thomas paine common sense analysis essay

A Summary and Analysis of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

After the Declaration of Independence, probably the most important and influential document of the American Revolution was a short pamphlet written not by an American, but by an English writer who had been living in America for less than 15 months.

But although his country of birth was the very nation – Britain – that Americans were fighting against to secure their independence, Thomas Paine was most of the most significant supporters of the American cause.

And Americans were clearly ready to hear what he had to say. Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense , published at the beginning of that momentous year, 1776, rapidly became a bestseller, with an estimated 100,000 copies flying off the shelves, as it were, before the year was out.

Indeed, in proportion to the population of the colonies at that time – a mere 2.5 million people – Common Sense had the largest sale and circulation of any book published in American history, before or since. Common Sense , it turns out, was fairly common – and very popular.

But what made Paine’s pamphlet of some 25,000 words and 47 pages strike such a chord with Americans in 1776? Why did Paine write Common Sense , and what exactly does the pamphlet say? Before we offer an analysis of this landmark text, here’s a summary of Paine’s argument.

Paine’s pamphlet is a polemical work, so he is not setting out to offer a balanced and even-handed appraisal of the facts. Instead, he views his role as that of rabble-rouser, stoking the fires of revolution in the heart of every American living under British rule in the Thirteen Colonies.

Common Sense is divided into four parts. In the first part, ‘On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the Constitution’, Paine considers the role of government in abstract terms. For Paine, government is a ‘necessary evil’ because it keeps individuals in check, when their inner ‘evil’ might otherwise break out.

Paine then considers the English constitution, established in 1689 in the wake of the Glorious Revolution . The main problem is that England has monarchy and aristocratic power written into its constitution: the monarchy is a hereditary privilege which the individual king or queen has done nothing personally to ‘earn’, and the same is true of those who sit in the House of Lords and participate in government. (Paine was against all forms of hereditary power, believing the individual should earn whatever role they have.)

In the second part, Paine considers monarchy from a biblical perspective and a historical perspective. Aren’t all men equal when they are created? In that case, the idea that one man – calling himself king – is greater than his subjects, who are but his fellow men, is flawed. He cites various passages from the Old and New Testaments in support of his argument.

For example, he discusses 1 Samuel 8 in which God punishes the people for asking for a king. ‘That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true,’ Paine argues, ‘or the scripture is false.’ And few of Paine’s God-fearing readers would believe that the Bible could be false in what it showed.

Next, Paine turns from the biblical to the historical argument against monarchical government, point out how past kings have been problematic: for example, the Wars of the Roses lasted for decades and kept England in a state of turmoil as two warring royal houses fought for control of the kingdom. ‘In short,’ Paine concludes, ‘monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes.’

Finally, Paine also attacks the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke ’s notion of a ‘mixed state’, a kind of constitutional monarchy where the monarch has limited powers. For Paine, this isn’t enough: most monarchs who wish to seize more power for themselves will find a way of doing so.

The third part of Common Sense , ‘Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs’, looks at the conflict between Britain and the American colonies, arguing that independence is the most desirable outcome for America. He proposes a Continental Charter which would lead to a new national government, which would take the form of a Congress. He then outlines the form that this would take (each colony, divided into smaller districts, who send delegates to Congress to represent them).

In the fourth and final section of the pamphlet, ‘On the Present Ability of America, with Some Miscellaneous Reflections’, Paine turns to the practicalities of fighting the British, both in terms of money and resources.

He draws attention to America’s strong military potential. Shipyards can be used to provide the timber to create a navy that could rival Britain’s. Economically, too, America is in a strong position because it has no national debt.

Before he arrived in America in 1774, Thomas Paine had a fine series of failures behind him: a onetime corset-maker and customs officer born in Norfolk in 1737, he travelled to the American colonies after Benjamin Franklin, whom he had met in London, put in a good word for him.

