! victims for fourteen
years by credulity and forbearance! conquered not by French
armies, but by the canting eloquence of the proclamations of
their agents! When shall we be wearied with breathing the
same air with them? What have we in common with that
bloody-minded people? Their cruelties compared to our moderation—
their colour to ours—the extension of seas which
separate us—our avenging climate—all plainly tell us they are
not our brethren; that they never will become such; and, if they
find an asylum among us, they will still be the instigators of our
troubles and of our divisions. Citizens, men, women, young
and old, cast round your eyes on every part of this island; seek
there your wives, your husbands, your brothers, your sisters—
what did I say? seek your children—your children at the breast,
what is become of them? I shudder to tell it—the prey of vultures.
Instead of these interesting victims, the affrighted eye sees
only their assassins—tigers still covered with their blood, and
whose terrifying presence reproaches you for your insensibility,
and your guilty tardiness to avenge them—what do you wait
for, to appease their manes? Remember that you have wished
your remains to be laid by the side of your fathers—When you
have driven out tyranny—will you descend into their tombs,
without having avenged them? No: their bones would repulse
yours. And ye, invaluable men, intrepid Generals, who insensible
to private sufferings, have given new life to liberty, by lavishing
your blood; know, that you have done nothing if you do
not give to the nations a terrible, though just example, of the
vengeance that ought to be exercised by a people proud of having
recovered its liberty, and zealous of maintaining it. Let us
intimidate those, who might dare to attempt depriving us of it
again: let us begin with the French; let them shudder at approaching
our shores, if not on account of the cruelties they
have committed, at least at the terrible resolution we are going
to make—To devote to death whatsoever native of France
should soil with his sacrilegious footstep, this territory of liberty.
We have dared to be free—let us continue free by ourselves,
and for ourselves; let us imitate the growing child; his own
strength breaks his leading-strings, which become useless and
troublesome to him in his walk. What are the people who have
fought us? what people would reap the fruits of our labours?
and what dishonourable absurdity, to conquer to be slaves!
Slaves—leave to the French nation this odious epithet; they
have conquered to be no longer free—let us walk in other
footsteps; let us imitate other nations, who, carrying their solicitude
into futurity, and dreading to leave posterity an example
of cowardice, have preferred to be exterminated, rather
than be erased from the list of free people. Let us, at the same
time, take care, lest a spirit of proselytism should destroy the
work—let our neighbours breathe in peace—let them live
peaceably under the shield of those laws which they have
framed for themselves; let us beware of becoming revolutionary
fire-brands—of creating ourselves the legislators of the Antilles—
of considering as a glory the disturbing the tranquility
of the neighboring islands; they have not been, like the one we
inhabit, drenched with the innocent blood of the inhabitants—
they have no vengeance to exercise against the authority that
protects them; happy, never to have experienced the pestilence
that has destroyed us, they must wish well to our posterity.
Peace with our neighbours, but accursed be the French
name—eternal hatred to France: such are our principles.
Natives of Hayti—my happy destiny reserves me to be one
day the centinel who is to guard the idol we now sacrifice to. I
have grown old fighting for you, sometimes almost alone; and if
I have been happy enough to deliver to you the sacred charge
confided to me, recollect it is for you, at present, to preserve
it. In fighting for your liberty, I have laboured for my own happiness:
before it shall be consolidated by laws which shall ensure
individual liberty, your chiefs whom I have assembled
here, and myself, owe you this last proof of our devotedness.
Generals, and other chiefs, unite with me for the happiness
of our country: the day is arrived—the day which will ever
perpetuate our glory and our independence.
If there exist among you a lukewarm heart, let him retire,
and shudder to pronounce the oath which is to unite us. Let us
swear to the whole world, to posterity, to ourselves, to renounce
France for ever, and to die, rather than live under its
dominion—to fight till the last breath for the independence of
our country.
And ye, people, too long unfortunate, witness the oath
we now pronounce: recollect that it is upon your constancy
and courage I depended when I first entered the career of
liberty to fight despotism and tyranny, against which you have
been struggling these last fourteen years; remember that I
have sacrificed every thing to fly to your defence—parents,
children, fortune, and am now only rich, in your liberty—
that my name has become a horror to all friends of
slavery, or despots; and tyrants only pronounce it, cursing the
day that gave me birth; if ever you refuse or receive with
murmuring the laws, which the protecting angel that watches
over your destinies, shall dictate to me for your happiness,
you will merit the fate of an ungrateful people. But away
from me this frightful idea: You will be the guardians of
the liberty you cherish, the support of the Chief who commands
you.
Swear then to live free and independent, and to prefer death
to every thing that would lead to replace you under the yoke;
swear then to pursue for everlasting, the traitors, and enemies
of your independence.

j. j. dessalines.
Head-quarters, Gonaïves,
1st Jan. 1804, 1st Year of Independence.

Source: Marcus Rainsford, An Historical Account of the Black Empire of Hayti: Comprehending
a View of the Principal Transactions in the Revolution of Saint-Domingo;
with its Ancient and Modern State (London, 1805), 442–446.

[Jeremy Bentham,] Short Review of the Declaration (1776) & Manifesto of the Province of Flanders

2010-11-11T01:20:00.000-08:00

[Jeremy Bentham,]
Short Review of the Declaration (1776)

In examining this singular Declaration, I have hitherto confined
myself to what are given as facts, and alleged against his Majesty
and his Parliament, in support of the charge of tyranny and
usurpation. Of the preamble I have taken little or no notice.
The truth is, little or none does it deserve. The opinions of the
modern Americans on Government, like those of their good
ancestors on witchcraft, would be too ridiculous to deserve any
notice, if like them too, contemptible and extravagant as they
be, they had not led to the most serious evils.
In this preamble however it is, that they attempt to establish
a theory of Government; a theory, as absurd and visionary, as the
system of conduct in defence of which it is established, is nefarious.
Here it is, that maxims are advanced in justification
of their enterprises against the British Government. To these
maxims, adduced for this purpose, it would be sufficient to say,
that they are repugnant to the British Constitution. But beyond this
they are subversive of every actual or imaginable kind of Government.
They are about “to assume,” as they tell us, “among the powers of
the earth, that equal and separate station to which”—they have
lately discovered—“the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitle
them.” What difference these acute legislators suppose between
the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God, is more than I can take
upon me to determine, or even to guess. If to what they now
demand they were entitled by any law of God, they had only to
produce that law, all controversy was at an end. Instead of this,
what do they produce? What they call self-evident truths. “All
men,” they tell us, “are created equal.” This surely is a new discovery;
now, for the first time, we learn, that a child, at the
moment of his birth, has the same quantity of natural power as
the parent, the same quantity of political power as the magistrate.
The rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—by
which, if they mean any thing, they must mean the right to enjoy
life, to enjoy liberty, and to pursue happiness—they “hold to be
unalienable.” This they “hold to be among truths self-evident.” At
the same time, to secure these rights, they are content that
Governments should be instituted. They perceive not, or will
not seem to perceive, that nothing which can be called Government
ever was, or ever could be, in any instance, exercised, but
at the expense of one or other of those rights.—That, consequently,
in as many instance as Government is ever exercised,
some one or other of these rights, pretended to be unalienable,
is actually alienated.
That men who are engaged in the design of subverting a lawful
Government, should endeavour by a cloud of words, to
throw a veil over their design; that they should endeavour to
beat down the criteria between tyranny and lawful government,
is not at all surprising. But rather surprising it must certainly
appear, that they should advance maxims so incompatible
with their own present conduct. If the right of enjoying life be
unalienable, whence came their invasion of his Majesty’s province
of Canada? Whence the unprovoked destruction of so
many lives of the inhabitants of that province? If the right of enjoying
liberty be unalienable, whence came so many of his Majesty’s
peaceable subjects among them, without any offence,
without so much as a pretended offence, merely for being suspected
not to wish well to their enormities, to be held by them
in durance? If the right of pursuing happiness be unalienable,
how is that so many others of their fellow-citizens are by
the same injustice and violence made miserable, their fortunes
ruined, their persons banished and driven from their friends
and families? Or would they have it believed, that there is in
their selves some superior sanctity, some peculiar privilege, by
which those things are lawful to them, which are unlawful to all
the world besides? Or is it, that among acts of coercion, acts by
which life or liberty are taken away, and the pursuit of happiness
restrained, those only are unlawful, which their delinquency
has brought upon them, and which are exercised by
regular, long established, accustomed governments?
In these tenets, they have outdone the utmost extravangance
of all former fanatics. The German Anabaptists indeed went so
far as to speak of the right of enjoying life as a right unalienable.
To take away life, even in the Magistrate, they held to be unlawful.
But they went no farther, it was reserved for an American
Congress, to add to the number of unalienable rights, that of
enjoying liberty, and pursuing happiness;—that is,—if they
mean anything,—pursuing it wherever a man thinks he can see
it, and by whatever means he thinks he can attain it:—That is,
that all penal laws—those made by their selves among others—
which affect life or liberty, are contrary to the law of God, and
the unalienable rights of mankind:—That is, that thieves are
not to be restrained from theft, murderers from murder, rebels
from rebellion.
Here then they have put the axe to the root of all Government;
and yet, in the same breath, they talk of “Governments,”
of Governments “long established.” To these last, they attribute
some kind of respect; they vouchsafe even to go so far as to admit,
that “Governments, long established, should not be changed for
light or transient reasons.”
Yet they are about to change a Government, a Government
whose establishment is coeval with their own existence as a
Community. What causes do they assign? Circumstances which
have always subsisted, which must continue to subsist, wherever
Government has subsisted, or can subsist.
For what, according to their own shewing, what was their
original, their only original grievance? That they were actually
taxed more than they could bear? No; but that they were liable
to be so taxed. What is the amount of all the subsequent grievances
they allege? That they were actually oppressed by Government?
That Government had actually misused its power?
No; but that it was possible they might be oppressed; possible that
Government might misuse its powers. Is there any where, can
there be imagined any where, that Government, where subjects
are not liable to be taxed more than they can bear? where is it
not possible that subjects may be oppressed, not possible that
Government may misuse its powers?
This, I say, is the amount, the whole sum and substance of all
their grievances. For in taking a general review of the charges
brought against his Majesty, and his Parliament, we may observe
that there is a studied confusion in the arrangement of
them. It may therefore be worth while to reduce them to the
several distinct heads, under which I should have classed them
at the first, had not the order of the Answer been necessarily
prescribed by the order—or rather the disorder—of the Declaration.
The first head consists of Acts of Government, charged as so
many acts of incroachment, so many usurpations upon the present
King and his Parliaments exclusively, which had been constantly
exercised by his Predecessors and their Parliaments.
In all the articles comprised in this head, is there a single
power alleged to have been exercised during the present reign,
which had not been constantly exercised by preceding Kings,
and preceding Parliaments? Read only the commission and in-
struction for the Council of Trade, drawn up in the 9th of King
William III, addressed to Mr. Locke, and others. See there what
powers were exercised by the King and Parliament over the
Colonies. Certainly the Commissioners were directed to inquire
into, and make their reports concerning those matters
only, in which the King and Parliament had a power of controlling
the Colonies. Now the Commissioners are instructed to
inquire—into the condition of the Plantations, “as well with regard
to the administration of Government and Justice, as in relation
to the commerce thereof;”—into the means of making “them
most beneficial and useful to England; into the staples and manufactures,
which may be encouraged there;”—“into the means of diverting
them from such trades.” Farther, they are instructed “to examine
into, and weigh the Acts of the Assemblies of the Plantations;”—“to
set down the usefulness or mischief to the Crown, to the Kingdom, or to
the Plantations their selves.”—And farther still, they are instructed
“to require an account of all the monies given for public uses by the Assemblies
of the Plantations, and how the same are, or have been expended,
or laid out.” Is there now a single Act of the present reign
which does not fall under one or other of these instructions.
The powers then, of which the several articles now before us
complain, are supported by usage; were conceived to be supported
then, just after the Revolution, at the same time these
instructions were given; and were they to be supported only
upon this foot of usage, still that usage being coeval with the
Colonies, their tacit consent and approbation, through all the
successive periods in which that usage has prevailed, would be
implied;—even then the legality of those powers would stand
upon the same foot as most of the prerogatives of the Crown,
most of the rights of the people;—even then the exercise of
those powers could in no wise be deemed usurpations or encroachments.
But the truth is, to the exercise of these powers, the Colonies
have not only tacitly, but expressly, consented; as expressly
as any subject of Great Britain ever consented to the Acts of the
British Parliament. Consult the Journals of either House of Parliament;
consult the proceedings of their own Assemblies; and
innumerable will be the occasions, on which the legality of
these powers will be found to be expressly recognised by Acts
of the Colonial Assemblies. For in preceding reigns, the petitions
from these Assemblies were couched in a language, very
different from that which they have assumed under the present
reign. In praying for the non-exercise of these powers, in particular
instances, they acknowledged their legality; the right in
general was recognised; the exercise of it, in particular instances,
was prayed to be suspended on the sole ground of inexpedience.
The less reason can the Americans have to complain against
the exercise of these powers, as it was under the constant exercise
of the self-same powers, that they have grown up with
a vigour and rapidity unexampled: That within a period, in
which other communities have scarcely had time to take root,
they have shot forth exuberant branches. So flourishing is their
agriculture, that—we are told—“besides feeding plentifully
their own growing multitudes, their annual exports have exceeded
a million:” So flourishing is their trade, that—we are
told—“it has increased far beyond the speculations of the most
sanguine imagination.” So powerful are they in arms, that we
see them defy the united force of that nation, which, but a little
century ago, called them into being; which, but a few years
ago, in their defence, encountered and subdued almost the
united force of Europe.
If the exercise of powers, thus established by usage, thus recognised
by express declarations, thus sanctified by their beneficial
effects, can justify rebellion, there is not that subject in
the world, but who has, ever has had, and ever must have, reason
sufficient to rebel: There never was, never can be, established,
any government upon earth.
The second head consists of Acts, whose professed object
was either the maintenance, or the amendment of their Constitution.
These Acts were passed with the view either of freeing
from impediments the course of their commercial transactions,
or of facilitating the administration of justice, or of poising
more equally the different powers in their Constitution; or of
preventing the establishment of Courts, inconsistent with the
spirit of the Constitution.
To state the object of these Acts, is to justify them. Acts of
tyranny they cannot be: Acts of usurpation they are not; because
no new power is assumed. By former Parliaments, in former
reigns, officers of customs had been sent to America: Courts of
Admiralty had been established there. The increase of trade and
population induced the Parliaments, under the present reign,
for the convenience of the Colonists, and to obviate their own objections
of delays arising from appeals to England, to establish a
Board of Customs, and an Admiralty Court of Appeal. Strange
indeed is it to hear the establishment of this Board, and these
Courts, alleged as proofs of usurpation; and in the same paper, in
the same breath, to hear it urged as a head of complaint, that
his Majesty refused his assent to a much greater exertion of
power:—to an exertion of power, which might be dangerous;
the establishment of new Courts of Judicature. What in one instance
he might have done, to have done in another, cannot be
unconstitutional. In former reigns, charters have been altered;
in the present reign, the constitution of one charter, having
been found inconsistent with the ends of good order and government,
was amended.
The third head consists of temporary Acts, passed pro re natâ,
the object of each of which was to remedy some temporary
evil, and the duration of which was restrained to the duration
of the evil itself.
Neither in these Acts was any new power assumed; in some
instances only, the objects upon which that power was exer-
cised, were new. Nothing was done but what former Kings
and former Parliaments have shewn their selves ready to do,
had the same circumstances subsisted. The same circumstances
never did subsist before, because, till the present reign, the
Colonies never dared to call in question the supreme authority
of Parliament.
No charge, classed under this head, can be called a grievance.
Then only is the subject aggrieved, when, paying due obedience
to the established Laws of his country, he is not protected in his
established rights. From the moment he withholds obedience, he
forfeits his right to protection. Nor can the means, employed to
bring him back to obedience, however severe, be called grievances;
especially if those means be to cease the very moment
that the end is obtained.
The last head consists of Acts of self-defence, exercised in
consequence of resistance already shewn, but represented in the
Declaration as Acts of oppression, tending to provoke resistance.
Has his Majesty cut off their trade with all parts of the
world? They first attempted to cut off the trade of Great Britain.
Has his Majesty ordered their vessels to be seized? They
first burnt the vessels of the King. Has his Majesty sent troops
to chastise them? They first took up arms against the authority
of the King. Has his Majesty engaged the Indians against them?
They first engaged Indians against the troops of the King. Has
his Majesty commanded their captives to serve on board his
fleet? He has only saved them from the gallows.
By some, these acts have been improperly called “Acts of punishment.”
And we are then asked, with an air of insult, “What!
will you punish without a trial, without a hearing?” And no
doubt punishment, whether ordinary or extraordinary; whether
by indictment, impeachment, or bill of attainder, should be preceded
by judicial examination. But, the acts comprised under
this head are not acts of punishment; they are, as we have called
them, acts of self-defence. And these are not, cannot be, preceded
by any judicial examination. An example or two will
serve to place the difference between acts of punishment and
acts of self-defence in a stronger light, than any definition we
can give. It has happened, that bodies of manufacturers have
risen, and armed, in order to compel their masters to increase
their wages: It has happened, that bodies of peasants have risen,
and armed, in order to compel the farmer to sell at a lower
price. It has happened, that the civil magistrate, unable to reduce
the insurgents to their duty, has called the military to his
aid. But did ever any man imagine, that the military were sent
to punish the insurgents? It has happened, that the insurgents
have resisted the military, as they had resisted the civil magistrate:
It has happened, that, in consequence of this resistance,
some of the insurgents have been killed:—But did ever any
man imagine that those who were then killed, were therefore
punished? No more can they be said to be punished, than could
the incendiary, who should be buried beneath the ruins of the
house, which he had feloniously set on fire. Take an example
yet nearer to the present case. When the Duke of Cumberland
led the armies of the king, foreign and domestic, against the Rebels
in Scotland, did any man conceive that he was sent to punish
the Rebels?—Clearly not.—He was sent to protect dutiful
and loyal subjects, who remained in the peace of the King,
against the outrages of Rebels, who had broken the peace of the
King.—Does any man speak of those who fell at the battle of
Culloden, as of men that were punished? Would that man have
been thought in his senses, who should have urged, that the armies
of the King should not have ben sent against the Rebels in
Scotland, till those very Rebels had been judicially heard, and
judicially convicted? Does not every man feel the fact, the only
fact, necessary to be known, in order to justify these acts of
self-defence, is simply this:—Are men in arms against the authority
of the King?—Who does not feel, that to authenticate
this fact, demands no judicial inquiry? If when his Royal Highness
had led the army under his command into Scotland, there
had been no body of men in arms; if, terrified at his approach,
they had either laid down their arms and submitted, or had dispersed
and retired quietly, each to his own home, what would
have been the consequence? The civil magistrate would have
searched for and seized upon those who had been in arms;
would have brought them to a court of justice: That court
would have proceeded to examine, and to condemn or to acquit,
as evidence was, or was not, given of the guilt of the re-
184 Short Review of the Declaration (1776)
spective culprits. The Rebels did not submit, they did not lay
down their arms, they did not disperse; they resisted the Duke:
a battle ensued: some of the Rebels fled, others were slain, others
taken. It is upon those only of the last class, who were
brought before and condemned by Courts of Justice, that punishment
was inflicted. By what kind of logic then are these acts
ranked in the class of grievances?
These are the Acts—these exertions of constitutional, and
hitherto, undisputed powers, for which, in this audacious paper,
a patriot King is traduced—as “a Prince, whose character is
marked by every Act which may define a tyrant;” as “unfit to be
the ruler of a free people.” These are the Acts, these exertions
of constitutional, and, hitherto, undisputed powers, by which
the Members of the Congress declare their selves and their
constituents to be “absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown;” pronounce “all political connection between Great
Britain and America to be totally dissolved.” With that hypocrisy
which pervades the whole of the Declaration, they pretend
indeed, that this event is not of their seeking; that it is forced
upon them; that they only “acquiesce in the necessity which denounces
their separation from us:” which compels them hereafter
to hold us, as they “hold the rest of mankind; enemies in war; in
peace, friends.”
How this Declaration may strike others, I know not. To me,
I own, it appears that it cannot fail—to use the words of a great
Orator—“of doing us Knight’s service.” The mouth of faction,
we may reasonably presume, will be closed; the eyes of those
who saw not, or would not see, that the Americans were long
since aspiring at independence, will be opened; the nation will
unite as one man, and teach this rebellious people, that it is one
thing for them to say, the connection, which bound them to us,
is dissolved, another to dissolve it; that to accomplish their independence
is not quite so easy as to declare it: that there is no peace with
them, but with the peace of the King: no war with them, but that war,
which offended justice wages against criminals.—We too, I hope,
shall acquiesce in the necessity of submitting to whatever burdens,
of making whatever efforts may be necessary, to bring this ungrateful
and rebellious people back to that allegiance they have
long had it in contemplation to renounce, and have now at last
so daringly renounced.
Source: [John Lind and Jeremy Bentham,] An Answer to the Declaration of the
American Congress (London, 1776), 119–132.

