Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"
EQ #3: Why does Paine stress that revolution will eventually occur? How does he substantiate this claim?
By demonstrating that a separation between the American colonies and the British Empire was inevitable, Paine hopes to make people more accustomed to the impossible idea of a free America. If Paine can convince his audience that America must eventually separate, the feasibility of the idea is no longer in doubt, and the colonists will instead have to consider when the separation will occur. Paine substantiates his claim with references to the present state of affairs, which he takes as evidence that the relationship between America and Britain cannot continue unchanged.
On the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections Analysis
For Americans in 1776, Britain appeared to be an all-powerful world empire. Many could simply not fathom the idea that the colonies could break free of the world's largest empire. For this reason, Paine addresses the issue of America's small size. To demonstrate that America is not too small to take on the British, Paine considers the issue of naval power. Undertaking detailed calculations, he shows that the Americans could build a Navy to rival Britain. Since the British navy was seen as unbeatable, the notion that America might build as strong a navy would have carried significant weight for Paine's contemporaries. For this reason, Paine explores the issue in detail, explaining how much each element of a navy would cost to build and explaining where America would acquire the raw materials to undertake construction. By laying out a detailed plan of how America could build a navy to rival Britain's, Paine makes a more convincing case that America can do what many would consider impossible. Paine also deals with the perception that such a small group of colonies cannot fight the imperial giants by arguing that, rather than being a liability, America's small size actually makes the time perfect for the colonies to seek independence. Paine explains that America's small size makes the colonies fairly cohesive. If there were more American colonies, they would be less united and, hence, less willing to band together to fight for independence. Paine also says that if the colonies seek their independence now, they will be able to appropriate the rest of the land on the continent for their own use. If they wait, the king will only seize control of more land, handing it to the British elite.
EQ #2: How does Paine address the concern that America is too small to defeat the British?
In Paine's day, many people could not fathom the possibility of a group of colonies successfully taking on the world's strongest empire, but Paine tries to show that America's small size is not a disadvantage. To do this, Paine adopts a twofold strategy. First, Paine argues that the colonies are not actually that small, and lays out in detail how the colonies could build a Navy equivalent to the feared British Navy. Second, Paine argues that to the extent that the colonies are small, it is an advantage rather than a liability, as a smaller group of colonies will be more unified in their ts struggle for freedom.v
Thoughts on the Present State of Affairs in America Analysis
Many of Paine's arguments are bound up in pictures and metaphors. The metaphors serve a few purposes. First of all, they make the pamphlet more appealing to a larger audience. Second, the metaphors simplify complex arguments by likening them to familiar concepts. When Paine refutes the argument that because America has flourished under British rule it must remain under British rule, he says this is tantamount to saying that a baby must never eat meat since it has flourished so far on only milk. Paine is arguing that political arrangements that have been successful for America in the past will not necessarily be successful in the future, and he makes this point more convincing by presenting it as a concrete example, rather than a theoretical abstraction. At the core of Paine's argument is the notion that amicable relations with Britain simply cannot exist, and as long as the colonies remain subservient to the crown, they will be mistreated. To make this point, Paine references the Stamp Act of 1765, wherein Parliament imposed taxes on a variety of printed materials. One might, Paine implicitly argues, have hoped for a reconciliation after Parliament responded to American protest by revoking the tax, but by 1767, Parliament imposing a new round of taxes on a large range of goods in the colonies. The governmental structure that Paine proposes is interesting for the relative power it appropriates to the colonies. Paine says that each colony should be divided into districts, each of which ought to send delegates to Congress. The president will be chosen from one specific colony, and in the next election, a different colony will be chosen. This process should be repeated until a president has come from each colony. Paine's system gives the colonies tremendous power and, on a national scale, is less democratic, affording less power per capita to those states with large populations.
Thoughts on the Present State of Affairs in America Summary
Paine asks the reader to set aside his or her prejudices and judge the comments he is about to make about the situation with an evenhanded manner. He says that while some have argued that because America has flourished under British rule, it is necessary for America to remain tightly bound to Britain. Paine likens this argument to saying that because a baby has flourished on milk, it should never eat meat. Furthermore, he argues that the situation in the colonies would have been even better had various European countries not exerted their power over America. It is argued that Britain has protected the colonies, but Paine points out that Britain protected the colonies for its own financial gain, not out of altruism. Additionally if the colonies had not been dependent on Britain, then they would no longer be enemies with countries that are enemies of Britain. Therefore, Paine argues, the very condition of being Britain's colony is what brought about the need for protection in the first place. Paine also argues that the fact that many Americans are of British descent is irrelevant, as Britain, being an enemy, has no legitimate claim to American allegiance. Reconciliation is not the duty of the colonies. If it were, Paine says, than Britain, half of whose people are of French descent, ought to submit itself to the rule of the French. Paine contends that America will gain nothing by remaining attached to Britain, and that the financial burdens America's present relations with the British impose on some citizens is monumental. Bostonians, for example, are constantly threatened with the theft of their property by British soldiers. Paine also argues that reconciliation with the British will only cause the present situation to repeat itself. Paine says that it will be impossible to return to a state of peace and normalcy under British rule after the battles and financial oppression that have occurred. It is misguided to think that the British will not again impose an oppressive tax. After all, they reintroduced unfair tariffs a year or two after repealing the Stamp Act. Paine states that America is too large and complex to be governed by Britain. American commerce cannot be managed from afar. He adds that it is perverse that a small island should be ruling over a large continent. Paine says that for the colonist not to seek full independence will only temporarily end the struggle, and that the children of those currently in power will later be forced to take up arms against the British. Is that the legacy to leave the children of America? For a while, Paine admits that he thought it possible that reconciliation might occur. However, after the battle of Lexington and Concord, it became clear to him that the situation had deteriorated too much for a reconciliation to occur. Paine begins to set out the details of what he sees as the proper form of government for America. He offers a way of choosing the congress and President and recommends the convening of a "Continental Conference" to produce a "Continental Charter" that will lay down certain laws for the union and ensure the protection of certain fundamental rights. Paine says that the law should reign sovereign in America, and that it is important that the most fundamental laws be inscribed in a constitution. He ends this section with an impassioned plea to break free of the tyranny of the British.