Paine was soon editing the Pennsylvania Magazine , and in late 1775 began writing Common Sense , which would rapidly cause a sensation throughout the Thirteen Colonies. George Washington wrote to a friend in Massachusetts, ‘I find that Common Sense is working a powerful change there in the minds of many men’.

What was it about Paine’s pamphlet that caused such a stir? It was partly good timing: anti-British feeling had been growing in the last few years, especially since Britain introduced a range of taxes in 1763 to help fund their wars in Europe and India; such a tax famously led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, and the British retaliation that swiftly followed.

Nevertheless, in 1775 many Americans living within the Thirteen Colonies still favoured reconciliation with their British overlords. Put simply, many people didn’t have enough enthusiasm to go to war against such a powerful imperial nation as Britain. But Thomas Paine sensed that the appetite for a fight was there, if only someone could stir the populace to action; and he knew the right way to get the ordinary man and woman on side.

So Paine needed to do more than simply lay out the situation to such people. He needed to persuade them by showing in powerful and vivid language that Britain was a power-hungry imperial force under whose boot Americans were always going to suffer – unless, that is, they decided enough was enough.

With Common Sense , Paine helped to win over many of those waverers to the cause for independence. He did this, most of all, not by appealing to scholarly argument or intellectual reasoning but by going for the emotions of his readers (and listeners: many people gathered together to hear someone else read aloud from Paine’s essay). We should bear in mind the ‘common’ part of ‘common sense’: Paine was trying to reach everyone, regardless of education or social rank.

Painting the British king, George III, as a tyrannical power-hungry ruler who had overstepped the mark, Paine made the case against monarchical rule and in favour of democratic government. When Common Sense lit the touchpaper for revolution, Paine was more than prepared to put his money where his mouth is, too. He enlisted in the American army in July 1776 and continued to write pamphlets to boost morale throughout the years of bloody war that followed.

Common Sense was popular in America, but it was also translated into French and was eagerly taken up there. Indeed, Paine’s revolutionary call for an anti-monarchical system of government would later help to inspire the French Revolution in 1789, which Paine supported in its early stages. But it was in America that his revolutionary zeal first galvanised others to fight for independence from the monarch who ruled over them.

Fittingly, it was Thomas Paine, writing under the byline ‘Republicus’ in June 29, 1776, who became the first person to make a public declaration for the new country to be named the ‘United States of America’. An Englishman from rural Norfolk had helped to inspire countless Americans to make their country their own.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ Helped Inspire the American Revolution

By: Patrick J. Kiger

Updated: July 11, 2023 | Original: June 28, 2021

Even after armed hostilities broke out between the American colonists and British forces in 1775, many prominent colonists seemed reluctant to consider the idea of actually breaking away from Britain and instead insisted that they were still its loyal subjects, even as they resisted what they saw as its tyrannical laws and unfair taxation.

But a single 47-page pamphlet—the 18th-century equivalent of a paperback book—did a lot to quickly change that, and shift American sentiment toward independence. Common Sense , written by Thomas Paine and first published in Philadelphia in January 1776, was in part a scathing polemic against the injustice of rule by a king. But its author also made an equally eloquent argument that Americans had a unique opportunity to change the course of history by creating a new sort of government in which people were free and had the power to rule themselves.

“We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth,” Paine wrote. “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

Centuries before the existence of the internet, Common Sense managed to go viral, selling an estimated 500,000 copies. By the end of the Revolutionary War, an estimated half-million copies were in circulation throughout the colonies.

By promoting the idea of American exceptionalism and the need to form a new nation to realize its promise, Paine’s pamphlet not only attracted public support for the Revolution but put the rebellion’s leaders under pressure to declare independence. And even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence Was Also a List of Grievances

The document was designed to prove to the world (especially France) that the colonists were right to defy King George III's rule.

How the Coercive Acts Helped Spark the American Revolution

As colonists grew increasingly defiant, the British government responded with punishing measures that only angered them more.