Manifesto of the Province of Flanders [extracts]
(January 4, 1790)

Greetings from the Estates of Flanders to those who will read
or hear these words.
Since it has pleased Divine Providence to restore our natural
rights of liberty and independence by severing the bonds that
once fastened us to a Prince and a House whose domination
was ever harmful to the interests of Flanders, we feel obliged
to recount for present and future generations the events which
inspired and accomplished this happy Revolution.
Flanders enjoyed natural and uninterrupted prosperity due
to a fertile soil, a fortunate location, and the innate industriousness
of its people so long as its sovereigns ruled while residing
in the country. The old Counts of Flanders and later the
Princes of the House of Burgundy were born and raised among
their subjects and thus held the same principles in common.
They were guided by the national interest and they molded
their conduct to the spirit of the People. They respected those
traditional rights, privileges, freedoms and exemptions that are
no different, in their essentials, to the natural rights of man and
citizen.
They understood the inviolable character of the bond between
them and the Nation as established by oath during the
solemn act of inauguration. If there were disagreements between
the Sovereign and his subjects, the fact of his immediate
presence made it possible to reach a swift compromise and to
avert dangerous repercussions. With the support of a mild and
just government, Flanders attained the heights of greatness
with little apparent effort. The towns of Ghent and Bruges
were unsurpassed in their splendor and riches. The whole of
Flanders gave the impression of a single and unified City. The
Court of its Count, Philip of Burgundy, was assuredly the most
brilliant in Europe.
That same Prince founded the Order of the Golden Fleece
in the town of Bruges, which remains famous throughout Europe
today. Flanders and Belgium became the center of the arts
and sciences in years that Austria, which now affects to educate
us, was still plunged in barbarism.
This prosperity continued to increase until the marriage of
the Archduke Maximilian with the Princess Marie of Burgundy,
when Flanders passed to the House of Austria.
That marriage marked the apogee of Flemish greatness and
the beginning of its decline. When Flanders became one among
many states ruled by the House of Austria, it became a state of
secondary importance that could even seem foreign to its own
sovereigns, through its remoteness from the primary Austrian
lands, where the Princes made their abode. . . .
. . . it is incontestable that the Emperor has broken all of his
agreements with us. By violating the social and inaugural pact,
he freed the Nation to sever its bond of obedience. Moreover,
he has remained deaf to the humble and renewed appeals of a
Nation that sought redress for its grievances until the final hour.
In waging war upon us, the Emperor obliged us to meet force
with force and to claim all those rights granted by the Law of
Nations to victorious parties. If it is true that the Emperor, in
conquering us, could have claimed the right to treat us as a
conquered People, as the Minister suggests in his Manifesto of
20 November [1789], the Law of Nations and the natural law of
reciprocity permits that we who have been favored by success
should defy his claim to our obedience and enter a state of
complete liberty and independence.
In consequence, in accordance with our preceding resolutions
and declarations, before the Supreme Judge of the World
who knows the justice of our cause, we solemnly publish and
declare in the name of the People that this Province is and of
right ought to be a Free and Independent State; that it has been
absolved from all allegiance to the Emperor Joseph II, Count of
Flanders, and to the House of Austria. We further declare that
the individual members of all orders civil and military are ab-
solved and disengaged from any obedience and fidelity to the
said Emperor.We further declare that all officials, justices, vassals
and vavasours, of whatever quality or rank, are liberated
from all agreements and freed of all obligations pledged or
owed to the Emperor in his capacity as the Count of Flanders.
We forbid all officers, justices, employees and others to employ
or make use of the titles or arms of the former Count of
Flanders. We command them to use the seal and the arms of
this Province until they receive further instructions. All official
acts, dispatches and letters of any kind shall be deemed null if
passed, signed or sealed otherwise.
In order to implement these instructions, we order that the
seals and arms of the Emperor Joseph II, former Count of Flanders,
be remitted immediately into the hands of the Estates.
In addition, we declare and command that no coin be struck
hereafter with the arms of the former Count. Until further arrangements
are made, the money in use in this province will remain
legal tender.
We declare the Jurisdiction of the Great Council over this
country and the inhabitants of this Province to be hereafter
null.
We demand that the present declaration be printed, publicized,
and posted in the Province of Flanders in the usual places
and wherever there is need, so that no person can claim ignorance
of its contents.
We order members of the Council of Flanders, which the
present document erects as Sovereign Council of Justice, to observe
punctually and cause to be observed the entire content
of these instructions. Signed and sealed in our Assembly, 4 January
1790.
Source: J. F. Rohaert, Manifeste de la Province de Flandre (Ghent, 1790), 3–5,
22–24 (translated).

American Declaration of Independence July 4,1776

2010-11-11T01:10:00.000-08:00

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
A Declaration By the Representatives of the United
States of America, in General Congress Assembled

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for
one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the Powers of
the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to
the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience
hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their
former Systems of Government. The History of the present
King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and
Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation
till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he
has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation
of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish
the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable
to them and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public
Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance
with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing
with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the
People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable
of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for
their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to
all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions
within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States;
for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of
Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations
hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations
of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing
his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their
Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither
Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their
Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction
foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by
Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government,
and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an
Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute
Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of
his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and
Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy,
scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally
unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves
by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is
an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for
Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions
have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose
Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British
Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts
by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction
over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances
of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to
their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured
them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these
Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections
and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the
Voice of Justice and Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce
in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and
hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in
Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing
to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of
our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good
People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE
AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from
all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection
between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved: and that as FREE AND INDE-
PENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do
all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may
of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
Honor.
Source: A Declaration By the Representatives of the United States of America, In General
Congress Assembled (Philadelphia, 1776).

Thomas Jefferson’s “Original Rough Draft” of the Declaration of Independence

2010-11-11T01:00:00.000-08:00

Thomas Jefferson’s “Original Rough Draft”
of the Declaration of Independence
A Declaration of the Representatives of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a
people to advance from that subordination in which they have
hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth
the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature &
of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the change.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men
are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation
they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the
preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that
to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government shall become destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation
on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly
all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed
to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
but when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a
distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such government & to provide
new guards for their future security. such has been the patient
sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity
which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government.
the history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting
injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact
stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the
rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an
absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge
a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.
he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good:
he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate &
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected
utterly to attend to them.
he has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of
large districts of people unless those people would relinquish
the right of representation, a right inestimable to them, & formidable
to tyrants alone:
he has dissolved Representative houses repeatedly & continually,
for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the
rights of the people:
he has refused for a long space of time to cause others to be
elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation,
have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the
state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, & convulsions within:
he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states;
for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations
hither; & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:
he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease
in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing
judiciary powers:
he has made our judges dependant on his will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:
he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed
power, & sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people &
eat out their substance:
he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies &
ships of war:
he has affected to render the military, independant of & superior
to the civil power:
he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitutions and unacknoleged by our laws; giving
his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering
large bodies of armed troops among us;
for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for
any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these
states;
for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
for imposing taxes on us without our consent;
for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;
for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
for taking away our charters, & altering fundamentally the
forms of our governments;
for suspending our own legislatures & declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:
he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors,
& declaring us out of his allegiance & protection:
he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our
towns & destroyed the lives of our people:
he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries
to compleat the works of death, desolation & tyranny, already
begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy unworthy
the head of a civilized nation:
he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers
the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions
of existence:
he has incited treasonable insurrections in our fellow-subjects,
with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our
property:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating
it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant
people who never offended him, captivating & carrying
them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable
death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN
king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or
to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage
of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now
exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to
purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying
off former crimes committed against the liberties of one
people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against
the lives of another.
in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress
in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have
been answered by repeated injury. a prince whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to
be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will
scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within
the short compass of 12 years only, on so many acts of tyranny
without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of
liberty.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
we have warned them from time to time of attempts by
their legislature to extend a jurisdiction over these our states.
we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration
& settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a
pretension: that these were effected at the expence of our own
blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of
Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of
government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying
a foundation for perpetual league & amity with them: but that
submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution,
nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to
their native justice & magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our
common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were
likely to interrupt our correspondence & connection. they too
have been deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, &
when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of
their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of
our harmony, they have by their free election re-established
them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their
chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common
blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade & deluge us
in blood. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection,
and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these unfeeling
brethren. we must endeavor to forget our former love for
them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies
in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free & a
great people together; but a communication of grandeur & of
freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will
have it: the road to glory & happiness is open to us too; we will
climb it in a separate state, and acquiesce in the necessity which
pronounces our everlasting Adieu!
We therefore the representatives of the United States of
America in General Congress assembled do, in the name & by
authority of the good people of these states, reject and re-
nounce all allegiance & subjection to the kings of Great Britain
& all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under
them; we utterly dissolve & break off all political connection
which may have heretofore subsisted between us & the people
or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare
these colonies to be free and independant states, and that
as free & independant states they shall hereafter have power to
levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce,
& to do all other acts and things which independant
states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our
sacred honour
Source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, gen. eds. Julian P. Boyd et al., 31 vols. to
date (Princeton, 1950– ), I, 423–427.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 3

