The only shadow of an argument, that can be brought to support the repeal of the stamp act, is that our trade with that country will suffer, if we enforce the tax with spirit and rigour. i grant it will—but what then? it will suffer only for a time; and this necessary severity will support and secure it for the future. whereas if the tax is repealed, it will give a blow to our trade, that will be felt for ages—it will open a channel to the americans for a free commerce with all the world: the manufactures of this country will be rejected, in proportion as other nations underwork, and undersell us: in short, america will be no longer british, but german, french, spanish, russian—and what not? forbid it heaven, that i should live to see the day, when a country, which has cost us so much blood and treasure to defend, will be made the bubble of popularity, or the plaything of power; liable to be blown away by vanity on one hand, or lost, by childish weakness and timidity, on the other. the americans imbibe notions of independence and liberty with their very milk, and will some time or other shake off all subjection. if we yield to them in this particular, by repealing the stamp-act, it is all over; they will from that moment assert their freedom. whereas if we enforce the act, we may keep them in dependence for some years longer: they are not yet in a condition to resist us—they cannot live without our manufactories • does the statement support or build on a point in any of the other documents? • does it argue the other side of any of those points? • does this passage tell you something important about the author's point of view? • how do you feel about the argument made in this passage? do you agree? disagree? have mixed feelings? • is it a primary or secondary source? • what is the purpose of the document? • what is the viewpoint of the author? • is there bias in the document?