Thomas Paine

Early Years Thomas Paine was born January 29, 1737, in Norfolk, England, the son of a Quaker corset maker and his older Anglican wife. Paine apprenticed for his father but dreamed of a naval career, attempting once at age 16 to sign onto a ship called The Terrible, commanded by someone named Captain Death, but […]

Who Was Thomas Paine and Why Did He Write 'Common Sense'?

Paine’s provocative pamphlet was the first real success in his life. Born in 1737 in England to a financially struggling family, he had to quit school at age 13 to labor as an apprentice in his father’s corset shop. He did a brief stint as a sailor on a privateer ship at age 20 and tried and failed to start a craftsman business. He managed to land a government job as an excise tax collector but was fired twice, the second time after leading an unsuccessful campaign to get higher wages for him and his colleagues. His failed efforts to lobby Parliament left him with a dim view of the British system of government.

Bereft of prospects at age 37, he convinced Benjamin Franklin , whom he’d met in London, to give him a letter of recommendation, and emigrated to America in hopes of catching a break at last.

When Paine arrived in America in 1774 and found work as a journalist in Philadelphia, the colonies already were in tumult over opposition to Britain’s attempts to impose new taxes and restrict trade.

“Paine witnessed it all, and thought, these people are ripe for a revolution,” explains Harvey J. Kaye, author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America.

In 1775, with the encouragement of Franklin and Benjamin Rush, the physician and activist who became a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Paine began writing a pamphlet that would urge Americans to go beyond merely resisting British authority. “He encouraged them to realize that they weren’t British, that they were Americans,” Kaye explains.

Paine originally wanted to call his pamphlet The Plain Truth , but Rush, who informally served as his editor, persuaded him to name it Common Sense instead, according to Stephen Fried’s biography of the physician. That phrase fit one of Paine’s most important notions, that Americans should trust their feelings, rather than get bogged down in abstract political debates.

“The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes,” Paine wrote. “They are the guardians of his image in our hearts.”

7 Famous Loyalists of the Revolutionary War Era

From a son of Benjamin Franklin to a Mohawk leader to the governor of Massachusetts, these men chose to side with the British.

How the Declaration of Independence Was Printed—and Protected

America’s earliest founding document survived war, fire, mistreatment, insects and the ravages of time prior to landing at its current home in the National Archives.

7 Hard‑Fought Battles That Helped Win the American Revolution

While the British were often better equipped and trained, these events proved critical in ultimately securing Americans' victory in the war.

Key Points Made in 'Common Sense'

Here are some of Paine’s key points:

• Government's purpose was to serve the people . Paine described government as a “necessary evil,” which existed to give people a structure so they could work together to solve problems and prosper. But to do that, it had to be responsive to people’s needs. The British system, Paine argued, failed at that, because it gave the monarchy and nobles in Parliament too much power to thwart the people’s elected representatives. “The constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine,” Paine wrote.
• Having a king was a bad idea . Paine didn't just find fault with British rule of the colonies. He ridiculed the very idea of having a hereditary monarch at all. "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places, which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears," Paine wrote. "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
• America as the home of the free . Paine refuted the notion that Americans should be loyal to a mother country that he considered a bad parent. “Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families,” he wrote. Besides, he argued, America’s real connection was to people everywhere who yearned to escape oppression. "This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe," Paine proclaimed. "Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still."
• America had a rare opportunity to create a new nation based on self-rule . As Paine saw it, both Americans and the British knew it was inevitable that the colonies would break free. "I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries, would take place one time or other." And that time had come. America had raw materials, from timber and hemp to iron, and the skills that it needed to build and equip an army and navy for its defense. Just as important, the individual colonies had the potential to put aside differences and form a powerful nation. But they needed to do it quickly, before the population grew to a point where new divisions might develop. The moment in history was "that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once," he wrote.
• A strong central government was needed . Paine envisioned that the new nation would have a strong central government, with a constitution that protected individual rights, including freedom of religion. "A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends," he argued.