2010-11-11T00:37:00.000-08:00

In the early decades after 1776, the Declaration inspired more
attention and commentary outside the United States than it did
at home. Little of that attention was directed toward the Declaration’s
second paragraph; indeed, most of it either dealt with
refuting the grievances against King George III or reflected
more broadly on the implications of American independence
for the emerging international order of the late eighteenthcentury
Atlantic world.
Partisan strife at home, and debate about the nature of independence
abroad, made it necessary for Americans to rehabilitate
their Declaration after 1815. A document that had addressed
itself to the “Opinions of Mankind” and to “a candid
World” had to be recovered from its cosmopolitan contexts and
made into something specifically American. This effort of domestication
would have two equal and opposite effects: first, it
would hide from Americans the original meaning of the Declaration
as an international, and even a global, document; second,
it would ensure that within the United States only proponents
of slavery, supporters of Southern secession, and anti-individualist
critics of rights talk would be able to recall that original
meaning.
The very fact of American independence in the eyes of the
world confirmed the effects of this change in the document’s
meaning for Americans. As Woodrow Wilson noted on July 4,
1914, in a speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, “In one
sense, the Declaration of Independence has lost its significance.
It has lost its significance as a declaration of national independence.
. . . now nobody anywhere would dare doubt that we
are independent and can maintain our independence. As a declaration
of independence, therefore, it is a mere historic document.”
The primary intention behind the Declaration of Independence
in 1776 had been to affirm before world opinion the
rights of one people organized into thirteen states to enter the
international arena on a footing equal to other, similar states.
The authors of the Declaration had sought the admission of the
United States of America to a pre-existing international order;
accordingly, they had couched their appeal to the powers of the
earth in terms that those powers would understand and, Congress
hoped, also approve. “In our Transactions with European
States, it is certainly of Importance neither to transgress, nor to
fall short of those Maxims, by which they regulate their Conduct
towards one another,” explained James Wilson in January
1777.2 In this sense, the Declaration signaled to the world that
the Americans intended their revolution to be decidedly unrevolutionary.
It would affirm the maxims of European statecraft,
not affront them. It would conform as far as possible to
the regulatory norms of contemporary politics. Least of all
would it be an incitement to rebellion or revolution elsewhere
in the world, rather than an inducement to reform.3
The Declaration of Independence has been called “a document
performed in the discourse of the jus gentium [the law of
nations] rather than jus civile [the civil law].”4 Owing to its success
in securing American independence, this fact has generally
been overlooked. The document’s opening and closing statements
have been taken for granted because in retrospect they
seemed to have enduringly confirmed that independence. Yet
they are, after all, the most prominent sentences in the document,
the statements of what the United States intended to become:
“to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate
and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s
God entitle them”; and of what they could do once they had
achieved that goal: “to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things
which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.” The rest of
the Declaration provided only a statement of the abstract principles
upon which the assertion of such standing within the international
order rested, and an accounting of the grievances
that had compelled the United States to assume their independent
station among “the Powers of the Earth.”
Though largely forgotten now, this understanding of the
Declaration’s meaning held sway even among American commentators
for almost half a century after 1776. Thus John Adams,
writing in 1781, called the Declaration “that memorable
Act, by which [the United States] assumed an equal Station
among the Nations.” For a group of Americans in Paris, writing
to Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1789, the document was “that
declaratory act which announced to the world the existence of
an empire.” To David Ramsay, in his History of the American Revolution
(1789), it was “the act of the united colonies for separating
themselves from the government of Great-Britain, and declaring
their independence.” For John Quincy Adams, speaking
on Independence Day, 1821, “the Declaration of Independence,
in its primary import, was merely an occasional state-paper. It
was a solemn exposition to the world, of the causes which had
compelled the people of a small portion of the British empire, to
cast off their allegiance and renounce the protection of the
British king: and to dissolve their social connexion with the
British people.” From the other side of the sectional divide,
John C. Calhoun concurred some years later: “The act was, in
fact, but a formal and solemn announcement to the world, that
the colonies had ceased to be dependent communities, and had
become free and independent States.”5
This emphasis on the state-making capacity of the Declaration
was partly an American response to a counter-revolutionary
critique of theories of natural rights in the 1770s that foreshadowed
the much more vehement offensive against the French
Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in the
1790s. The French Revolution would cast other shadows across
the cause of American independence. The claim of some
French revolutionaries that their movement owed its inspiration
to the United States rendered key documents like the Declaration
suspect and dangerous in the eyes of those who feared
the wholesale destruction of the political and diplomatic order
of the Atlantic world. Though it is now common to assimilate
the American and French Revolutions to each other, and to include
both in a broader “Age of the Democratic Revolution” or
“Age of Revolutions,” such an identification obscures major differences
between the two political movements when considered
in their international context.6
International affairs were a major determinant even of the
domestic, American, meaning of the Declaration. The elevation
of the Declaration to the status of “American scripture,” and the
centrality of its second paragraph to that sanctified position,
could take place only once all doubt had been laid to rest
that the American and French Revolutions were but two distinct
moments in a single movement against the established order.
In the words of the German counter-revolutionary writer
Friedrich Gentz—translated for an American audience by John
Quincy Adams in 1800—“The American revolution was from
beginning to end, on the part of the Americans, merely a defensive
revolution; the French was from beginning to end, in the
highest sense of the word, an offensive revolution.” It was regrettable,
Gentz thought, that the Americans had with an “empty
pomp of words” claimed the possession of natural and inalienable
rights in the Declaration, but fortunately, “they allowed
these speculative ideas no visible influence upon their practical
measures and resolves.” Theirs was a legal revolution, directed
against specific oppressive measures and not against monarchical
principles tout court. On these grounds, “there was, in itself,
nothing unnatural, nothing revolting, nothing plainly irreconcilable
with the maxims of the law of nations, and the laws of
self-preservation, in the alliance, which France contracted with
them.”7
The maxims of the law of nations themselves were changing
in the late eighteenth century, and with them, the interpretation
of the Declaration as a document of international law. It
was in this period that “the law of nations, long and inextricably
associated with the law of nature came . . . to be understood
as positive law, made by sovereign states, acting collectively
through authorized means, for their progressively more complex
ends.”8 As one contemporary commentator remarked, it
was “hardly possible that the simple law of nature should be
sufficient, even between individuals, and still less between nations,
when they come to frequent and carry on commerce
with each other.” States had to temper the law of nature in
practice and by consent: “The whole of the rights and obligations
thus established between two nations, form the positive
law of nations between them. It is called positive, particular,
or arbitrary, in opposition to natural, universal and necessary
law.”9 Thomas Jefferson himself encapsulated the prevailing wisdom
of the period when he stated in 1793 that “the Law of Nations
. . . is composed of three branches. 1. the Moral law of
our nature. 2. the Usages of nations. 3. their special Conventions.”
10 These overlapping conceptions of the law of nations
would decisively shape the reception of the Declaration outside
the United States in the decades immediately after 1776.
Reports of American independence traveled immediately
across the Atlantic Ocean and then deep into Continental Europe
in the summer and autumn of 1776. Only two months after
Congress had passed its resolution on July 2, word of inde-
pendence had reached as far east as Warsaw.11 The itinerary of
the news illustrated the remarkable speed of communications
in the late eighteenth century, as well as the richly developed
network of newspapers and journals, and of spies and agents,
that relied on the transmission of such information. Word had
spread first to London, and from there to Scotland, Ireland, and
Holland, before it was carried to the German lands, Scandinavia,
and Southern and Eastern Europe, all in the space of barely
eight weeks.
The text of the Declaration of Independence first appeared
in London newspapers in the second week of August 1776.12
Less than a week later, it was printed in Edinburgh, where the
philosopher and historian (and strong supporter of American
independence) David Hume could have read it on August 20,
only five days before his death on August 25; it also appeared in
the Dublin press on August 24.13 The next week it was reported
in Madrid on August 27, and the Dutch press—beginning
with the widely distributed Gazette de Leyde from Leiden—
picked it up on August 30; the following day it also appeared in
Vienna.14 By September 2, a Danish newspaper in Copenhagen
carried a translation of the Declaration on its front page. On
September 14 readers learned of it in Florence. The following
month, a complete German translation was published in a
Swiss journal in Basel.15
Despite this initially rapid transmission through the chan-
nels of late eighteenth-century print culture, the Declaration’s
progress was somewhat hampered by the fact that it was written
in English. French, not English, was the reigning language
of diplomacy, and English was not yet a major lingua franca
even for the learned across Europe and the Americas.16 The
worldwide community of English speakers would have amounted
to barely more than the 12.5 million “subjects of the British
empire” Arthur Young had estimated in 1772: that is, roughly
the population of Austria (over 15 million), fewer than the inhabitants
of Russia (circa 19 million), more than half the contemporary
population of France (24 million), perhaps half the
number of the Ottoman sultan’s 28–30 million subjects, but
only a fraction of the nearly 270 million inhabitants of the Qing
empire in 1776.17
Though English would not greatly aid the spread of the Declaration,
American independence would in due course help to
secure the global dominance of English. John Adams predicted
in 1780 that “English is destined to be in the next and succeeding
centuries more generally the language of the world than
Latin was in the last or French is in the present age.”18 (In this
regard, it is notable that the Declaration seems never to have
been translated into Latin, in 1776 or since.) Two years later,
Caleb Whitefoord, the Scottish secretary to the British peace
commissioners in Paris, concurred when replying to a French
taunt that “the United States would form the greatest empire in
the world”: “Yes, sir, and they will all speak English; every one
of them.”19 Not quite every one within the United States spoke
English, of course. The colonies contained a diverse ethnic mix
of Dutch, Germans, French, and Africans, as well as Britons
and Irish. Indeed, the very first translations of the Declaration,
into German, appeared between July 6 and 9, 1776, as a broadside
and then in a Philadelphia newspaper, for the benefit of the
local German community.20
In the second half of 1776, the Declaration itself received little
or no direct commentary in France, Italy, Germany, Poland,
Switzerland, or Spain. The immediate effect of the less specific
news of independence on Europe was minimal.21 Only in England
and Ireland did it have any direct political consequences.
Supporters of the British cause had predicted that “the Declaration
for an Independency must totally silence any Advocates
[the Americans] had in England.”22 Some of the firmer partisans
of the American cause may have been cheered by the news.
Wavering sympathizers of the Americans recoiled as Congress
had clearly marked a point of no return in the conflict with
Britain.23 Edmund Burke, for one, later histrionically confessed
that “the day that he first heard of the American states having
claimed Independency, it made him sick at heart; it struck him
to his soul, because he saw it was a claim essentially injurious to
this country, and a claim which Great Britain could never get
rid of. Never! Never! Never!”24
British and American Loyalist opponents of the American
rebellion either deplored the presumptuousness of the colonists
or took comfort from the fact that a long-meditated conspiracy
for independence had at last been flushed out into the open.
On Staten Island with the British forces, Ambrose Serle, the
secretary to the British admiral Lord Richard Howe, expressed
his horror at the Declaration on July 13, 1776: “A more impudent,
false and atrocious Proclamation was never fabricated by
the Hands of Man.”25 Howe himself sent one of the first copies
of the Declaration back to London in August 1776. He also
recognized how it had changed relations between the British
and the colonists when he met a congressional delegation, comprising
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Edward Rutledge,
on Staten Island in September 1776: “They themselves had
changed the ground . . . by their Declaration of Independency,
which, if it could not be got over, precluded him from all
Treaty . . . he had not, nor did he expect to have, Powers to
consider the Colonies in the light of Independent States.”26
The most efficient transmitters of the Declaration across the
Atlantic were not the agents of Congress but British civilian
and military officials in North America. During the autumn of
1776, these officers sent five copies of the Declaration back to
Britain, where they later found their way into the British state
papers. These copies now make up the largest collection of
original printings of the document outside the United States.27
At the time, they seem to have aroused no immediate ministerial
reaction. What that reaction might have been can be inferred
from the response of the exiled former governor of
Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, who was in London just as
details of the Declaration arrived: “The Congress has issued a
most infamous Paper reciting a great number of Pretended tyrannical
deeds of the King and declaring their Independence.”28
In a delicious irony, Hutchinson had received an honorary degree
from Oxford, the most conservative of contemporary
British universities, on July 4, 1776. Within a few weeks of
hearing of the Declaration, he also published one of only two
British pamphlets in reply to it: as well he might have done, for
he was the intended target of some of its most egregious
charges.29 Hutchinson surely shared the sentiments of George
III, who delivered a speech to the British Parliament on October
31, 1776, in which he condemned the “daring and desperate”
spirit of the leaders of his American colonies, who had
“presumed to set up their rebellious confederacies for independent
states.”30
On the western side of the Atlantic, silencing the Declaration
was a more effective governmental response to its challenge
than attempting to refute it. When word of the Declaration
had reached the British colony of Nova Scotia, in August
1776, the British governor allowed only the last paragraph of
the document to be printed, lest the rest of it “gain over to
them (the Rebels) many converts, and inflame the minds of his
Majesty’s loyal and faithful subjects of the Province of Nova Scotia.”
31 Back in Britain, however, the government could not respond
openly and officially to the Declaration, for that “would
be to recognise that equality and independence, to which subjects,
persisting in revolt, cannot fail to pretend . . . This would
be to recognise the right of other states to interfere in matters,
from which all foreign interposition should for ever be precluded.”
32 Lord North’s ministry did, however, secretly commission
a rebuttal to the Declaration, from which these words
are taken. The author of Answer to the Declaration of the American
Congress (1776) was John Lind, a young lawyer and pamphleteer
who had previously come to the administration’s notice with
his pamphlets Remarks on the Principal Acts of the Thirteenth Parliament
(1775) and Three Letters to Dr Price, Containing Remarks on his
Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government,
and the Justice and Policy of the War with America (1776).33
Two versions of Answer to the Declaration appeared in 1776.
The ministry seems to have judged that the first version went
too far both in trying to imagine the justifications the Americans
might have had for issuing their Declaration and in presuming
to offer the “Outlines of a Counter-Declaration” that
the king could present in refutation of the Americans’ assertions.
The ministry suppressed the initial text of the Answer—
only one copy of which now survives—and had the whole
work revised before eight thousand copies were issued in multiple
editions over the course of 1776.34 Five hundred copies of
this revised Answer to the Declaration were sent from London to
America, to instruct the British forces and to rebut American
arguments in favor of independence.35
The Answer to the Declaration was mostly a point-by-point
examination and refutation of the charges against the king.
Lind denied that the Americans were still anything other than
treacherous individuals, rather than states, and hence argued
that they were still rebels rather than legitimate corporate
belligerents. To do otherwise would have been to make a mockery
of the idea of allegiance, let alone legality; after all, if the
colonists were acknowledged to be independent citizens of a
foreign state, what could have prevented a pirate like Captain
Kidd from protecting himself against criminal prosecution by
declaring himself independent? “Instead of the guilty pirate,”
Lind warned, “he would have become the independent prince;
and taken among the ‘maritime’ powers—‘that separate and equal
station, to which’—he too might have discovered—‘the laws of
nature and of nature’s God entitled him.’”
Finally, Lind mocked the colonists for their hypocrisy in announcing
the natural equality of all mankind while failing to
free their slaves: such rights were hardly inalienable, and clearly
not natural, if they were denied to “these wretched beings.”36
Thomas Hutchinson similarly wished “to ask the Delegates of
Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, how their Constituents
justify the depriving more than an hundred thousand Africans
of their rights to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in some
degree, to their lives, if their rights are so absolutely unalienable.”
The English abolitionist Thomas Day, writing in 1776,
went even further in his criticism: “If there be an object truly
ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions
of independency with the one hand, and with the other
brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”37
The Answer to the Declaration was one of only a handful of
contemporary publications to comment on the natural rights
claims of the Declaration’s second paragraph. Among Continental
writers, the French duc de La Rochefoucauld d’Enville
alone, writing in the guise of a banker in London, considered
the claim that all men are created equal to be an established
truth in all religions. He saw nothing in the Declaration’s further
rights claims that could be construed as a challenge to general
rights of sovereignty. This was of a piece with his effusive
assessment that the Declaration was “the greatest event of the
campaign, of the war itself, and perhaps of this century.”38
Among British and Loyalist respondents, only Hutchinson dealt
with the question of rights, and even then he did so briefly and
dismissively, while a letter in the August 1776 issue of The Scots
Magazine reduced the Declaration’s self-evident truths to absurdity:
“these gentry assume to themselves an unalienable right of
talking nonsense.”39 Two years later in 1778, in the course of
versifying the whole Declaration, grievances and all, an obscure
English satirist named Joseph Peart wittily mocked the American
assertion
That all men are born free alike,
And are undoubtedly allow’d,
By providence to be endow’d,
(As many a learned author writes)
With some unalienable rights;
’Mong these we lay the greatest stress,
On life, pursuit of happiness,
And (what is best of all the three)
Of uncontrouled liberty.
For surely no one can believe,
But he’s a certain right to live,
Without receiving check or stop here,
As long as ever he thinks proper.40
The “Short Review of the Declaration” accompanying Lind’s
Answer similarly judged the principles upon which the Americans
claimed their independence to be tautologous, redundant,
inconsistent, and hypocritical. “If to what they now demand
they were entitled by any law of God,” thundered the reviewer,
“they had only to produce that law, and all controversy was at
an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call
self-evident truths. . . . At the same time, to secure these
rights, they are content that Governments should be instituted.
They perceive not, or will not seem to perceive, that nothing
which can be called government ever was, or ever could be, in
any instance, exercised, but at the expence of one or other of
those rights” to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.41
This precocious attack on the language of individual natural
rights in the Answer to the Declaration was a significant contribution
to late eighteenth-century counter-revolutionary discourse.
The “Short Review” formed a link between the American
and French Revolutions because its main author was not
Lind but his friend the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.42 Bentham
had earlier collaborated on Lind’s Remarks and had prepared a
devastating (but unpublished) criticism of what he called “negative
liberty” for inclusion in Lind’s Three Letters to Dr Price.43
Until the end of his life, Bentham remained critical of the principles
that underpinned the Declaration. “Who can help lamenting
that so rational a cause should be rested upon reasons,
so much fitter to beget objections, than to remove them?” he
complained in 1789, referring to the Virginia Declaration of
Rights, the Massachusetts Declaration, and the Declaration itself;
almost half a century later he still called the Virginia Declaration
“a hodge-podge of confusion and absurdity, in which
the thing to be proved is all along taken for granted.”44
The basis of Bentham’s criticism remained consistent. Ascribing
laws to nature, and deriving natural rights from such
laws, was not simply nonsense but “rhetorical nonsense, nonsense
upon stilts,” as he called it in his demolition of the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen almost twenty
years after his earlier reply to the Declaration of Independence.
45 Defensible rights could be derived only from the positive
acts of identifiable legislators. In the relations between nations,
the only positive acts were the transactions of sovereigns
that made up a body of positive “international law,” as Bentham
had been the first to call it in 1780. His attack on the premises
of the Declaration may have helped to sharpen his sense that
this new term was needed to denominate an increasingly salient
body of law. If the Continental Congress were to be acknowledged
as a legitimate executive body, then its Declaration could
be construed as a positive act within the ambit of international
law. However, it could be acknowledged in this way only if the
Declaration itself were recognized as the positive act that had
endowed Congress with international personality as a sovereign
body. How could independence be declared, except by a body
that was already independent in the sense understood by the
law of nations?
This would be the nub of the legal argument raised by the
Declaration in the decades after 1776. A mere declaration
alone could not constitute independence; it could only an-
nounce what had already been achieved by other means. The
Declaration had thus to perform American independence in the
very act of announcing it. As the French philosopher Jacques
Derrida pointed out in 1976, on the anniversary of American
independence, “The question remains. How is a State made or
founded, how does a State make or found itself? . . .Who signs
all these authorisations to sign?”46 Bentham had asked a similar
question two centuries earlier in his Fragment on Government
(April 1776): “When is it, in short, that a revolt shall be deemed
to have taken place, and when . . . is it that that revolt shall be
deemed to such a degree successful, as to have settled into independence?”
47 At this point he refused to say, but the question remained
when he joined Lind’s attack on the Declaration later
that same year.
American independence could be accomplished only
through external recognition, in the form of tangible military
assistance and diplomatic and commercial transactions. Accordingly,
Congress instructed its commissioners in Paris, Silas
Deane, Benjamin Franklin, and Arthur Lee, “to obtain as early
as possible a publick acknowledgement of the Independancy of
these States of the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain by
the Court of France.”48 Congress found the long silence from
the French court in 1776 and for more than a year afterward
particularly troubling. The first American representative
in Paris, Deane, did not receive the copy of the Declaration that
was sent to him on July 8, 1776, along with instructions to
“immediately communicate the piece to the Court of France,
and send copies of it to the other Courts of Europe. It may be
well also to procure copies of it into French, and get it published
in the gazettes.” A second copy arrived only in November
1776, by which time the news of American independence had
been circulating for at least three months elsewhere in Europe.
French audiences could by then have read a translation of the
Declaration in the Gazette de Leyde or another in the Parisian Political
and Historical Journal dated September 10, 1776. Two
more translations would appear the following year in the Affairs
of England and America—a journal secretly sponsored by the
French foreign minister, the comte de Vergennes—and other
versions could be found in subsequent years in two collections
of American state papers published in Paris that were associated
with Benjamin Franklin, the Collection of Constitutional Laws of
the English Colonies (1778), which was dedicated to him, and the
Constitutions of the Thirteen Colonies of the United States of America
(1783), which he revised.50 However, though the marquis de
Lafayette and others admired the Declaration, the French paid