On the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections Summary
Paine asserts that it is universally acknowledged that America will ultimately separate from Britain, and that the only issue about which anyone disagrees is when this separation will occur. Paine says the time is now, as America has a large number of able men ready to fight in battle. The colonies have the force and the will to break free. Paine also says that the cost of the war can only be justified if the result is complete freedom. It is not worth undertaking the present battle simply for the repeal of some tax laws. Paine says that America is well suited to raise a navy that can rival even the British. Paine gives detailed calculations estimating the cost at roughly 3.5 million pounds sterling. America currently has no national debt and could certainly afford this miniscule debt. Furthermore, Paine argues, America produces the natural resources necessary to undertake the construction of such a navy, and America's coasts are alarmingly unprotected. This navy would both further the commercial prospects of America and provide essential defense. Paine says that the British Navy is spread throughout the world, attending to the various colonies of the Empire, and that an American navy would need only concern itself with protecting the Atlantic coast. If the British continue to rule in America, Paine says, the country will deteriorate. Independence is necessary now while so little of the continent is inhabited. Rather than having the king give out parcels of land to the British elite, it would be better for the colonies to exercise control over their own continent. This land could be used to all sorts of advantages, such as paying down debt. Furthermore, Paine argues, the colonies are now small enough to be united. If too much time elapses, greater numbers of people will occupy a greater part of America. They will be less cohesive, and less willing to work together to declare independence. Paine concludes with a list of four reasons that he thinks demonstrate that the only course of action for the colonies is to pursue complete independence: no country will be able to mediate the dispute between America and Britain as long as America is seen as a part of Britain; neither France nor Spain will help the colonies if they think that their help will be used by the colonists to repair relations with Britain; other countries see the colonies as rebels if they are still part of Britain; and by declaring independence, the colonies could begin to reap the benefits of international alliances and trade. Until the colonies declare independence from Britain, "the continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity."
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Summary
Paine asserts that mankind was originally in a state of equality, and, therefore, present inequalities must have been brought about by some circumstance. Paine says that a common distinction that lacks any natural or religious basis, is the division between kings and their subjects. This distinction, unlike those between male and female or good and evil, is not one "of heaven," and Paine wishes to inquire into its origin and its consequences. Originally, Paine says, there were no kings in the world. Then, the ancient Jews copied the custom from the "heathens" who surrounded them. This was a grave mistake, and Paine maintains that in establishing a king for themselves, the Jews sinned. Man is supposed to have only God ruling over him, and to introduce a king, who in ruling over the people is like a God, is a grave misdeed. Eventually, Paine says, the Jewish people asked the prophet Samuel for a king. Samuel attempted dissuade the people, but they insisted that they wanted to have a King like the other nations, and God assented, even though he thought it evil that the people should want someone other than God to rule over them. Having considered the biblical origin of monarchy, Paine concludes that it is a practice begun in sinfulness. The many pages of scriptural evidence make it clear that God stands in opposition to monarchy. Paine moves on to attack the notion of the hereditary succession of the monarchy. Paine argues that, since all men are born equal, no man could have the right to establish his family as forever presiding over others. Even if a person deserves certain honors, his children may not deserve them, and that person has no right to pass those honors on. Paine also observes that the recent kings of England have mostly been bad, which he says should indicate, even to those who favor hereditary succession, that the present line of kings does not exercise legitimate power. Paine wonders where the power of kings originally comes from, and decides that this power is always based on one of three things: election, random selection, or usurpation. Paine says that if a king is chosen by election, this means all future kings should be chosen in the same way, and if the king usurped his throne, then the entire reign is illegitimate. Any way you look at it, hereditary succession is not valid. Paine adds that hereditary succession brings other evils with it. For example, people who see themselves as born into an elite existence are often "ignorant and unfit." Lastly, Paine refutes the theory that hereditary succession reduces civil wars, as there have been at least eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions in Britain's history. Monarchy and hereditary succession, Paine concludes have produced nothing in the world but bad governance and bloodshed.