Why Did Paine’s Pamphlet Become So Influential?

Jefferson considered Paine to be the best writer of the Revolution, according to Kaye. But it wasn’t just his arguments that appealed to people. Unlike other American leaders who were well-educated landed gentry, Paine could reach into his own humble background to find his voice.

"He knew people weren’t thinking in the abstract," Kaye explains. "Paine wrote to his peers, in a language everyone could understand."

Just as importantly, Paine understood that philosophical abstractions weren't as powerful as emotion and experience. Instead, Paine urged Americans to embrace "common sense," and trust their own feelings about what was right and just and how the country should be run, just as they did with other everyday decisions. "They recognized themselves in that argument,” Kaye says.

"I attribute its success to two things," Jack Fructman, Jr., author of The Political Philosophy of Thomas Paine and Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom , explains. "First, it was the first published piece that I know of advocating separation from the British Empire. And second, there were pirated copies circulating, a rather common phenomenon in the 18th century before copyright laws." In addition, he notes, "it was often read aloud, which helped spread its popularity and notoriety."

The popularity of Common Sense made it tough for colonial leaders to take a halfway stance against the British. As John Adams wrote to his wife in April 1776: "Common Sense, like a ray of revelation, has come in seasonably to clear our doubts, and to fix our choice."

As Thomas Jefferson biographer Joseph J. Ellis has written, Common Sense "swept through the colonies like a firestorm, destroying any final vestige of loyalty to the British crown." Within a few months of its publication, the Continental Congress instructed each colony to draft new state constitutions, an act that set the colonies clearly on the path to declaring independence. 

Thomas Jefferson , who had received an early copy of Common Sense in February 1776, began writing a formal document in June that would announce to the world that the new nation had been created.

But Paine's pamphlet might actually have done more than the declaration to unify Americans and win converts to the cause. Paine’s espousal of religious freedom, for example, appealed to people who resented being forced to pay tithes to churches they didn't belong to.

During the Revolution, "most Americans thought Common Sense was the revolutionary document, not the Declaration of Independence ," Kaye says.

Over the nearly 250 years since Paine's publication of Common Sense , Paine, whom some call "the forgotten founder," hasn't received as much recognition as other important figures in the Revolution. There isn’t even a statue of him in the nation's capital. Nevertheless, Paine's pamphlet continues to be read, and the ideas in it—particularly the idea of American exceptionalism—continue to resonate among new generations of Americans.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Thomas Paine’s  Common Sense

January 10 marks the anniversary of the publication of Thomas Paine’s influential Common Sense in 1776.

On January 10, 1776, an obscure immigrant published a small pamphlet that ignited independence in America and shifted the political landscape of the patriot movement from reform within the British imperial system to independence from it.

One hundred twenty thousand copies sold in the first three months in a nation of three million people, making  Common Sense  the best-selling printed work by a single author in American history up to that time.

Never before had a personally written work appealed to all classes of colonists. Never before had a pamphlet been written in an inspiring style so accessible to the “common” folk of America.

A government of our own is our natural right…Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government.

Common Sense  made a clear case for independence and directly attacked the political, economic, and ideological obstacles to achieving it. Paine relentlessly insisted that British rule was responsible for nearly every problem in colonial society and that the 1770s crisis could only be resolved by colonial independence. That goal, he maintained, could only be achieved through unified action.

Hard-nosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation. Implicitly acknowledging the hold that tradition and deference had on the colonial mind, Paine also launched an assault on both the premises behind the British government and on the legitimacy of monarchy and hereditary power in general. Challenging the King’s paternal authority in the harshest terms, he mocked royal actions in America and declared that “even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families.”

Finally, Paine detailed in the most graphic, compelling and recognizable terms the suffering that the colonies had endured, reminding his readers of the torment and trauma that British policy had inflicted upon them.