much more attention to the American state constitutions than
to the Declaration itself in the years before and after 1789.51
When the French court did eventually enter into a treaty of
alliance with the United States in February 1778, following the
watershed American victory over British forces at the battle of
Saratoga, it did so “to maintain effectually the liberty, Sovereignty
and independence absolute and unlimited of the said
United States,” among other things.52 This was, of course, what
Congress had hoped for all along, having simultaneously created
committees for drafting the Declaration and the Model
Treaty.
France’s de facto recognition of American independence by
the treaties of 1778 elicited immediate denunciation from Britain.
The ministry commissioned the historian of empire and
Board of Trade member Edward Gibbon to write a “justificatory
memorial” in French exposing the bad faith of the
French court in making an alliance with “the dark agents of the
English Colonies, who founded their pretended independence
on nothing but the boldness of their revolt.” Gibbon argued that
the alliance was a specific repudiation of the articles of peace
signed between Britain and France at the end of the Seven
Years’ War; it was also a general offense against the law of nations,
which debarred any power from offering aid to rebels
within the dominions of another legitimate sovereign. To believe
otherwise would be “to introduce maxims as new as they
are false and dangerous into the jurisprudence of Europe” and
would lead to further revolts in the American provinces of
France and Spain. The Americans themselves should also be
warned that their “pretended independence, bought with so
many miseries and so much blood,” would soon be subject to
the despotic will of a foreign court.53
To Gibbon’s solemn admonitions and aspersions on American
independence the English radical John Wilkes retorted:
“Why must it be ‘la déclaration (ouverte) de leur indépendance
(prétendue)’ . . . after the third anniversary of the independance of
The United States had been celebrated? The independance of the
country is tolerably well established, when a foreign prince
cannot make an exciseman”: that is, when the former ruler
could no longer appoint even the lowliest administrative officers
because he had long since lost effective control. American
independence,Wilkes argued, was based not on the Americans’
rebellious boldness but on the facts so rigorously set forth
in “the famous Declaration of Independance of the memorable
fourth of July, 1776.”54
If the Declaration’s purpose was to enable the rebellious colonies
to enter into diplomatic and commercial alliances with
other powers, as Paine, Richard Henry Lee, the local declarations,
and the drafting committee of the Continental Congress
intended, at what point did the colonies become states and the
rebels acquire legitimacy? The United States formally entered
the international system upon joining the Franco-American alliance;
only after that could the question of American independence
be treated as a positive, albeit contested, international
fact.
Yet the fact of independence was one thing; the basis on
which the Declaration had asserted it quite another, for only
positive acts could constitute statehood. If a mere declaration
was insufficient, and the acknowledgment of independence by
Britain inconceivable, would recognition of independence by a
third power, such as France, be necessary to ensure legitimacy?
Would even recognition by third parties be inadequate until the
metropolitan government had conceded independence, as Britain
did only by the Peace of Paris in 1783?55
These questions concerning independence, statehood, and
recognition were at the heart of the emerging positive law of
nations in the late eighteenth century, and the Declaration—
like American independence itself—was received in this light
after 1783 and in Europe. These aspects of the Declaration became
the focus of the rapidly evolving argument about the theory
of the legal recognition of states. To claim an equal station
for the United States among “the Powers of the Earth,” the colonists
needed more than the bare assertion that those states
were entitled to their independence by virtue of the “Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God.” The modern exponents of natural
law, such as Vattel, had argued that states did, indeed, possess a
right to existence, independence, and equality. But the means
by which new states might acquire that right, if they had not
previously possessed it, became a central topic of international
legal argument only in the late eighteenth century, partly in re-
sponse to the issues of recognition raised by the Declaration of
Independence itself.56
The Declaration became a prominent exhibit in the earliest
discussion of the recognition of states. This came from the German
jurist and belletrist J. C. W. von Steck in 1783. Previously,
discussions of state recognition in European public law
had concerned individual rulers’ rights of dynastic succession.
Steck’s approach was original in that he treated the recognition
and legitimation not just of princes but of states in general. His
account accordingly focused on republics like the United Provinces
and the United States. In the latter case, Steck denied that
American independence had had any international standing until
it was formally and positively recognized by Britain. Writing
in the immediate aftermath of the Treaty of Paris, he deemed
French recognition in 1778 to have been premature, and hence
without constructive force, because it had not been accompanied
by any British renunciation of rights.57
In 1789 the Göttingen law professor G. F. von Martens
pressed Steck’s point further to argue that, “when once obedience
has been formally refused, and the refusing party has entered
into the possession of the independence demanded, the
dispute becomes the same as those which happen between independent
states,” subject, however, to the major proviso that
the offended party could rightfully construe any aid or succor
offered to the newly independent state as an act of war: “The
conduct that Great Britain observed . . . after the Colonies of
North America declared themselves independent, may serve to
illustrate this subject.”58 Some fifty years later, the question of
state recognition raised by American independence had become
canonized as one of the great causes célèbres of modern international
law as it passed decisively into its positivist phase.59
The victory of the Americans in their war of independence
against Britain changed the status of the Declaration outside
the United States. Britain’s recognition of American independence
in 1783 by Article I of the Peace of Paris indisputably
confirmed what the Declaration had contentiously affirmed in
1776: “His Britannick Majesty acknowledges the said United
States . . . to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States” de jure,
and no longer just de facto.60 The momentousness of that event
was not lost on Edmund Burke: “A great revolution has happened—
a revolution made, not by chopping and changing of
power in any one of the existing states, but by the appearance
of a new state, of a new species, in a new part of the globe. It
has made as great a change in all the relations, and balances,
and gravitation of power, as the appearance of a new planet
would in the system of the solar world.”61 Once the Declaration’s
immediate purpose had been served, the opening and
closing paragraphs fell into oblivion. As a sympathetic foreign
observer, the marquis de Condorcet, noted in 1786, in France
American “independence is recognized and assured; [our politicians]
seem to regard it with indifference.”62 Because American
independence was now an acknowledged fact in international
politics, there was little need to consult the charter in which
that independence had originally been asserted.
Soon after the official British recognition of American independence,
European students of public law incorporated the
Declaration into the modern positive law of nations. For example,
the British politician and Board of Trade member Charles
Jenkinson included it in his 1785 collection of treaties, and indeed
used it to mark the most recent moment in a period of international
affairs that had begun with the Spanish recognition
of the independence of the United Provinces in 1649: “By the
Treaties made at Paris in 1783, another Revolution was acknowledged
and confirmed, viz. that of the United States of
America.” Jenkinson placed the document between a Spanish
declaration of 1771 concerning the Falkland Islands and the
Franco-American treaty of 1778, as an equivalent document
within the positive law of nations.63 Martens’s Summary of the
Law of Nations . . . of the Modern Nations of Europe (1789) listed it,
along with the Articles of Confederation, which these European
commentators also construed as an international agreement
entered into by thirteen free and independent states.64
The first generation of lawyers in the new American republic
observed that the United States had entered the interna-
tional system at an especially propitious time in the history of
the law of nations. For example, when James Kent produced
the earliest digest of American law in 1826, he began his Commentaries
with a chapter on the law of nations. This first chapter
opened with the assertion that “when the United States ceased
to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of
an independent nation, they became subject to that system
of rules which reason, morality, and custom, had established
among the civilized nations of Europe, as their public law.” He
acknowledged that opinions differed as to whether the law of
nations was “a mere system of positive institutions” or “essentially
the same as the law of nature, applied to the conduct of
nations.”65
Because the authors of the Declaration of Independence had
striven to make the document conform to the prevailing norms
of the late eighteenth-century international order, it had been
jurisprudentially eclectic. It was neither wholly naturalist nor
exclusively positivist. Its argument was partly grounded in natural
law, but it concluded with a positive statement of “all the
. . . Acts and Things which Independent States may of right
do.” By the third quarter of the eighteenth century the authority
of natural law theory in Britain, France, and Germany was
beginning to wane after almost two centuries of ascendancy.66
It was therefore somewhat ironic that the language of individual
natural rights—which in its modern form had sprung from this
tradition—should have become so prominent during the era of
the American and French Revolutions: only as the philosophical
underpinnings that had made sense of it gave way did that language
gain a temporary, though far from permanent, hegemony
over political discourse. By the end of the eighteenth century,
in Europe at least, the notion of natural rights was apparently
“an idea whose time had come too late in politics to coincide
with its philosophical respectability.”67
The rights claims of the Declaration itself played little part
in American political discourse in the first forty years of the
Republic. Five of the first state constitutions—Maryland (1776),
North Carolina (1776), Pennsylvania (1776), Georgia (1777),
and South Carolina (1778)—referred to the fact that the colonies
had been declared independent, but only the New York
constitution (1777) quoted the Declaration at length in its preamble.
Many of these state constitutions enumerated various
rights to life, liberty, and property, or based a right to pursue
happiness and freedom on the belief that all men were born
equal and independent, but they did so in language mostly
drawn from other documents, especially George Mason’s draft
of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.68
The first imitation of the Declaration within North America
affirmed the primacy of the rights of states over the rights of
individuals. Inspired by the example of the United States, the
inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants declared their inde-
pendence from Great Britain and from the state of New York in
January 1777 to form their own “separate, free and independent
jurisdiction or state,” at first called New Connecticut but
from June 1777 better known as Vermont.69 “The State of Vermont
. . . has a natural right to independence,” argued one of its
defenders in 1780. “They have declared to the world that they
are, and of right ought to be, a free independant State.”70
The United States refused to recognize an independent Vermont
because it presented such an obvious challenge to the
territorial integrity of the states that had succeeded the boundaries
and jurisdictions of the previously existing colonies. Others
beyond New York and Congress shared this fear of further
fragmentation. “If every district so disposed, may for themselves
determine that they are not within the claim of the thirteen
states . . . we may soon have ten hundred states, all
free and independent,” observed a New Hampshire Convention
of towns in 1780.71 This opposition to further claims to independence,
and the insistence on the legal principle of uti
possidetis—which “provides that states emerging from decolonization
shall presumptively inherit the colonial administrative
borders that they held at the time of independence”—foreshadowed
the almost uniform insistence on the maintenance of
territorial integrity after a declaration of independence in later
world history.72 Vermont, however, remained separate both
from Britain and from the United States until 1791, when it
became the first independent republic to join the American
union.
The language of the Declaration of Independence did not appear
in the Federal Constitution. Indeed, the Declaration itself
was barely mentioned in the debates of the Constitutional Convention;
it was alluded to only once in the Federalist Papers; and
it was otherwise rarely appealed to in the extensive debate on
the ratification of the Constitution. In light of these conspicuous
absences from American public debate, it comes as little
surprise that Alexis de Tocqueville did not mention the Declaration
in Democracy in America (1835–1840).
In an age of bitter partisan strife between Federalists and Jeffersonian
Republicans, the Declaration had come to seem like a
dangerously francophile, anti-British document, and a charter
for potential revolution against all established governments. Its
claims to natural rights and to a right of revolution had sounded
suspiciously like the “Jacobinical” tenets of the French Revolution.
Its catalogue of grievances against King George III (who
after all reigned until 1820) also rendered it distinctly anti-British
even when Britain and the United States stood formally
against the threats of the French Directory and, later, Napoleon.
Only after the War of 1812 did the Declaration itself
come to be celebrated with the same cross-party national fervor
as the Fourth of July itself. It was in precisely this period
that the Declaration became a national icon. The first engrav-
ings and reprintings of the document were produced for display
in homes and official buildings in 1817. The following year,
John Trumbull exhibited his painting of the signing, originally
sketched in 1786, to large crowds in Boston. In 1823, John
Quincy Adams commissioned William J. Stone, a British-born
printer in Washington, D.C., to produce facsimiles on vellum
of the engrossed parchment version of the Declaration. Two
hundred lavish copies were distributed to the nation’s state
houses and colleges, as well as to the surviving signers and the
marquis de Lafayette.73
It was in light of this renewed interest that the second paragraph
of the Declaration began its progress toward becoming
the heart of the Declaration’s meaning in the United States.
Once independence had become an uncontested fact, Americans
had little need to remember the assertions of independent
statehood in the Declaration’s opening and closing paragraphs.
When peace had been restored with Britain, and the precise incidents
that lay behind the grievances in the main body of the
Declaration had been forgotten, all of substance that remained
to be revered was the second paragraph.
The Declaration’s original motivation and its cosmopolitan
appeal to the “Opinions of Mankind” were lost to a nationalistic
veneration of the document as a whole. Selective attention was
paid only to its abstract claims rather than to its import as a
document with international implications.
The natural rights claims of the second paragraph “gradually
eclipsed altogether the document’s assertion of the right to revolution”
only in the 1820s; before then, most American “citations
of the Declaration were usually drawn from its final paragraph.”
74 In 1831 Sándor Bölöni Farkas, a Hungarian aristocrat
traveling in the United States, neatly captured the significance
of the document for Americans when in his account of the
widespread American cult of the Declaration he noted that it
bore no traces of the monarchical grants and charters found in
Europe. Instead, “its language is entirely that of natural law.”75
In this judgment he echoed John Quincy Adams, who in 1821
distinguished the Declaration from earlier historic agreements
between nobles and their princes, such as the Magna Carta:
“Here was no great charter of Runnimead, yielded and accepted
as a grant of royal bounty.”76
Beginning in the late 1820s, various groups across the
United States imitated the Declaration as they pressed their
own particular claims against a range of domestic—and occasionally
foreign—tyrants and oppressors. It is a striking fact
that it was three Britons, and not American-born citizens, who
first used the Declaration in this way. The utopian socialist
Robert Owen proposed in 1829 a “Declaration of Mental Independence”
to free Americans from private property, organized
religion, and marriage. On July 4, 1832, a Scotswoman and follower
of Owen, Frances Wright, argued in Philadelphia that
the American Revolution would be incomplete without guarantees
of free education, free labor, and retirement benefits for
all working people. In a similar spirit, the English-born journalist
George Henry Evans produced “The Working Men’s Declaration
of Independence” in the same year.77
The Declaration almost literally became American scripture
when a Baptist journal published a Declaration of Independence
from the “Satanic Crown and Kingdom” in August 1836
that was reprinted in the Cape Colony less than six months
later.78 As if to counter the cosmopolitan currents of circulation
that these declarations represented, members of the white anti-
Catholic, anti-immigrant Native American Convention issued a
Declaration of Principles patterned after the Declaration in
Philadelphia on July 4, 1845, “for the purpose of awakening
their countrymen to a sense of the evils already experienced
from foreign intrusion and usurpation.”79 Three years later, on
July 19, 1848, the Women’s Rights Convention, meeting in
Seneca Falls, New York, issued the most enduring of all these
early nineteenth-century imitations of the Declaration, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton’s Declaration of Sentiments, which held that
“all men and women are created equal” and submitted to a candid
world the “history of the repeated injuries and usurpations
on the part of man toward women.”80
By means of these imitations, and as a result of its sanctification
among other monuments of the founding era, the Declara-
tion became domesticated and Americanized for specifically
national purposes. Gradually, only supporters of slavery and
Southern secession came to insist that the Declaration’s central
message had been its announcement of independence. They did
so not least to sap the increasing cultural prestige of the Declaration’s
enumeration of rights, resistance, and equality, lest they
should be claimed by those to whom they had so obviously
been denied: the enslaved.81 As the proslavery propagandist
George Fitzhugh put it in Cannibals All! (1857), the American
Revolution “had nothing more to do with philosophy than
the weaning of a calf. It was the act of a people seeking national
independence, not the Utopian scheme of speculative philosophers,
seeking to establish human equality and social perfection.”
82 “All the bombastic absurdity in our Declaration of Independence
about the inalienable rights of man,” he later argued
during the Civil War, “had about as much to do with the occasion
as would a sermon or oration on the teething of a child or
the kittening of a cat.”83
Abraham Lincoln sought to combat such sentiments by his
repeated invocations and exegeses of the Declaration before
and during the American Civil War. He did so by recalling that
the Declaration had in fact held two messages, one in 1776 and
one for the future. Lincoln argued that to reduce the Declaration
to its contingent purpose in 1776 was to render it a dead
letter, of no present relevance. If it were simply a declaration of
national independence, then its work had been done decades
earlier: “Why that object having been effected some eighty
years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now—mere
rubbish—old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the
victory is won.” On the contrary, Lincoln stressed that there
was a universal and enduring message in the Declaration that
could be found in its second paragraph. “All honor to Jefferson,”
he later wrote in 1859, “to the man who, in the concrete
pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single
people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce
into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable
to all men and all times.”84
The application of that “abstract truth” as a yardstick to measure
the antebellum United States was hardly likely to be reassuring.
The free black abolitionist David Walker had made this
point twenty years before Lincoln wrote.Walker concluded his
Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World (1829) with a call to
white Americans to “compare your own language . . . extracted
from your Declaration of Independence, with your cruelties
and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers
and yourselves on our fathers and on us.”85 The same
point would be summoned with greatest force by the former
slave Frederick Douglass before an audience in Rochester, New
York, on July 5, 1852. In his towering oration, “What to the
Slave is the Fourth of July?” Douglass told his mostly white au-
dience that that hallowed day was “the birthday of your National
Independence, and of your political freedom” and that
“the Declaration of Independence is the RING-BOLT to the
chain of your nation’s destiny.” He reminded those present of
Richard Henry Lee’s resolution of July 2, 1776, but failed to
elaborate further on the grievances that had led to independence.
Instead, he dramatically turned the tables on his listeners,
arguing that this holiday was theirs and theirs alone: “I am
not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your
high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between
us. . . . This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may
rejoice, I must mourn.” The ineradicable national stains of slavery
and the internal slave trade, the weakness of the abolitionist
movement, and the connivance of the churches at the perpetuation
of human bondage all confirmed that “there is not a nation
on earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are
the people of these United States, at this very hour.”86
Douglass hammered home his assault on his audience’s consciences
by setting the “national inconsistencies” of the United
States in both international and ultimately global contexts. White
Americans, he charged, readily condemned tyranny in Russia
or Austria but not in Virginia or Carolina. They “shed tears
over fallen Hungary” but wept not for the wronged American
slave. They burned for the liberty of France or Ireland “but are
as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved
of America.” Such was their attachment to the Declaration that
Americans asserted “before the world, and are understood by
the world to declare,” that they held it self-evident that all men
were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain
rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
“and yet, you hold securely, in . . . bondage . . . a seventh part of
the inhabitants of your country.”87
Perhaps when the world had felt larger, communications had
been slower, and nations had been more self-sufficient, a people
could escape accountability for such spectacular hypocrisy,
Douglass argued. After 1776, and in light of the contraction of
the globe, they could no longer hide so easily from the judging
eyes of humanity:
While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of
Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius
of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by
the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now
stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages
ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding
world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers
without interference. . . .Walled cities and empires
have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has
borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating
the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway
over and under the sea, as well as on the earth.Wind,
steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no
longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to
London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively
annihilated.88
With this precocious appreciation of what we would now call
globalization, Douglass heralded a new moment in the international
histories of the United States and the Declaration of
Independence.89 Seventy-six years on from 1776, the United
States was still not completely free soil, yet at least it had a
moral imperative to live up to, derived from the claims of its
founding document.
The Declaration was now known to the whole world, and
that world would judge America according to the document’s
standards. Commerce and communications bound peoples together
as never before; one result of this interconnectedness
would be a greater sharing of political and religious languages
around the globe.90 Douglass was surely correct to link the “encouragement”
that could be derived from the Declaration with
the more far-reaching “tendencies of the age” to dissolve cultural
particularisms and to bring distinct peoples into closer
contact with one another. Yet he would soon prove to be mistaken
about one defining feature of the age. “Walled cities” may
have begun to fall around the globe by the mid-nineteenth century,
but empires were far from going out of fashion: quite the
contrary, in fact. Among the world leaders who sent congratulations
to the United States on the centennial of independence
in 1876 were the Russian emperor, Alexander II, the German
emperor, William I, the emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph II,
and the emperor of Brazil, Dom Pedro II.91 That same year, the
British Royal Titles Act made Queen Victoria empress of India.
A century after 1776, empires were certainly not in retreat;
they were on the march and gaining ground across the world.
The Declaration of Independence had introduced the United
States into an exclusive world of states in 1776. At the same
moment, it had also led America into a world inhabited by
empires, both the great territorial units of Eurasia and the European
maritime empires that projected their power across
oceans to span the whole globe. During the first half of the
nineteenth century, the United States would be joined by a host
of new republics in the Americas and by other emerging states
in Europe. The world of empires, however, would not pass until
the second half of the twentieth century. By the American
bicentennial in 1976, it had almost entirely disappeared, though
remnants of it linger with us still. Its gradual but accelerating
dissolution would be marked by a series of declarations of independence
generically similar to—and sometimes modeled
on—a document that Americans came to revere as their own,
but which had become over time the possession of the whole
world.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 2