Of The Origin and Design of Government in General Summary
Paine begins the pamphlet Common Sense with general comments about government. He observes first that people have a tendency to confuse government with society. Drawing a sharp line, Paine argues that society is always something to strive for, whereas government is "a necessary evil." Society fosters the fulfillment of our desires, while government is there only to keep man from indulging his vices. Paine says that if a country with a government is hampered by oppression, it is far worse than if such behavior were to occur on its own, since the people create and support the government, and are therefore financing their own poor condition. If all people acted morally, government would not be necessary, but since people are fallible, government is necessary to the protection of life and property. Government's fundamental purpose, therefore, is to provide security, and the success of a government is to be judged by the extent to which it fulfills this role. To understand the purpose of government, Paine considers a small number of people, placed in a small region of land, cut off from all humanity. Unable to live alone, they would soon find themselves interacting in order to avoid a perpetual solitude. Together, they would be able to a build shelter and feed themselves more effectively. Out of necessity, the men would create a society. As long as they were to treat each other honorably, they would need no law. However, in order to account for inevitable defects in moral virtue, they would need to form a government. At first, they might simply designate some place to meet for all to discuss public matters, but as the size of the society increases, they would need to choose representatives to make the law. In order to make this work, they would need to hold frequent elections to ensure that the will of the representatives is aligned with that of the people. Paine breaks out of the world of his parable to argue that, therefore, representation, and not monarchy, is essential to "The strength of government and the happiness of the governed." Paine claims that his view of government is based on the principle "that the more simple any thing is, the less likely it is to be disordered." He then sets out to attack the British constitution. He derides it as "exceedingly complex," and rife with monarchical and aristocratic tyranny. Paine argues that, furthermore, it is absurd to think that the British system consists of branches of government checking each other.
Of The Origin and Design of Government in General Analysis
Paine presents government as an institution whose sole function is to restrain the evil in man. Furthermore, he presents society as the force that "promotes our happiness positively". Government, then, is conceived of as simply a preventative force, while any positive or creative acts are up to society. Many Western democratic governments appropriate large sums of money toward positive projects that are intended to improve public life, and it is worth considering whether Paine would have objected to the modern state in which government "promotes our happiness..." The argument could also be made that, given the affection Paine expresses for society, he might be very fond of modern governments. After all, Paine lauds society because of what it accomplishes, and if a government could accomplish the same thing, Paine's view of government might change. Paine claims to be using a parable to introduce his general reflections about government, although his intention is clearly to comment on the situation in America. In his parable, America is the land secluded from the rest of society, since it is separated from Europe by an ocean, and the few people placed there are the original settlers. An obvious problem with Paine's story in relation to the situation in America, however, is that America was not quite cut off from the rest of society, as many European powers controlled various territories in America. Furthermore, Paine intends to examine how government originates out of nature, but the settlers who first crossed over from England arrived with English notions of government, rather than creating the government from scratch.
EQ #1: How is Paine's view of government connected to his arguments for revolution?
Paine sees government as inherently bad, and does not see government as divinely ordained or otherwise intrinsically valuable. According to Paine, governments can only be measured by their effectiveness, as measured by their ability to improve society without being tyrannical. Paine does not believe that anyone has a right to govern others, which means he thinks that the king should no longer rule the colonies. Paine's view of government makes the revolutionary movement much more palatable by rejecting the presumption that the king has some legitimate and preexisting authority over the colonies. He says the only question that really matters is whether the colonists' living conditions would be better if they governed themselves, rather than being governed by the Crown.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Analysis
To the contemporary reader, Paine's slogging through mounds of biblical evidence might seem less interesting and less relevant, but in Paine's time, the bible shaped opinions on most matters. It was not uncommon to believe that kings ruled by divine right, and for this reason, many were hesitant to revolt against a King—after all, if the king's power was genuinely divine, a revolt against the king was akin to a revolt against God. Paine tries to undercut this line of thinking by attacking it on its own terms, and presenting Biblical passages that reject the idea of a divinely appointed monarchy. In this case, Paine presents an arsenal of Biblical evidence to show that monarchy is neither a natural nor a preferable institution. Of further interest is the question of what role the biblical arguments play in Paine's own thought. Is Paine's belief that the Bible abhors monarchy central to his belief that America should be independent, or does he merely include a biblical argument in order to counter opponents who based their ideas on the gospel? Although he was raised a Quaker, Paine's political beliefs were decidedly secular. His conception of government, especially as presented in the first section of this pamphlet, is largely informed by abstract, liberal, and philosophical speculation, not by religious dogma. Furthermore, Paine generally opposed the mixture of religion and politics, as indicated by his response to the Quakers in the appendix to Common Sense. Still, Paine was acutely aware of the role the Bible played in the minds of his contemporaries, and it is to convince them that he includes the arguments of this section. In arguing against hereditary succession, Paine exhibits a tendency to rely on a kind of logic known as a false dilemma, wherein only a certain number of explanations for a phenomenon are presented even though other explanations are just as likely. For example, Paine says that the first king must have been chosen "either by lot, by election, or by usurpation," deliberately ignoring the idea that the king was divinely appointed, a possibility to which many of his contemporaries would have subscribed.