Yuval Levin on the Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity—To begin government at the right end…

Resources on Thomas Paine and Common Sense

The complete writings of thomas paine.

Project Gutenberg provides the compilation of Thomas Paine’s writings online, including Common Sense ,  The American Crisis ,  Rights of Man , and the controversial  The Age of Reason . Shorter pieces include  private letters to Thomas Jefferson  and  a letter criticizing the American government and George Washington .

Thomas Paine Friends, Inc.

Thomas Paine Friends, Inc., an association dedicated to an increased public awareness of Paine’s political contributions, provides several articles and resources for further reading on this lesser known founder.

Jon Katz on Paine’s Life and Influence on Journalism

In an article for  Wired , Jon Katz provides a narrative of Thomas Paine’s life and argues that Paine should be recognized as the moral father of the internet and a pioneer of journalism.

John Adams on Thomas Paine

Although  Common Sense  proved to be an influential piece of American political thought, John Adams did not think much of it, nor of its author: “The Arguments in favor of Independence I liked very well: but one third of the Book was filled with Arguments from the old Testament, to prove the Unlawfulness of Monarchy, and another Third, in planning a form of Government, for the separate States in One Assembly, and for the United States, in a Congress.”

How The American Crisis Saved the Revolution

Common Sense  may be the best-known of Paine’s writings, but another of his pamphlets,  The American Crisis , was critical in rallying the patriots to a victory at Trenton in late 1776. Paine’s  The American Crisis  contains the famous quote: “ These are the times that try men’s souls : The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that  the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph .”

In addition to the audacity and timeliness of its ideas,  Common Sense  compelled the American people because it resonated with their firm belief in liberty and determined opposition to injustice. The message was powerful because it was written in relatively blunt language that colonists of different backgrounds could understand.

Paine, despite his immigrant status, was on familiar terms with the popular classes in America and the taverns, workshops, and street corners they frequented. His writing was replete with the kind of popular and religious references they readily grasped and appreciated. His strident indignation reflected the anger that was rising in the American body politic. His words united elite and popular strands of revolt, welding the Congress and the street into a common purpose.

As historian Scott Liell argues in  Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence : “[B]y including all of the colonists in the discussion that would determine their future,  Common Sense  became not just a critical step in the journey toward American independence but also an important artifact in the foundation of American democracy” (20).

Commentary and articles from JMC Scholars

Common Sense   and the political thought of Thomas Paine

Seth Cotlar,  “Thomas Paine in the Atlantic Historical Imagination.”  ( Paine and Jefferson in the Age of Revolutions , University of Virginia Press, 2013)

Seth Cotlar,  Tom Paine’s America: The Rise and Fall of Trans-Atlantic Radicalism in the Early Republic . (University of Virginia Press, 2011)

Seth Cotlar,  “Tom Paine’s Readers and the Making of Democratic Citizens in the Age of Revolutions.”  ( Thomas Paine: Common Sense for the Modern Era , San Diego State University Press, 2007)

Armin Mattes,  “Paine, Jefferson, and the Modern Ideas of Democracy and the Nation.” ( Paine and Jefferson in the Age of Revolutions , University of Virginia Press, 2013)

Eric Nelson,  “Hebraism and the Republican Turn of 1776: A Contemporary Account of the Debate over Common Sense.”  ( The William and Mary Quarterly  70.4, October 2013)

Peter Onuf (editor),  Paine and Jefferson in the Age of Revolutions . (University of Virginia Press, 2014)

William Parsons,  “Of Monarchs and Majorities: Thomas Paine’s Problematic and Prescient Critique of the U.S. Constitution. ” ( Perspectives on Political Science  43.2, 2014)

Gordon Wood,  “The Radicalism of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine Considered.” ( Paine and Jefferson in the Age of Revolutions , University of Virginia Press, 2013)

Michael Zuckert,  “Two paths from Revolution: Jefferson, Paine and the Radicalization of Enlightenment Thought.” ( Paine and Jefferson in the Age of Revolutions , University of Virginia Press, 2013)

…But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.