2010-11-11T00:14:00.001-08:00

So apparently familiar are the words of the Declaration of Independence
that it is easy to forget what it was the Declaration
declared. Ask most Americans—and no doubt many non-
Americans—to quote the opening lines of the document and
they will likely reply, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Just how those
rights might have been connected to independence, few would
now stop to ask.
“Self-evident truths”; “all men are created equal”; “unalienable
rights”; “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”: these
are ringing words and noble sentiments, to be sure, but they
are not in fact what the Declaration proclaimed in 1776. Even
Abraham Lincoln, speaking in 1857, admitted: “The assertion
that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting
our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in
the Declaration, not for that, but for future use.”1
The Declaration would have been a document without a future
had it failed in its central purpose of declaring independence.
Had the Declaration been entirely ignored (as by many
it was); had its fundamental claims been decisively refuted (as
some thought they had managed to do); and had American independence
been nipped in the bud by British military force (as
it could very well have been), then few might now recall those
supposedly “self-evident” truths.
To see what the Declaration did declare, it will be helpful to
recall the structure of the document. For the Declaration was
an announcement in the form of an argument, possibly patterned
according to rules of logic that Thomas Jefferson—its
primary drafter—had learned during his student days at the
College of William and Mary in Virginia.2
The Declaration fell into five parts. Its initial premise, as
stated in the opening paragraph, was that “a decent Respect to
the Opinions of Mankind” required that “one People” breaking
away from another should declare their reasons for doing so. Its
secondary premises, stated in the now more famous second
paragraph, held to be self-evident the truths
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent
of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Violations of basic rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness could justify a separation only if they could be shown
to amount to “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations.” Only
then would a people be justified in seeking “to provide new
Guards for their future Security.”
The third and longest part of the Declaration listed the
alleged “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” committed by
George III as “Facts . . . submitted to a candid World” in evidence
of just such a train of abuses. The penultimate section
stated that those grievances had gone unredressed by “our British
Brethren,” so that “we must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity,
which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we
hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.”
Separation from Great Britain could be justified both logi-
cally and historically. Accordingly, the Declaration concluded in
its fifth and final part that “these United Colonies are, and of
Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” It
was to affirm this conclusion that the representatives assembled
in Congress resolved to “pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
The Declaration’s opening and closing paragraphs clearly affirmed
the entrance of a new actor (“one People”) or actors
(thirteen “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES”) onto the
world stage. The document’s very first sentence stated truths
about that world so self-evident that they apparently needed no
justification or elaboration:
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary
for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which
have connected them with another, and to assume among
the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle
them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the Separation.
Packed into this sentence was a set of assumptions about eighteenth-
century international politics.3 The most fundamental
was the existence of a group of political bodies (“the Powers of
the Earth”) that interacted with one another according to cer-
tain external rules (“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”).
They were entitled to do so for two main reasons: because they
were separate from—or independent of—one another, and because
they were equal in station to one another. Their number
was not closed or fixed; from time to time, it could expand to
include any “People” that had been compelled to become separate
and thereby wished to claim equal standing with the existing
powers. Like any public made up of discrete political persons,
however, this community of earthly powers possessed
opinions that needed to be informed and respected. Thus its
members communicated with one another formally by means
of public documents such as the Declaration itself.
The Declaration’s concluding paragraph enumerated the
rights possessed by those states that had successfully achieved
their independence and equality:
[T]hese United Colonies are, and of Right ought to
be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES . . . and that as
FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full
Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things
which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.
This list of the corporate rights of states was as open-ended as
the roster of individual rights found earlier in the Declaration,
which had stated that “all Men . . . are endowed by their Cre-
ator with certain unalienable Rights . . . among these are Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” (my emphases). The
Declaration specified the powers of states—war and peace,
treaty-making, and commerce—without foreclosing the need
to exercise other, similar powers should the need arise. With
that precise but flexible declaration of rights, the representatives
of the United States announced that they had left the
transnational community of the British Empire to join instead
an international community of independent sovereign states.
The Declaration of Independence was therefore a declaration
of interdependence. By issuing it, members of Congress
showed their “Respect to the Opinions of Mankind.” They submitted
the facts of their case to “a candid World,” meaning
an unprejudiced world. And they pledged to treat the British
“as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace,
Friends.” The Declaration may have spoken on behalf of Americans
through the voice of their congressional representatives,
but they were not the audience to which the text implicitly directed
its argument. That was instead the “Opinions of Mankind,”
the collective public opinion of the powers of the earth.
The very term “declaration” would have implied as much. To
be sure, the word did have technical meanings within seventeenth-
century English history and eighteenth-century English
law. Historically, a declaration was a public document issued
by a representative body such as Parliament; by calling its doc-
ument a “Declaration,” the Continental Congress implied that
it possessed the same sort of power to issue such documents
as did the British Parliament.4 Legally, what the leading
eighteenth-century English lawyer Sir William Blackstone had
called in 1765 “the declaration, narratio, or count” was the form
“in which the plaintiff [in a civil trial] sets forth his cause of
complaint at length.” Only the third section of the American
Declaration—the charge-sheet of grievances against the king—
amounted to a declaration in this sense.5
In contemporary diplomatic parlance, a declaration meant a
formal international announcement by an official body, “either
by a general manifesto, published to all the world; or by a note
to each particular court, delivered by an ambassador.”6 This is
of course now the main meaning of “declaration” in terms like
“declaration of war” or, indeed, “declaration of independence.”7
The Declaration of Independence possessed elements of all
three forms of declaration. In its language, its form, and its intent,
it most closely approximated “a general manifesto, published
to all the world.”
The Declaration was the culmination of a series of documents
designed by the Continental Congress to shape the
“Opinions of Mankind” across the British Empire (before July
1776) and then in the wider world (by the Declaration itself).
Before issuing the document, Congress had produced some
fifteen other state papers in the form of letters, petitions, pro-
posals, addresses, and a speech, but it had issued only one
other “declaration” as a formal precedent for the Declaration of
Independence: the “Declaration by the Representatives of the
United Colonies . . . Seting Forth the Causes and Necessity of
Their Taking Up Arms” of July 6, 1775. Thomas Jefferson was
one of the primary drafters, along with Pennsylvania delegate
John Dickinson, of this earlier declaration. In it, they had acknowledged
“obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to
make known the justice of our cause” and had “exhibit[ed] to
mankind” the plight of a wronged people.8
Like the Declaration of Independence, the “Declaration . . .
[on] Taking Up Arms” marked a decisive turning point in the
struggle between Britain and its American colonies: in this
case, the move by the colonists to formal armed conflict. It,
too, had been addressed to the judgment of a wider world,
with the reassurance that “we have not raised armies with
ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing
independant states”; accordingly, Congress rapidly dispatched
the document across the Atlantic to be printed in
London newspapers. Congress’s other state papers had been
addressed variously to the British people, the inhabitants of
Quebec, the people of Ireland, the Assembly of Jamaica, the Six
Nations of the Iroquois Confederation, the province of Canada,
and to Lord North and the king. Only one, in October 1774,
had been addressed to the inhabitants of the colonies them-
selves. Even that document had been composed with the expressed
hope of making “the strongest recommendation of their
cause to the rest of mankind.”9
The Declaration’s change of implied audience in July
1776—from particular communities within the British Empire
to “the candid world” at large—enacted the central claim of
the work itself: that the United Colonies had ceased to be
members of the British Empire and now stood alongside “the
Powers of the Earth.” In fact, for almost two years before making
the Declaration, Congress had been exercising most of the
rights claimed for the United States in that document. It had
been negotiating with British representatives, appointing agents
to pursue its interests in Europe, corresponding with foreign
powers, and seeking various kinds of aid for the revolutionary
cause.10 For supporters of a declaration in Congress, therefore,
“the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence,
we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether
we should declare a fact which already exists.”11
For some, the Declaration itself was only the last in a series
of acts that had severed the connection between Britain and the
United Colonies in the months before July 1776. In August
1775, George III had already declared by proclamation that the
American colonists were rebels, and hence outside his monarchical
protection. Parliament had confirmed this royal proclamation
in its Prohibitory Act of December 1775. John Adams,
writing in March 1776, cautioned a correspondent against confusing
mere freedom of trade with full-blown international independence:
“Independency is an Hobgoblin, of so frightfull
Mein, that it would throw a delicate Person into Fits to look it
in the Face.” Only the political dissolution of the bonds of empire
could amount to such a fearsome step. Moreover, Adams
thought that dissolution had already been effected by “the prohibitory
Act, or piratical Act, or plundering Act, or Act of Independency.”
“It is a compleat dismemberment of the British
Empire,” Adams wrote. “It throws thirteen Colonies out of the
Royal Protection, levels all Distinctions and makes us independent
in Spight of all our supplications and Entreaties . . . But it
is very odd that Americans should hesitate at accepting such a
gift.”12 They would not hesitate for long. Although they were
now rebels in the eyes of the British king and Parliament, they
were not yet legitimate belligerents in the view of the rest of
the world.
In order to turn a civil war within the British Empire into a
war between states outside the empire, it was necessary to create
legitimate bodies of combatants—that is, states—out of individual
rebels and traitors. This was the motive behind the resolution
that Richard Henry Lee moved in Congress on behalf
of the Virginia delegation on June 7, 1776: “That these United
Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent
States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political allegiance between them and the
State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
The international context of this resolution, effectively Congress’s
original declaration of independence, was evident from
the rest of Lee’s motion: “That it is expedient forthwith to take
the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That
a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective
Colonies for their consideration and approbation.”13
This resolution led to the creation of three interlocking
committees that shared both personnel and purposes. One was
charged with writing a declaration of independence, another
with drafting a model treaty of commerce and alliance, and a
third with drawing up articles of confederation. Each of these
documents was designed to be an expression of state sovereignty
under the contemporary law of nations. The Declaration
of Independence defined it. The Model Treaty would enact it.14
The Articles of Confederation safeguarded it for each of the
thirteen states in Article II (“Each State retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence”), but confined its international expression
to Congress alone (in Articles VI and IX, which gave
Congress “the sole and exclusive right and power of determining
on peace and war”).15
The need for recognition and assistance from other European
powers had become ever more pressing since the autumn
of 1775. In October 1775, John Adams wondered if foreign
courts might not rebuff American envoys: “Would not our Proposals
and Agents be treated with Contempt?”16 Richard Henry
Lee similarly noted in April 1776 that “no state in Europe will
either Treat or Trade with us for so long as we consider ourselves
subjects of G[reat] B[ritain]. Honor, dignity, and the customs
of states forbid them until we rank as an independant
people.”17 Therefore it was necessary for the colonists to create
juridical bodies with which the European powers could legitimately
conduct commerce and enter into alliances.
The most extensive presentation of the case for independence
according to “the customs of states” came in January
1776 in the closing pages of Thomas Paine’s best-selling pamphlet
Common Sense. Paine argued that “nothing can settle our
affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration
for Independance.” Only independence would permit a mediator
to negotiate peace between the United States and Great
Britain; without such mediation, “we may quarrel on for ever.”
Foreign alliances could not be secured without it: France and
Spain would hardly support the colonies if they were to be
asked only to aid reconciliation with Britain. Charges of rebellion
would also persist if independence were not declared: “we
must in the eye of foreign Nations be considered as Rebels.”
Moreover, it was essential for a “manifesto to be published, and
despatched to foreign Courts,” explaining colonial grievances,
the lack of redress, and the necessity of separation, “at the same
time assuring all such Courts, of our peaceable disposition towards
them, and of our desire of entering into trade with
them.” Until such a manifesto was dispatched, “the custom of
all Courts is against us, and will be so, until by an Independance,
we take rank with other Nations.”18
Throughout the spring and early summer of 1776, Paine’s
arguments echoed in the various instructions, addresses, and
resolutions that local bodies throughout the colonies sent to the
delegates at the Continental Congress. For example, in April
1776, North Carolina’s delegation was urged “to concur with
the Delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency,
and forming foreign alliances,” and delegates from Charlotte
County, Virginia, were directed “to cast off the British yoke, and
to enter into a commercial alliance with any nation or nations
friendly to our cause.” In the following month similar instructions
came from Malden, Massachusetts, to express “the ardent
wish of our souls that America may become a free and independent
State,” and in June 1776 delegates from Connecticut were
instructed “to declare the United Colonies free and independent
States.”19
These instructions, like the Declaration itself, faithfully combined
two arguments Paine had made so forcefully in Common
Sense: that the American colonies should be independent and
that they should be nonmonarchical republics, that is, “free . . .
States.” By the end of the sixteenth century the word “state” had
taken on its recognizably modern meaning of an impersonal
political power distinct from its holder. In anglophone political
language, the term “free state” had come to mean specifically
a nonmonarchical regime like the “Commonwealth and Free
State” created after the execution of the English king Charles I
in 1649.20 As the American historian David Ramsay noted on
the second anniversary of independence in 1778, “Independence
has been the fruitful parent of governments formed on
equal principles . . . While we were dependent on Britain, our
freedom was out of the question; for what is a free state, but
one that is governed by its own will?”21 “Free and independent
states” were thus republican governments, outside any allegiance
to the British Crown and operating under the prevailing
norms of the law of nations.
The standard guide to those norms available in 1776 was the
compendious work by the Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel, The Law
of Nations (1758).22 Vattel’s legal handbook had been a product
of the early stages of the Seven Years’ War. He wrote it in
French, the prevailing language of European diplomacy, but it
was almost immediately translated into English on its publication.
Thereafter, it became the standard text on the subject in
Europe and the Americas for more than half a century, with the
result that its definitions of key terms in what we would now
call international law and international relations became stan-
dard within the world of European—and, increasingly, also
American—diplomacy.23
Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of
statehood:
Every nation which governs itself, under any form whatsoever,
without dependency on any foreign country, is a sovereign
state. Its rights are by nature the same as those of every
other state. These are the moral persons who live
together in a natural society subject to the law of nations.
For any nation to make its entrance into this great society,
it is enough that it should be truly sovereign and independent,
that is to say, that it governs itself under its own authority
and its own laws.
Such independent sovereign states took on the qualities of the
persons who comprised them: “Nations being composed of
people naturally free and independent (libres & indépendans) and
who, before the establishment of civil societies lived together in
a state of nature, nations, or sovereign states, must be considered
as if they were free persons who co-exist in the state of
nature.” From this fact, Vattel derived two overarching laws imposed
upon all states: that they should contribute to the happiness
and perfection of all other states; and that, because as
states they are mutually free and independent (libres & indépendantes
les unes des autres), they must leave one another in the
peaceful enjoyment of their liberty. Vattel argued that, because
states are free, independent, and equal (libres, indépendantes,
egales), they must enjoy a perfect equality of rights. Such rights
could not trump the laws of nations: all states might be free and
independent (libres & indépendantes), but they were still bound to
observe the laws of society that nature had established among
them.24
No writer on the law of nations before Vattel had so consistently—
and persistently—emphasized freedom, independence,
and interdependence as the condition of states in their relations
with one another. The authors of the American Declaration
would soon adopt his repeated insistence that states were “free
and independent” as the conception of their own states’ condition.
By doing so, they enacted Vattel’s central contention
that—in the words of his contemporary English translator—
“independence is ever necessary to each state”; to secure that
independence “it is sufficient that nations conform to what is
required of them by the natural and general society, established
among all mankind.”25 In due course, this would become
the standard modern definition in international law of independence
as “the capacity to enter into relations with other
states.”26
It was no coincidence that the conception of statehood as in-
dependence found in the Declaration of Independence resembled
Vattel’s so closely. In October 1774, James Madison had
been informed that “Vattel, Barlemaqui Locke & Montesquie[u]
seem to be the standar[d]s to which [Congress] refer either
when settling the rights of the Colonies or when a dispute
arises on the Justice or propriety of a measure.”27 Just over a
year later, in 1775, Benjamin Franklin sought out the latest edition
of Vattel’s work for the benefit of Congress because “the
circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to
consult the law of nations.” Franklin obtained three copies of
the book, which he dispatched to the Library Company of Philadelphia,
to the Harvard College library, and to the Continental
Congress itself. (Congress’s copy has been lost, but the
other two copies remain in the libraries to which Franklin sent
them.) The work was immediately useful: as Franklin informed
Vattel’s editor, C. G. F. Dumas, in December 1775, it “has been
continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now
sitting.”28 The Declaration’s vision of “Free and Independent
States” assuming the “station to which the laws of nature and of
nature’s God entitle them” owes an obvious debt to Vattel’s
conception of states as free and independent under the laws of
nature. Thus Franklin’s words were not idle flattery.
The relative novelty in 1776 of the definition of international
statehood as freedom and independence is obvious if
one compares the American Declaration with two earlier docu-
ments retrospectively baptized as declarations of independence:
the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) (“the Scottish Declaration
of Independence”) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581)
(“the Dutch Declaration of Independence”). The Declaration of
Arbroath was addressed in the name of Scottish earls and barons
to Pope John XXII, urging him to use his influence to convince
the English king, Edward II, to enter peace negotiations
with Robert Bruce, the king of Scots. The document asserted
Scottish freedom on the basis of the historic continuity of the
Scots nation and a conception of liberty drawn from the Roman
historian Sallust. Its claims were thus backward-looking and defensive.
29 The document was never called a declaration of Scottish
independence before the twentieth century: that recent
pedigree did not deter the United States Congress from resolving
in 1998 that the Declaration of 1776 had been modeled on
that “inspirational document” of 1320, or from reaffirming that
connection almost every year since in resolutions from both
House and Senate in favor of marking a National Tartan Day on
April 6, the date when the Arbroath declaration was signed.30
The Dutch Act of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinge), by
which the States General cast off their allegiance to King Philip
of Spain in July 1581, had abjured the sovereignty of King
Philip but sought in his place “another powerful and merciful
prince to protect and defend these provinces”: it was, in this
sense, a declaration of prospective dependence upon a new sov-
ereign, the duke of Anjou.31 The document was also based on
historic and contractual rights that had been guaranteed and
regularly reinforced since the fourteenth century, rather than
on an appeal to natural law or other abstract rights outside of
history and beyond positive agreement. However, the form of
the American Declaration—with its assertion of a right to
throw off the sovereignty of a tyrannous prince and its enumeration
of grievances—was still close enough to that of the Dutch
Act for the pro-British (and anti-American) Dutch stadtholder
William V, prince of Orange, to call the Declaration in August
1776 but “the parody of the proclamation issued by our forefathers
against King Philip II.”32
There is at best only circumstantial evidence that the Dutch
Act provided a model for the American Declaration of 1776.33
Even if it had, the defining claim to independence could not be
found in the earlier declaration. It, too, would not be known as
the Dutch declaration of independence until long after its original
promulgation, and in the wake of the rise to prominence of
the American Declaration. It was not so-called until the 1890s.
Even then, the term arose in the United States rather than in
the Netherlands, during a brief burst of what has been called
“Holland Mania” in which the histories of the two republics
were favorably compared and the origins of many American institutions,
such as freedom of religion and freedom of the
press, were traced back to their alleged Dutch roots.34 These
belated baptisms of historic documents as declarations of independence
indicated the increasing prestige and prominence of
the American Declaration in world history rather than any genuinely
long or distinguished pedigree for it.
The lack of precise generic precedents for the Declaration in
1776 should not be taken as a sign that Congress had ignored
the lessons of history or the wider global context when justifying
