Historical voices

Nothing of monarchy appears in any part of it, except in the name which William the Conqueror imposed upon the English, that of obliging them to call him "Their Sovereign Lord the King.

That civil government is necessary, all civilized nations will agree; but civil government is republican government.

If monarchy is a useless thing, why is it kept up anywhere? and if a necessary thing, how can it be dispensed with?

I see in America the generality of people living in a style of plenty unknown in monarchical countries; and I see that the principle of its government, which is that of the equal Rights of Man, is making a rapid progress in the world.

If I ask a man in America if he wants a King, he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an idiot?

I see in America, a government extending over a country ten times as large as England, and conducted with regularity, for a fortieth part of the expense which Government costs in England.

If a country does not understand its own affairs, how is a foreigner to understand them, who knows neither its laws, its manners, nor its language?

The wisdom of every country, when properly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; and there could exist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector, than there was in America to have…

In America it is considered as an absurdity; and in France it has so far declined, that the goodness of the man, and the respect for his personal character, are the only things that preserve the appearance of its existence.

It appears to be something going much out of fashion, falling into ridicule, and rejected in some countries, both as unnecessary and expensive.

Does the virtue consist in the metaphor, or in the man?

Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud?

But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown, or rather what is monarchy?

From such principles, and such ignorance, good Lord deliver the world!

A cannot make a will to take from B the property of B, and give it to C; yet this is the manner in which (what is called) hereditary succession by law operates.

In whatever light hereditary succession, as growing out of the will and testament of some former generation, presents itself, it is an absurdity.

If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free.

The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent.

It is no relief, but an aggravation to a person in slavery, to reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as that which heightens the criminality of an act cannot be produced to prove the legality of it, hereditary succession cannot be…

It operates to preclude the consent of the succeeding generations; and the preclusion of consent is despotism.

With respect to the first of these heads, that of a Family establishing itself with hereditary powers on its own authority, and independent of the consent of a Nation, all men will concur in calling it despotism; and it would be…

It was by the government being hereditary, that the liberties of the people were endangered.

Government with insolence is despotism; but when contempt is added it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery.

The nation is the paymaster of everything, and everything must conform to its general will.