If you are a JMC Scholar who’s published on the Fourteenth Amendment and would like your work included here

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Common Sense

Thomas paine.

Ask LitCharts AI: The answer to your questions

The Role of Government

Thomas Paine ’s 1776 political pamphlet, Common Sense , was revolutionary in a number of ways. Paine was one of the first to openly advocate for American independence from Great Britain, and in doing so, he sought to appeal to the everyday colonial American reader instead of to fellow political theorists. In order to make his radical case, he first lays the groundwork for his argument by discussing the nature of government itself, building on…

The Case Against Monarchy

After establishing his views on government in general, Paine takes the more radical step of arguing that monarchy is a bankrupt institution and must be abandoned. In his view, there are many absurdities of monarchy to choose from, such as the isolation and ignorance of rulers from those they govern: “There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy […] The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of…

Independence vs. Dependence

Paine ’s major goal in Common Sense is to convince his American readership to embrace the cause of independence. To do that, he builds a case that remaining connected to Great Britain would be harmful to the American colonies. By first building on the imagery of America’s “ childhood ” in a variety of ways and presenting long-term risks of reliance on the “mother country,” Paine implies that America’s subservience to Britain is inherently unhealthy…

Reason, Morality, and Rhetoric

Paine argues that “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” This is a good summary of Paine’s approach throughout Common Sense —of making a rhetorical appeal to his readership’s ability to evaluate long-held traditional assumptions. Though he characterizes this evaluative ability as mere…

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.

Common Sense

29 pages • 58 minutes read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Summary: “common sense”.

The all-time bestselling published work in America, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense helped ignite a revolution that changed the world. Released in January 1776, the pamphlet condemned the arbitrary rule of Britain’s King George III and his Parliament, and it urged colonists to rise up against their oppressors and replace colonial rule with a democratic republic of free and equal citizens. Common Sense helped inspire rebel leaders to declare American independence six months later.

An e-book version of the third edition, printed in February 1776, is the basis for this study guide. It contains a short Introduction by the author, four Chapters that make the case for freedom from English rule, and an Appendix.

Introduction

The Kings of England have ruled the American colonies since the beginning, but just because colonists are used to this situation doesn’t justify its oppressive nature, and it doesn’t prove that such rule must continue into the future. The battle over this issue may determine the future of freedom, which makes the struggle an important one for people the world over.

Since the first two editions of this pamphlet, no one has stepped forward to refute it, so the arguments it contains will remain unchanged in this third edition of February 1776. The author “is unconnected with any Party,” and he is under no compunction “but the influence of reason and principle” (2).

Chapter 1: “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution”

Society grows from people’s desire to produce good things together, while government arises from the need to restrain the bad: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil” (3). A single person can’t accomplish nearly as much as can several people working together. Generally, this desire to cooperate is all that’s needed, but sometimes frictions and disagreements arise, so the group creates a set of “Regulations” that help resolve conflicts. These rules are enforced by little more than “public disesteem.”

As the group’s membership grows, so do its size and problems, and it delegates governance to representatives. To ensure that the representatives continue to have the best interests of their constituents at heart, the people hold frequent elections.

How does England’s government compare? It was an improvement over previous tyrannies, but it has grown overly complex, and of its three main elements, two are oppressive. These are the king and the “peerage” (or House of Lords), who retain powers over the democratic element, the “commons” or Parliament. The commons is supposed to be a check on the powers of the other two—especially the king, who tends to be isolated from the nuts and bolts of important issues—but the commons itself is made of men who may be no more honest or wise than those they guard. Any such system will be moved by its greatest power, in this case the king.

Chapter 2: “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession”

People were generally equal until, with the growing distinction between rich and poor, they separated themselves into “Kings and Subjects,” which caused happy realms to suffer, for “it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion” (11-12). The idolization of royalty flies in the face of Biblical warnings, but monarchies smooth this over.