the admission of the United States to the international community.
Both sides of the debate on Lee’s resolution in June and
July 1776 amply considered such lessons in the service of arguments
for and against declaring independence.35 The opponents
of a declaration argued that neither France nor Spain would be
likely to ally with the colonists out of fear that a rising power
would threaten their own possessions in the Americas. Even
more alarming, such a fear might impel the French and Spanish
courts to ally with Britain, which “would agree to a partition of
our territories, restoring Canada to France, & the Floridas to
Spain, to accomplish for themselves the recovery of these colonies”
that had been ceded to Britain at the end of the Seven
Years’War in 1763.36
In the aftermath of the war, and in light of other recent international
events, the threat of partition was immediate and
real to many colonists. Thus in Congress on July 1, 1776,
John Dickinson warned: “A Partition of these Colonies will
take Place if G.B. cant conquer us”; this would be like “Destroying
a House before We have got another. In Winter with a
small Family.”37 Even after the Declaration had been declared,
another Pennsylvania delegate, Benjamin Rush, feared that it
would only excite Britain to greater military exertions in concert
with predatory European allies. “What do you think of the
States of America being divided between two or three foreign
States & of seeing the Armies of two or three of the most powerful
Nations in Europe upon our Coasts?” he asked on July 23,
1776.38
European diplomatic practice gave grounds for such fears. In
1768, the Genoese had invited France to suppress the revolt on
the Mediterranean island of Corsica that had been led since
1765 by Pascal Paoli, a heroic figure whose plight was well
known to, and much celebrated by, American colonists.39 (The
town of Paoli, in Pennsylvania, is still a reminder of colonial enthusiasm
for the cause of Corsican independence.) In 1772
Prussia, Russia, and Austria had begun the dismemberment
of Europe’s largest state in the first Partition of Poland, a series
of events that the colonists also followed with interest and
anxiety.40
With these troubling precedents in mind, Daniel Leonard
warned in 1775 that Britain might ally with France and Spain
so that “the whole continent would become their easy prey, and
would be parcelled out, Poland like,” while Richard Henry Lee
speculated in April 1776 that “a slight attention to the late proceedings
of many European Courts will sufficiently evince the
spirit of partition, and the assumed right of disposing of Men &
Countries like live stock on a farm that distinguishes this corrupt
age. . . . Corsica, & Poland indisputably prove this.”41 A
year later, in April 1777, Thomas Paine confirmed the salience
of this fear in the discussions leading to the Declaration: “There
were reasons to believe that Britain would endeavour to make a
European matter of it.” He, too, cited Corsica and Poland as
proof that “such traffics have been common in the old world.”
“All Europe,” he concluded, “was interested in reducing us as
rebels, and all Europe (or the greatest part at least) is interested
in supporting us as Independent States.”42
Opponents of independence had counseled delay, lest secession
by one “confederacy” of colonies or another should encourage
European powers to descend upon the enfeebled colonies.
Congressional proponents of independence answered this
charge with another appeal to history. Unanimity could not be
achieved immediately, but “the history of the Dutch Revolution,
of whom three states only confederated at first[,] proved
that a secession of some colonies would not be so dangerous as
some apprehended.”43
The Dutch Revolt had been the first successful secession of a
province from an imperial monarchy in modern European history.
The colonists were well aware of this precedent, which
had led to the creation of a federation of free states like their
own.44 As Abigail Adams wrote in April 1781, after the United
Provinces had declared for the American cause, “if the old
Batavian Spirit still exists among them, Britain will Rue the
Day that in Breach of the Laws of Nations, she fell upon their
defenceless dominions, and drew upon her . . . the combined
force of all the Neutral powers.” She argued that the similarities
between their two causes “will cement an indissoluble bond of
union between the united States of America and the united
Provinces who from a similarity of circumstances have each arrived
at Independance disdaining the Bondage and oppression
of a Philip and a G[e]orge.”45 John Adams wrote in similar vein
to the Dutch States General in the same month: “The Origins
of the two Republicks are so much alike, that the History of the
one seems but a Transcript from that of the other.”46 In light of
the frequent comparisons drawn between the two federations,
it may be significant that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
the United Provinces were sometimes called in English
“the united states.” Thus the volume of treaties Congress used
when drafting the Model Treaty included an Anglo-Spanish
agreement of 1667 that referred in just this way to “the united
states of the Low Countries.”47
Supporters of independence buttressed their arguments from
history with more immediate assurances about the state of international
affairs. Without a declaration, they reiterated, it
would be “inconsistent with European delicacy for European
powers to treat with us or even to receive an Ambassador from
us.” France and Spain had more to fear from a British victory in
America, and a consequent resurgence of British power, than
they did the rising power of the colonies alone. More practical
considerations dictated immediate action, as “it is necessary to
lose no time in opening a trade for our people, who will want
clothes, and will want money too for the payment of taxes.”48
During the debate in Congress on July 1, John Dickinson
made last-ditch arguments opposing a declaration of independence,
and warned against any general manifesto because “foreign
Powers will not rely on Words.” He recommended instead
private negotiations with European powers (especially France):
“We must not talk generally of foreign Powers but of those We
expect to favor Us.”49 Envoys had already been sent to Europe,
however, and congressional sentiment was now overwhelmingly
in favor of independence. Lee’s resolution passed on July
2 without any dissent, thanks to the Pennsylvania delegation,
who, along with South Carolina and the formerly divided Delaware
delegation, changed their votes.50 On July 3, John Adams
still lamented that the affirmation of independence had been
delayed so long (“We might before this Hour, have formed Alliances
with foreign States.—We should have mastered Quebec
and been in possession of Canada”), but he rejoiced that it had
come at last: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most
memorable Epocha, in the History of America” and “ought to
be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance . . . from one
End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever
more.”51
Posterity would judge that Adams had chosen not only the
wrong day but also the wrong document as the focus for commemorating
American independence. At the time, Adams’s
choice was more defensible because it acknowledged the pivotal
importance of Lee’s resolution as marking the point of no
return. The Declaration in which the resolution would be justified
to the opinions of mankind was strictly a secondary document.
Ratification of the Declaration was preceded by three days of
intense debate in Congress about the wording of its text. Three
weeks prior to July 4 Congress had appointed a committee
consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston to draft the
Declaration.52 On June 28 Jefferson reported the fruits of the
committee’s work to Congress, but the draft Declaration was
set aside until after the vote on Lee’s resolution.
The text Jefferson submitted was written under immense
pressure of congressional business, with the advice of the other
members of the committee. He had constructed it in part
from a series of other relevant materials: the preamble he had
written for the Virginia Constitution; George Mason’s Virginia
Declaration of Rights; and Lee’s resolution for independence itself.
The product was a remarkable piece of textual bricolage.
In form it was both a declaration—in the sense that the “Declaration
. . . [on] Taking Up Arms” had also been a declaration—
and a manifesto, that is, a detailed presentation of evidence to
support “an appeal to the tribunal of the world,” as Jefferson
would call it in 1825. The heart of that manifesto was the list of
charges that constituted “The History of the King of Great-
Britain,” much of which Jefferson had drawn from his Virginia
preamble.53
Jefferson’s recounting of this “History of repeated Injuries
and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment
of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” was the culmination
of a theory of conspiracy that had unfolded across Congress’s
state papers since 1774. The address “To the Inhabitants of the
Colonies” (October 1774) had enumerated all the legislative
and other designs against the colonies since “the conclusion of
the late war”—that is, the Seven Years’War—in 1763. The evidence
it presented proved, to Congress’s satisfaction, “that a
resolution is formed and now is carrying into execution, to extinguish
the freedom of these colonies, by subjecting them to a
despotic government.”54
Congress rendered its account of an unfolding global conspiracy—
because empire-wide in scale—to audiences beyond
50 The World in the Declaration of Independence
the thirteen colonies. It had informed the inhabitants of Québec
in October 1774 that “the substance of the whole, divested
of its smooth words, is that the Crown and its Ministers shall
be as absolute throughout your extended province, as the despots
of Asia or Africa.” The following year it described to the
Jamaica Assembly an even more comprehensive and “deliberate
plan to destroy, in every part of the empire, the free constitution,
for which Britain has been so long and so justly famed”:
In the East-Indies, where the effeminacy of the inhabitants
promised an easy conquest, they thought it unnecessary to
veil their tyrannic principles under the thinnest disguise.
. . . In Britain, where the maxims of freedom were still
known, but where luxury and dissipation had diminished
the wonted reverence for them, the attack had been carried
on in a more secret and indirect manner: Corruption
has been employed to undermine them. The Americans
are not enervated by effeminacy, like the inhabitants of India;
nor debauched by luxury, like those of Great-Britain:
It was therefore judged improper to assail them by bribery,
or by undisguised force.
For these reasons, Congress informed the people of Ireland in
an “Address” in July 1775, “the important contest, into which
The World in the Declaration of Independence 51
we have been driven, is now become interesting to every European
state, and particularly affects the members of the British
Empire.”55
Each side in the American conflict had accused the other of
such conspiratorial designs, whether for tyranny, as the Americans
argued, or for independence, as Britons countered, but
only the Americans projected their suspicions onto a global
screen.56 They did so, in part, to garner support from other
quarters of the empire: if the American colonies should succumb
to ministerial or royal despotism, then who would ever
be safe from British tyranny? However, they could not have assumed
their accusations would persuade the Québécois or the
Irish if they had lacked any wider resonance.
Since the mid-seventeenth century, English and later British
political discourse traditionally presented the freedoms of
Northern Europe and its American colonies as hardwon, persistently
embattled, and perpetually on the defensive in a world
populated mostly by slaves ruled over by despots and tyrants.
“Liberty is the natural birthright of mankind,” exclaimed the
English political economist Arthur Young in 1772; “and yet to
take a comprehensive view of the world, how few enjoy it!” He
calculated that only 33.5 million people out of an estimated
global population of 775.3 million were not “the miserable
slaves of despotic tyrants . . . and of these few so large a portion
as 12,500,000 are subjects of the British empire.”57
The most eloquent statement of this view had come in
Paine’s Common Sense, when he concluded his account of the injuries
visited on the Americans with these rousing lines:
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old
world is over-run with oppression. Freedom hath been
hunted around the Globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled
her:—Europe regards her like a stranger, and England
hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive,
and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.58
Five months later, the authors of the Declaration would share
Paine’s judgment that the king was to blame for the designs
against his American subjects. But they did not imitate Paine’s
apocalyptic rhetoric, focusing only on those details in his global
panorama of encroaching tyranny that applied specifically to the
American colonies.
The Declaration’s central catalogue of the king’s “Injuries
and Usurpations” was deliberately unspecific regarding places
and dates. Any of the multiple charges arrayed against the monarch
could apply to any, or all, of the colonies.59 Few of those
charges would have been entirely new to anyone who had been
following the American pamphlet wars of 1774–1776 at all
closely: for example, many of them had appeared in Congress’s
The World in the Declaration of Independence 53
letter to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1774 and in Jefferson’s
Summary View of the Rights of British America that same
year.60 In the Summary View, Jefferson had listed them in the
context of an address to the king himself from the Virginia
House of Burgesses and in support of a federal conception in
which the king was but the “chief magistrate of the British empire”
composed of multiple “states,” “the distinct and independent
governments” of British America among them. The “bold
succession of injuries” that Jefferson described was laid at Parliament’s
door, not the king’s, to “plainly prove a deliberate and
systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”61
By contrast, the Declaration’s litany of abuses began with a
series of general offenses against the colonies, then followed
with a set of more specific charges that the king had assented to
acts of legislation “to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our
Constitution,” before culminating in a list of more wide-ranging
physical and economic assaults on the inhabitants of the colonies.
62 The first group comprised charges that the king had
directly interfered in colonial affairs by blocking colonial legislation,
disrupting colonial assemblies, discouraging immigration,
interfering with the judicial process and judicial freedom,
and imposing a standing army on the colonies. The second
group specified the metropolitan legislation that had been
passed without regard to the needs of the colonies, including
“cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World,” “transport-
ing us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences,” and
“abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province” (that is, Québec).
As the charges mounted rhetorically to their crescendo, so
the third, and climactic, group moved outward from the purview
of domestic administration and colonial legislation into
the realm of the law of nations. The king, the Declaration
charged, “has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.” He was importing
foreign mercenaries to complete “the Works of Death,
Desolation and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of
Cruelty and Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous
Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.” He
had forced “our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas”
to take up arms against their own countrymen, and, in the
crowning evidence of his despotism, “He has excited domestic
Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on
the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction
of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.”
The British people provided no defense against these depredations
because they would not “disavow these Usurpations,
which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence”—
that is, would cut off the colonies from all kinds
of commerce with the wider world. There was thus no alterna-
tive to suspending the previous familial bonds between Britons
and British Americans and replacing them with the relations
of independent peoples under the law of nations: “We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity which denounces our Separation,
and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies
in War, in Peace, Friends.”
In the version of the Declaration ultimately ratified by Congress
and published to the world, the rhetorical climax of the
long train of alleged abuses was the accusations that George III
had attempted to stir up “domestic insurrections”—that is,
slave rebellions like those the British governor Dunmore had
encouraged by proclamation in Virginia in 1775 to undermine
the colony’s plantation economy—and had drawn “the merciless
Indian Savages” down upon the colonists.63
These charges implied that the king had effectively placed
the colonies “beyond the line” of civilized practice in warfare.
The customary law of European nations in the eighteenth century
formally excluded such incursions from the pale of civilized
behavior. The Declaration implied that to readmit illicit
violence and savagery—in the form of freed slaves and indigenous
modes of warfare—within the bounds of the colonies
themselves was an affront to an emerging international order
and not just to the sensibilities of particular colonists. Such a
charge could of course easily be turned around, as the British
demonstrated during the American War when they similarly
accused the colonists of engaging in savage practices contrary
to the prevailing European laws of war.64
In Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration, the final charge
against the king made an even more explicit appeal to the law
of nations and to the norms of contemporary European civilization.
George III, Jefferson contended,
has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating
it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a
distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying
them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur
miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare
of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain . . . and that
this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished
die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in
arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he
deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he
also has obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes
which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
This passage seems doubly anomalous, both because Jefferson
himself was embroiled in the institution of slavery and because
these words would inevitably be excised from the final version
of the Declaration by the representatives of those states that
wished to continue the slave trade or had been implicated in it
before 1776. As Jefferson reported, “the clause . . . reprobating
the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance
to South Carolina and Georgia . . . our Northern
brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures;
for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they
have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”65
Nonetheless, in the context of Jefferson’s original draft of the
Declaration, the passage marked the logical climax to the train
of abuses with which the king had been charged.66
However implausible it may have been to lay personal responsibility
for the slave trade on the shoulders of George III,
the comparison between “the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain”
and “infidel Powers” like those of Morocco and Algiers who
engaged in “piratical warfare” against Europeans, outside the
norms of the law of nations, recalled the charge in the Summary
View that the king had “preferr[ed] the immediate advantages of
a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American
states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by
this infamous practice,” by refusing to countenance the abolition
of the slave trade.67
It also hinted at one of the most troubling implications of
American independence: that the Royal Navy would no longer
58 The World in the Declaration of Independence
protect American shipping from assaults by the Barbary corsairs
who preyed on merchant vessels in the Mediterranean.
When the United States entered into its first defensive alliance,
with France in February 1778, the provisions of the Franco-
American Treaty of Amity and Commerce included the crucial
clause offering French protection for “the Benefit, Conveniency
and Safety of the said United States, and each of them, their
Subjects, People, and Inhabitants, and their Vessels and Effects,
against all Violence, Insult, Attacks, or Depredations on the
Part of the . . . Princes and States of Barbary, or their Subjects.”
The longest passage that Congress excised from the Declaration
was inflammatory not least because Jefferson had rendered
equivalent both the free inhabitants of British America and the
enslaved by calling each a “people.” In the opening paragraph of
his original draft, Jefferson had written, “When in the course
of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance
from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained,”
which Congress amended to become the more familiar, “When
in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for One
people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected
them with another” (my emphases). In the Declaration adopted
by Congress, Britons and Americans alone were called “peoples”
in two mutually reinforcing senses: as the inhabitants of
two territories constituted politically as sovereign bodies, and
also as two of the units within the traditional law of nations, or
what legally minded contemporaries would have called the law
of peoples (what in Roman law had been called the jus gentium
and what, in contemporary French and German legal language,
was called the droit des gens or Völkerrecht). The excision of the
passage relating to the slave trade and the alteration of the
opening sentence of the Declaration removed any such parity
between Africans and Americans, as “peoples” or as the victims
of “subordination.”69 Yet these would be just the terms in which
Jefferson would later argue for emancipation in Notes on the
State of Virginia (1785): the Virginia legislature could free the
enslaved by sending them to colonize the western lands, with a
duty on the Virginians “to declare them a free and independant
people, and to extend to them our alliance and protection.”70
The wider world imagined in the Declaration—both in its
drafts and in its final published version—was a world of peoples
linked by both benign and malign forms of commerce. It
was also an arena of warfare between Americans and Britons, as
well as among their various allies and enemies. This international
community was populated mostly by mutually recognizing
sovereign states, but it was threatened by outlaw powers
who acted more like pirates, those traditional enemies of humankind
engaged in warfare against humanity itself.71 In many
ways this was a recognizably modern world, in which com-
merce and war are the most conspicuous forms of interaction
between different peoples and states. Even among European
thinkers, that conception of the interactions between states
was barely a century old in 1776.72 Yet it was also a world in
which metaphysical norms—“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s
God”—could still be appealed to, alongside the “known
Rules of Warfare” and cultural standards like civility and barbarism.
This was the world into which the members of Congress believed
they were introducing the United States of America by
means of the Declaration of Independence. In its self-justifying
pamphlet Observations on the American Revolution (1779), Congress
took independence to be a settled but embattled fact: “we
must hold ourselves ready to repel force by force wherever assailed,
and firmly retort to every infringement of the law of nations
with unfailing perseverance.” If the independence of the
United States could be defended, and the law of nations upheld,
then the United States would become what Thomas Paine
and others had predicted: an asylum for oppressed humanity, a
beacon of knowledge and benevolence, and a universal
entrepôt for the commerce of the world.73
This would also be the millennialist vision Ezra Stiles, the
Congregationalist preacher and president of Yale College, promised
in the immediate aftermath of British recognition of
American independence in 1783:
This great American revolution, this recent political phenomenon
of a new sovereignty arising among the sovereign
powers of the earth, will be attended to and contemplated
by all nations. Navigation will carry the American
flag around the globe itself; and display the Thirteen Stripes
and New Constellation at Bengal and Canton, on the Indus
and the Ganges, on the Whang-ho and the Yang-tse-kiang . . .
knowledge will be brought home and treasured to America;
and being here digested and carried to the highest perfection,
may reblaze back from America to Europe, Asia and Africa,
and illumine the world with TRUTH and LIBERTY.
As Stiles noted in the second edition of his sermon, The United
States Elevated to Glory and Honour, published two years later
in 1785, this vision was already becoming a reality, with the
return to the United States of the first American East-India
ships from Canton, Macao, and Calcutta.74 The Declaration had
imagined a new world only for the pursuit of American sovereignty.
Now, its consequences would shape that world, thanks
to the “new sovereignty . . . among the sovereign powers of the
earth” that it had helped to bring into being.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 1

2010-11-11T00:00:00.000-08:00

In the last public letter he wrote before his death in 1826,
Thomas Jefferson offered an expansive vision of the Declaration
of Independence, a document he had drafted half a century
before. As he declined an invitation to attend the commemoration
in Washington, D.C., of the fiftieth anniversary of American
independence, Jefferson called the Declaration “an instrument,
pregnant with our own and the fate of the world.” He
regretted that illness would keep him from a reunion with “the
remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that
day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our
country, between submission or the sword.” He would have
“enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citi-
zens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue
to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world,
what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later,
but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the
chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had
persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings
and security of self government.”1
Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, two weeks after sending this
letter. He had written it in the tones of a prophetic utterance
surveying past and future from the very brink of death. He
surely intended the letter to be made public, and so it soon
was, in a Washington newspaper on his deathday. Yet this was
not the very last of Jefferson’s letters. A day after sending it on
June 24, 1826, he wrote two more, one to his business agent in
Richmond, Virginia, the other to a merchant in Baltimore, regarding
a shipment of French wine that had just arrived from
Marseilles and on which duty had to be paid.2
Jefferson’s last public thoughts may have treated the afterlife
of the American Revolution, but his last private instructions
concerned the stocking of his wine cellar. Both looked to the
future. Both also acknowledged that the young United States
was tied to a wider world, whether as an exporter of revolutionary
ideas or as an importer of luxury goods. As Jefferson
well knew, any independent country had to be an interdependent
country.
By the time of Jefferson’s death, “half a century of experience
and prosperity” had confirmed American independence as
a political fact. Fifty years earlier, the Declaration had announced
independence at a time when it had yet to be achieved
and when it was still under vigorous assault by Britain. For almost
four decades after 1776, Americans valued the successful
fact of that independence more than they did the specific document
that had declared it. It was only in the last decade of Jefferson’s
life that the Declaration began to be seen as the wellfounded
article of “American scripture” celebrated by Americans
every Fourth of July then and since.3
The Declaration of Independence may have acquired special
significance for Americans, but its power as a symbol was potentially
global in extent, as Jefferson’s prophecy in 1826 affirmed.
Even during the former president’s lifetime, the Declaration
had already become something more practical than a
symbol: it provided the model for similar documents around
the world that asserted the independence of other new states.
By the time Jefferson called the Declaration “an instrument
pregnant with . . . the fate of the world” in 1826, it had already
been joined by some twenty other declarations of independence
from Northern and Southern Europe, the Caribbean,
and Spanish America. Now, more than two centuries since
1776, over half the countries of the world have their own declarations
of independence.
Many of these documents drew directly on the American
Declaration for inspiration. They adopted and sometimes
adapted specific phrases from the Declaration. More often, they
took its structure as a model for their own. Many more such
declarations were written without the flattery of direct imitation.
All shared clear similarities, whether in their motivation,
in their language, or in their form, that make it possible to consider
them collectively and globally.
Before now, declarations of independence have not been
treated as a global phenomenon.4 The reasons for this are central
to the definition of independence itself. At root, independence
means political separation of the kind that the representatives
of the United States asserted against King George III in
1776. More broadly, independence implies national distinctiveness
and difference. Over time, separation and uniqueness
nourish a sense of exceptionalism, especially for a country like
the United States, born out of secession and endowed by its visionaries
with a mission in the world. The authors of the Declaration
had claimed independence only for themselves and not
for others. Their specific and particular idea of independence
would nonetheless assume near-universal significance in the
centuries after 1776 as the American example spread across the
world.
The American Declaration came to be seen as marking the
beginning of a history separate from other national or imperial
histories. Similarly, many other declarations of independence
throughout the world became the property of particular communities
that have celebrated their own declarations as charters
of a special standing in the world. Almost by definition, the
written embodiments of such exceptionalism are unlikely to be
compared with other, similar documents. So it has proved with
declarations of independence.
Multiple declarations of independence have been collected
for comparison on only two occasions. The first was in 1955, in
advance of a meeting of the Organization of American States in
Washington, D.C., when reproductions and translations of the
declarations of independence produced in the Americas and the
Caribbean between 1776 and 1898 were compiled into a single
volume.5 The second sprang indirectly from the commemoration
of the United States bicentennial in 1976, when scholars
published a collection of independence documents from around
the world that included declarations of independence as well as
various other instruments of independence, such as bilateral
agreements and legislative acts.6 Both these moments quickly
passed. The compilations they left behind apparently led to no
further reflection on what might be learned from considering
declarations of independence as a group and in the round.7
Many declarations of independence have given rise to their
own rich hinterlands of analysis and discussion. Most such
treatments have tended to address the documents’ immediate
origins rather than their place in longer, let alone broader, histories.
In this respect, the American Declaration is at once typical
and unusual. It is typical in that many scholars since the
nineteenth century have scrutinized its creation in the summer
of 1776 and its dissemination thereafter. Their work has revealed
a dizzying variety of possible sources for the Declaration’s
language and inspirations for its form, as well as a wealth
of information about how it was drafted, edited, and published.
Much of their work has debated the various European sources
for the Declaration’s statements concerning natural rights or
the right of revolution, whether in English political thought,
Scottish moral theory, or Swiss philosophy, for example.8 That
debate has concentrated mostly on the Declaration’s second
paragraph and its “self-evident” truths; it has not been broadened
to consider other elements in the Declaration, such as the
meaning of the independence it claimed for the United States.
Recovering that meaning will be a major concern of this book.
Americans have been exceptionally well informed about one
of the key documents in their national history. They have also
had the unique opportunity to learn just who in the United
States read the Declaration, how they interpreted it, and with
what political and legal consequences.9 No other declaration of
independence has had its domestic legacy traced so fully or so
revealingly. What Americans and others interested in the fate of
the Declaration have so far lacked is any systematic attempt to
trace its afterlife in the world beyond the United States.10
The Declaration of Independence is hardly alone among the
major landmarks of American history in lacking such a global
treatment of its legacy. America’s growing sense of self-sufficiency
and its apparent hegemony in world affairs for much of
the twentieth century have bred lasting strains of forgetfulness
and even ignorance about the American impact on the world
and, until recently, about the world’s impact on America. Many
other nations have suffered similar forms of historical amnesia
about their place in the world. The very prominence of the
United States in international affairs, however, makes resistance
to thinking of its history in global terms especially glaring. The
world beyond America has always shaped the United States—as
it also formed its pre-revolutionary colonial past—by immigration,
the spread of ideas, or the exchange of goods, and by almost
every other conceivable form of interaction over more
than four hundred years.11 The growing awareness of these interactions
in the past has spurred Americans and non-Americans
alike to “rethink American history in a global age.”12
Putting American history into global perspective in this way
can help to show that what we now call “globalization” is not a
novel condition. As one historian has recently written, the
move toward a global level of analysis “reveals the interconnec-
tedness and interdependence of political and social changes
across the world well before the onset of the contemporary
phase of ‘globalization’ after 1945.”13 It can also help us see that
globalization has not been a single, frictionless movement toward
planetary integration. Rather, it has moved in a series of
discontinuous and distinct phases that have unfolded at different
moments and in diverse places. Understanding globalization
in this way makes it harder to produce triumphalist narratives
of world history. It also makes it possible to compare
discrete phases of globalization to see what they had in common
as well as how they differed.14
This book, written in one moment of acute awareness about
globalization, is about another such moment, more than two
centuries ago. The generation of Europeans and Americans that
came of age in the decades before 1776 was almost the first in
human history to have ready access to a comprehensively global
vision of their place in the world. That vision was the product
of many linked developments: maritime exploration; the elaboration
of interoceanic trade; the spread of European empires in
the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans; the diffusion of maps,
histories, and travel accounts; and the ties created by the circulation
and exchange of goods and ideas. It had also been greatly
expanded by the titanic struggle between Britain and France
for imperial dominance across the globe, known to Americans
as the French and Indian War (1754–1763) and to Europeans as
the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), a conflict fought out over
four continents and across three oceans.15 The generation of
1776 thus grew up in a postwar world decisively shaped by imperial
rivalry and global competition.
That generation’s global vision was enshrined in the comprehensive
histories of European commerce and settlement that
burgeoned in the years around 1776: the Abbé Raynal’s Philosophical
and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans
in the East and West Indies (1770), Adam Smith’s Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), and
the Scottish historian William Robertson’s History of America
(1777), to name only the most notable. Edmund Burke ecstatically
wrote of Robertson’s History: “The Great Map of Mankind
is unrolld at once; and there is no state or Gradation of barbarism,
and no mode of refinement which we have not at the
same instant under our View.”16 Raynal strongly supported the
revolt of the British colonies. Smith published his work in part
as an intervention in the debate on the future of Britain’s “great
empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however,
has existed in imagination only.” In the closing pages of the
Wealth of Nations, Smith demanded that “this golden dream” of
empire be either realized or abandoned entirely.17 For Robertson,
American independence definitively marked the end of
that dream. He brought his History to an abrupt end with the
loss of the American colonies: as he lamented in 1784, “alas
America is now lost to the Empire and to me, and what would
have been a good introduction to the settlement of British
Colonies, will suit very ill the establishment of Independant
States.”18
The global connections portrayed in the great commercial
and oceanic histories by Raynal, Smith, and Robertson had
come home forcefully to the American colonists in the course
of the imperial crisis of the 1770s. The fortunes of Virginia
planters and Boston merchants were bound up with the fate of
the English East India Company in South Asia by great skeins of
credit and debt that ran through banks in London and Glasgow,
as well as by the circuits of trade that brought China tea in East
India Company ships to Boston harbor in December 1773 under
terms set by the Westminster Parliament. The origins of
the American Revolution cannot be fully understood without
an appreciation of the worldwide webs within which the colonists
were enmeshed in the years leading up to 1776.19
Traces of both anxiety and excitement about those connections—
were they chains or links, shackles or bonds?—can be
found even in the Declaration when it announced the states’ intention
to enter the international system on equal terms with
the other “Powers of Earth.” These thickening global connections,
and the decisive shifts in the European state system and
in the balance of power within the Atlantic world that they
brought in their wake, challenged contemporaries to understand
their world in innovative ways. In this context, it seems
to be more than just a coincidence that the English legal philosopher
Jeremy Bentham found it necessary in 1780—during the
crisis of the American War—to coin “the word international
. . . a new one, though, it is hoped, sufficiently analogous and
intelligible,” to describe “the mutual transactions between sovereigns
as such” that he encompassed under the neologism “international
law.”20
Every generation gets the Declaration of Independence it deserves.
Our own global moment merits a global history of the
Declaration. Such a history can be pursued from the outside in,
to bring universal perspectives to bear on particular moments,
places, persons, or objects. It can also be written from the inside
out, from the local and specific to the worldwide and the
general. These approaches are not competing but complementary;
indeed, each would be impossible without the other. One
can find what a near-contemporary of the Declaration, the English
poet William Blake, called “a world in a grain of sand.” In
the case of the Declaration, this means the traces of a wider
world embedded in one relatively brief and pungent document.
That document took on a life of its own as it circulated at home
and abroad: out of its travels emerged another kind of global
history, the history of its dissemination and reception. That
history in turn spawned imitations and analogues of the Declaration.
A global history can also be written from the patterns
revealed by the emergence and accumulation of other declarations
of independence. In this book, I pursue all three approaches
to the global history of the Declaration of Independence
as I examine successively the evidence of the world in
the Declaration, the Declaration’s fortunes in the late eighteenth-
and early nineteenth-century world, and the myriad
declarations of independence produced since 1776. The Declaration
of Independence cannot help looking different when it is
put into such multiple global perspectives.
No single document is so bound up with what it means to be
an American and few words can sum up the American creed as
succinctly as “the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Yet even in its earliest material forms, the Declaration
offered evidence of connections with a wider world. It first
appeared in print on July 5, 1776, as a single-sheet broadside
for distribution and display. The printer of this version of
the Declaration was a native Irishman, twenty-nine-year-old
John Dunlap, who had migrated to Philadelphia from Strabane,
County Tyrone, in 1757.21 He printed most of the copies on
Dutch paper that had been brought from England, the source
of much of the colonies’ paper in this period; his printing press
and the type he used in it would probably also have been imported
from Britain.22
The Declaration would not be signed until late July and early
August 1776. Fifty-five delegates to Congress—nine of whom
had been born in Britain or Ireland, and over a dozen educated
outside the colonies, in England, Scotland, and France—put
their signatures to the engrossed manuscript copy of the Declaration.
They did so using an inkstand fashioned by another
Irishman, Philip Syng, Jr., out of silver that would have been
mined in Mexico or Peru.23
The earliest public versions of the Declaration thus arose
from the intersections of politics and printing, the migration of
individuals and the movement of goods, around an Atlantic
world that over the course of the eighteenth century increasingly
linked Europe, Africa, and the Americas into a single economic
and cultural system. If such traces of the world beyond
the North American colonies can be discovered in a document
vested with so much significance as an icon of Americanness,
then surely similar vestiges can be found throughout the various
materials out of which American history is built.
I treat the Declaration of Independence variously as an
event, a document, and the beginning of a genre. In the words
of Carl Becker, one of its earliest students, the Declaration
as an “event” was “the culmination of a series of revolutionary
activities” expressed in the “document in which that event
was proclaimed and justified to the world.”24 The Declaration’s
global history did not end—indeed, it had barely begun—in
July 1776. The document inaugurated a genre of political writing