The Israelites, yearning to copy their neighbors, sought to make a king of their war hero Gilead, but he turned them down. Then they tried to make Samuel into a king, but he communed with God, who told him to warn the Hebrews that a king would tax and enslave them. They refused to relent, so God sent a thunderstorm at harvest time, and finally they got the message. Thus, God is against kings, and any royal who says otherwise is twisting scripture.

To make matters worse, the principle of inherited monarchies tends to impart honors and privileges onto the undeserving: Even a good king’s sons “might be far too unworthy to inherit them” (16). Such a system takes from future generations the ability to judge for themselves who shall lead them, yet powerful men profit from monarchy; thus, the weak and fearful must give way.

Even worse, the first king usually was “chief among plunderers” (16), and his entire dynasty is based on forcing people to pay taxes or face destruction, as with William the Conqueror, a foreigner who took England in 1066, and whose heirs still reign there in 1775. Hereditary rule leads to arrogant, arbitrary overlords who assume their superiority even as they isolate themselves from the realities of their subjects. Sometimes kings are either too young or too old to rule, and their wards and advisors take advantage of this weakness to enrich themselves at public expense.

Some claim that hereditary rule prevents civil strife, but since the 1066 Conquest, there have been nearly as many civil wars and uprisings as kings. A leader chosen by the people would do a much better job.

Chapter 3: “Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs”

The time for debate has passed: “Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest” (23), and the result will echo into the future and around the world. Attempts to reconcile the colonists with Britain have collapsed into violence.

Defenders of British rule contend that Britain has benefited the colonies and will continue to do so, but it’s more likely that America would have prospered even more if left alone. Some say that Britain has protected America from enemies, but the home country also got the colonies into wars with enemies like France and Spain with whom the colonies have little dispute.

Europeans come to America as much to escape their parent countries as to extend them. America is the child not merely of Britain but of all Europe; England’s claim to be parent to every colonist is a fallacy. Even if all colonials were English and must bow to England’s authority, then England itself, conquered centuries ago by French adventurers, should therefore bow to France.

America is so far from Europe, and its discovery so convenient to Europeans fleeing the outbreak of religious conflict—“as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years” (28-29)—that American independence seems inevitable. Continued connection to England will increase the debts that must be paid by the colonies’ children, placing an unfair burden on future generations.

Defenders of reconciliation take four forms: men with a financial stake in England, the weak who “ cannot see,” the biased who “ will not see,” and those who believe Europe is superior to the colonies (29). Those who campaign for renewed harmony haven’t visited Boston, where food is scarce and soldiers fire on the citizens, and where the true nature of the rulers is revealed.

Reconcilers also believe that things will settle down and the authorities will become lenient. Indeed, the Stamp Act was repealed, but others were instituted in its place. Even if governance returned to the old ways, Britain is no longer fully able to manage the colonies, where affairs have become so complex that a petition for a ruling that requires months of travel and waiting to adjudicate will take too long to be effective.

The blood and treasure already spent are worth far more than the repeal of a tax or two. Americans shouldn’t stop at piecemeal solutions but should continue forward to full liberation. Three things encourage a move toward freedom: (1) The king may sign legislation that mollifies the colonists, but he can later undo those acts by ignoring or repealing them; (2) any compromise will be unstable, and immigrants may stay away or colonists may leave; and (3) civil war may erupt among the colonies as some try to pull away while others resist.

Will independence itself cause chaos? Firstly, the American colonies are fairly equal in strength, so there is little temptation to fight. Secondly, the likely republican government that arises won’t suffer from the arrogant pride that tempts regals to invade other countries.

As for the shape of a new government, perhaps every colony should send 30 representatives to a Continental Congress, where they select one colony by lot and from it choose a president, and thereafter each colony takes turns as the source of the president. All laws would require a three-fifths majority to ensure general agreement. The assembled will then decide on a form of representative government that will guarantee freedom, control of one’s property, and untrammeled religious expression to all citizens. Above all, let no king rule over America. Instead, “THE LAW IS KING” (39).