that has persisted to the present day. By “genre” I mean a
distinct but repeatable structure of argument and literary form.
Similar documents, whether or not they are consciously or directly
indebted to a specific original, become instances of such
a genre. Literary genres can be as strict as a sonnet or as loose
as a novel; utopias and constitutions, declarations of rights and
declarations of independence, are among similar genres of political
writing. They supply the forms that capture, and allow us
to comprehend and criticize, similar ideas and events. They
provide the recurring shapes assumed by documents arising
from comparable circumstances.25 Genres are born. They break
apart and recombine with elements of other genres. Sometimes
they die. Like the ideas they contain, they are both movable and
mutable, and they do not recognize national borders.
The Declaration marked the birth of a new genre of political
writing. Part of its genius—and a major reason for its later
success as a model for other declarations—was its generic promiscuity.
It combined elements of what would become three
distinguishable genres: a declaration of independence, a declaration
of rights, and a manifesto. The opening and closing paragraphs
of the Declaration—beginning, respectively, “When in
the Course of human Events . . .” and “We, therefore, the Representatives
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . .”—
made up the declaration of independence itself. The second
paragraph, starting with the still more famous words “We hold
these Truths to be self-evident,” was closer to what would be
recognized as a declaration of rights, especially in the wake of
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of
1789.26 Finally, the list of grievances that made up the bulk of
the Declaration had the features of a manifesto that publicly explained
to the world the grounds for a revolutionary action.27
After its publication, the Declaration rapidly entered national
and international circuits of exchange. Copies passed
from hand to hand, desk to desk, country to country, often
with (to us) remarkable speed, but sometimes with perhaps less
surprising inefficiency and mishap. To some, the Declaration
could easily be ignored, while others sought it out, pored over
it, or painstakingly translated it out of its original language. To
yet others, it was a subversive document in an age when treason
and revolution could be ignited by papers as readily as by
rebels. “The independence of the Anglo-Americans is the event
most likely to accelerate the revolution that must bring happiness
on earth,” remarked the French royal censor the Abbé
Genty in 1787: “In the bosom of this new republic are the true
treasures that will enrich the world.”28 As if to fulfill this prophecy,
for more than two centuries the Declaration provided others
with just the template they would need to communicate
their own political intentions to “a candid World.”
Once the Declaration had embarked upon this international
career, it broke loose from the circumstances of its birth. It
took on a life of its own and became the model for what would
in time become a global genre. No document before 1776 had
ever been called a declaration of independence; in fact, the
Declaration itself did not carry that title, nor did the word “independence”
appear anywhere in its text. For months before
July 1776, however, contemporaries had been speaking of the
need for “an independency,” a “declaration of independency,” or
a “declaration of independence.” On July 8, 1776, Jefferson
sent “a copy of the declaration of independence” to his fellow
Virginian Richard Henry Lee.29 There could be no doubt, then,
that the document issued by the Continental Congress and
dated July 4, 1776, was a “declaration” (as it called itself, in
both its printed and manuscript versions), and that what it declared,
first and foremost, was “independence.” Once it had
done so, and after it had traveled far and wide as a document, it
could be imitated, plundered, and paralleled by the many other
documents that constitute the genre of declarations of independence.
Urgent international pressures had compelled Congress to
issue a declaration in the early summer of 1776. Accordingly,
the Declaration reflected a range of concerns about security,
defense, commerce, and immigration. As a document that announced
the transformation of thirteen united colonies into the
“United States of America,” the Declaration marked the entry
of those states into what would now be called international society.
Its authors addressed it to “the Opinions of Mankind” in
diplomatic and legal language designed to render it acceptable
to its audience beyond America. The Declaration thereby reflected
changing conceptions of the international community of
the Atlantic world. It helped to change that community by expanding
its boundaries westward into North America and by
opening American commerce to a wider world outside the limits
previously set to it by the laws of the British Empire.
The American Declaration, like its successor declarations,
was a document of state-making, not of nation-formation. It
declared that what had formerly been dependent colonies within
the British Empire were now independent states outside that
empire’s authority. It did so without mentioning “Americans”
or using the word “nation.” Instead, it concentrated on the
emergence of “one People” assuming a separate and equal station
“among the Powers of the Earth” and declared that “these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES.” The Declaration’s statements regarding
rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”
were strictly subordinate to these claims regarding the rights of
states, and were taken to be so by contemporaries, when they
deigned to notice the assertions of individual rights at all. Thus
a contemporary report in August 1776 noted that when the
Declaration was first read out to the Continental troops at
Ticonderoga, in western Pennsylvania, “the language of every
man’s countenance was, Now we are a people! We have a name
among the states of this world!” The first loyalty oath issued by
the new United States similarly asked officials to “acknowledge
the UNITED STATES of AMERICA to be Free, Independent
and Sovereign States, and declare that the people thereof owe
no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great-
Britain.”30
American and foreign audiences found many different meanings
in the Declaration during the decades immediately following
1776. Shifting international contexts in those years—of
war, revolution, and state-formation—helped to change even
the American understanding of the Declaration’s central message
from an assertion of statehood to a declaration of individual
rights. Meanwhile, the circulation of the Declaration outside
the United States encouraged a wider debate about the
rights of states—especially new states, like the United States—
to enter the international arena. The claims regarding individual
rights in the Declaration’s second paragraph played little
part in these broader discussions. They would not be seen as
crucial to the Declaration’s meaning for an international audience
until the advent of a global rights movement in the second
half of the twentieth century.
The Declaration’s enumeration of the rights of the former
colonies “to do all [the] Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT
STATES may of right do” drew attention to features of
the state within the international realm. The conception of the
state found in the Declaration was Janus-faced, as it is in most
standard definitions of the state, classically encapsulated in the
1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of
States as the possession of a permanent population, a defined
territory, and a government, and the capacity to enter into relations
with other states.31
The Declaration affirmed the existence of a population (“one
People”) and implied a form of government, but it did not
define a territory. Instead, it stressed firmly the capacities of
the United States as international actors alongside other such
actors. My analysis in this book will follow this emphasis in
the Declaration by highlighting the outward-looking rather
than the inward-looking face of the state. Thus I downplay nations—
as well as nationalism and national identity—in pursuit
of a history concerning the relations of states with other states:
how they have been created, by what criteria they have been
recognized, and what the consequences of their proliferation
have been.
States were not always the primary units of global politics
that they had become by the latter half of the twentieth century.
They faced competition from both larger and less well integrated
political organizations in the form of empires.32 In the
last quarter-century, states have been rapidly outnumbered by
proliferating nongovernmental organizations and multinational
corporations.33 They have also often had to confront challenges
from substate groups or peoples claiming to be nations, in the
sense of cultural communities based on the mutual recognition
of commonality among their members. Yet we should not fall
into the nationalist assumption of identifying states with nations
as “nation-states.” As Ernest Gellner has noted, “nations, like
states, are a contingency, and not a universal necessity. . . .
Moreover, nations and states are not the same contingency. . . .
The state has certainly emerged without the nation. Some nations
have certainly emerged without the blessings of their own
state.”34
The story of how the world came to be so thickly populated
with states has hardly begun to be told.35 Assembling and analyzing
declarations of independence is an economical way to
sketch the outlines of that much grander narrative. In order to
assert their own statehood, most of the world’s present-day
states had at some point in the last two centuries declared their
independence of the larger units that had once contained them.
They sought confirmation of their standing alongside other
such states by justifying their secession and, in some cases, their
recombination with other territories and peoples. In short,
they declared their possession of sovereignty, both internally,
over all their own people, and externally, against all other states
and peoples. More than one hundred declarations of independence
have been issued since 1776, indicating a great political
transformation of the last two centuries: the gradual emer-
gence of a world—our world—of states from an earlier world
dominated by empires. Considered in a series and as a genre,
those declarations point up the stages of that epochal transition
better than any other set of historical documents can.
The primary purpose of the American Declaration, like that
of most declarations of independence that have been issued
since 1776, was to express the international legal sovereignty
of the United States. Thus Jefferson recalled in May 1825 that
an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper
for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration
of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new
arguments never before thought of, not merely to say
things which had never been said before; but to place before
mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms
so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify
ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to
take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment,
nor yet copied from any particular and previous
writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American
mind.36
Jefferson was perhaps too modest in his assessment. The
Declaration was innovative in two ways that would have farreaching
consequences. First, it introduced “the United States
of America” to the world; second, it inaugurated the very genre
of a declaration of independence. No previous public document
had used the name “the United States of America”: in the
months immediately before July 4, 1776, and even within the
text of the Declaration itself, the political bodies represented at
the Continental Congress had been generally called the “United
Colonies.”37 Yet the earliest printed text of the document was
explicitly called “A Declaration By the Representatives of the
United States of America, in General Congress Assembled.”
John Dunlap’s broadside highlighted only three terms in
its main text by means of capital letters: “the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA” in “GENERAL CONGRESS” assembled
as they declared themselves to be “FREE AND INDEPENDENT
STATES.” The formal manuscript copy of the Declaration
produced later in July 1776 to be signed by all the
delegates highlighted these same words. They appear in a distinctive
italic script that draws attention to their significance.
So faded is this manuscript of the Declaration now on display at
the National Archives in Washington, D.C., that these are almost
the only clearly legible parts of the text. That is only appropriate,
for these words made up the central message of the
Declaration as an assertion of sovereignty as independence.
This is what the Declaration of Independence declared: that
the former United Colonies were now “the United States of
America” because they were “free and independent states.” No
document in world history before 1776 had made such an announcement
of statehood in the language of independence. A
great many later documents would do just that. Indeed, the
global history of the two centuries after 1776 would show that
creating the flexible instrument with which others could declare
their independence proved to be as momentous an innovation
in its own way as ushering “the United States of America”
onto the world stage in July 1776 had been.

Water Surfing In Sri Lanka-Arugam Bay (Eastern Sri Lanka)

2010-11-09T22:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.arugambay.com/pages/sitemap.html

Dive in Sri Lanka

2010-11-09T22:43:00.001-08:00

http://www.divesrilanka.com/

ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 matches in SRI LANKA

2010-11-09T22:36:00.000-08:00

Eco tourism in Sri lanka-Sinharaja Forest

2010-11-09T22:26:00.000-08:00

Eco tourism in Sri Lanka-Kitulgala (Kelani River ,Western Sri Lanka)

2010-11-09T22:15:00.000-08:00

Watchout!!!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjKV2e0G-oo

Eco tourism in Sri Lanka-Kalpitiya Seethawadiya hotel

2010-11-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

come and see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NTYbliK5o8&feature=related

Dolphins in Kalpitiya Sri Lanka

2010-11-09T21:49:00.000-08:00

Eranga the Sri Lankan

The Prince Niccolò Machiavelli

Dedication

Chapter 1

How many kinds of Principalities there are, and by what means they are acquired

Chapter 2

Concerning Hereditary Principalities

Chapter 3

Concerning Mixed Principalities

Chapter 4

Why the Kingdom of Darius, conquered by Alexander, did not rebel against the successors of Alexander at his death

Chapter 5

Concerning the way to Govern Cities or Principalities which lived under their own laws before they were annexed

Chapter 6

Concerning new Principalities which are Acquired by one’s own arms and ability

Chapter 7

Concerning new Principalities which are Acquired either by the arms of others or by good fortune

Chapter 8

Concerning those who have obtained a Principality by Wickedness

Chapter 9

Concerning a Civil Principality

Chapter 10

Concerning the way in which the Strength of all Principalities ought to be measured

Chapter 11

Concerning Ecclesiastical Principalities

Chapter 12

How many kinds of Soldiery there are, and Concerning Mercenaries

Chapter 13

Concerning Auxiliaries, mixed soldiery, and one’s own

Chapter 14

That which Concerns a Prince on the Subject of the Art of War

Chapter 15

Concerning things for which Men, and especially Princes, are Praised or Blamed

Chapter 16

Concerning Liberality and Meanness

Chapter 17

Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and whether it is Better to be Loved than Feared

Chapter 18

Concerning the way in which Princes should keep Faith37

Chapter 19

That one should avoid being Despised and Hated

Chapter 20

Are Fortresses, and many other things to which Princes often resort, advantageous or hurtful?

Chapter 21

How a Prince should conduct himself so as to gain Renown

Chapter 22

Concerning the Secretaries of Princes

Chapter 23

How Flatterers should be Avoided

Chapter 24

The Princes of Italy have lost their States

Chapter 25

What Fortune can effect in Human Affairs, and how to withstand Her

Chapter 26

An Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians

CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

CHAPTER I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

CHAPTER III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE STATE

SECTION 1. THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS

SECTION 2. THE PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

SECTION 3. THE STATE COUNCIL

SECTION 4. THE CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION

SECTION 5. THE LOCAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS AND THE LOCAL PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

SECTION 6. THE ORGANS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS AREAS

SECTION 7. THE PEOPLE'S COURT AND THE PEOPLE'S PROCURATORATES

CHAPTER IV. THE NATIONAL FLAG, THE NATIONAL EMBLEM AND THE CAPITAL

Early Efforts to Establish an International Criminal Court

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Southern Rhodesia) (November 11, 1965)

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948)

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam (September 2, 1945)

[Jeremy Bentham,] Short Review of the Declaration (1776) & Manifesto of the Province of Flanders

American Declaration of Independence July 4,1776

Thomas Jefferson’s “Original Rough Draft” of the Declaration of Independence

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 3

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 2

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (USA) 1

Water Surfing In Sri Lanka-Arugam Bay (Eastern Sri Lanka)

Dive in Sri Lanka

ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 matches in SRI LANKA

Concerning the way in which Princes should keep Faith³⁷