A stable government, conceived coolly and deliberately, will help defend against adventurers who might take advantage of instability to elevate themselves to despotic rule over America. In any event, the wounds are too deep; it’s too late to forgive. Americans must stand up and fight for freedom. The world is oppressed, and a free nation can be “an asylum for mankind” (41).

Chapter 4: “Of the Present Ability of America, With Some Miscellaneous Reflexions”

The time is ripe for independence. America contains “the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven” (43), and the colonies have reached an ideal state of interdependence, while the population is not yet so crowded as to strain resources.

The continent lacks a navy, but it will never be free to build one while under the control of Britain. The colonies are debt-free and well positioned to borrow to build ships of war. The British Navy in 1757 consisted of 251 ships of the line and 85 small vessels; the total cost was roughly 3.5 million pounds sterling. A single warship with 70 guns would only cost 17,785 pounds, and the colonies have all the raw materials needed to build several, and doing so will generate work for many.

After independence, the new nation can’t ask Britain for maritime protection, since the old country would simply regain control over the colonies. However, not too many ships would be needed for defense, as most of the British navy usually is out of service for repairs or else guarding other parts of the British empire. Even better, Americans would defend their own coastline, close to their own sources of resupply, while British ships would travel thousands of miles to fight and then retrace those miles to refit.

In any case, America will need to protect its lengthy and prosperous shoreline from pirates. Shipping companies might add guns to some of their vessels, receiving compensation for the expense on the promise to aid America during a conflict. This approach would avoid the British foolishness of allowing its navy “in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks” (48).

America’s resources are second to none; the land contains vast forests, the world’s best iron, plenty of hemp for rope, excellent weapons makers, and a people filled with resolution and courage. Americans haven’t yet grown soft from the kind of wealth that makes Britain back away from a fight. The colonists must strike now or risk having their recently won western territories taken by the king for his own purposes.

The new government should protect religious beliefs. A lively variety enhances Christendom the way children differ yet contribute to a family. Equally important is that the number of representatives should be large, so that decisions aren’t dominated by a few.

Four reasons that involve foreign powers argue for a rapid march toward independence: (1) No mediation will be possible from outside nations, as the conflict is internal to Britain; (2) any settlement that reunites the colonies with Britain will merely threaten those countries; (3) the colonies are currently thought of internationally as dangerous rebels rather than as a responsible nation; and (4) a manifesto of independence, which outlines grievances against Britain, combined with a willingness to live in peace and friendly trade with other nations, will go a long way toward reassuring and encouraging foreign powers to be friendly in turn toward the new America.

The first edition of Common Sense was published on the same day that a king’s proclamation was disseminated. The king’s speech threatened the colonies with reprisals for its rebellion, but this merely angered the people, who read the pamphlet “by way of revenge” (55). Of the king’s speech, “Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it” (56).

The fight will come eventually, but waiting merely makes the task harder. Now is when Americans have soldiers recently toughened in battle against England’s enemies on the continent. Now is when the population of colonists has grown enough to support a rebellion. Now is the time to protect northern colonial regions from encroachment by British Canadian interests. Rent or sale of such lands would fund the new government, but those regions will be lost forever if Americans postpone their independence.

As in nature, so in human affairs: The simple outranks the complex. Freedom is simple; reconciliation would be “exceedingly perplexed and complicated” (59). Soon, neither will be possible if Americans continue to hesitate and argue, behavior the British are using as a wedge to split the colonists and give the king a victory.

Many argue that the colonies should simply petition Britain to make them as whole as they were in 1763, just after the war with France. Britain might make such a promise and then rescind it, especially as such redress would be very costly. A year ago, that might have sufficed, but now it’s too late.

The original spat about new taxes was a trifle, but the harsh response to it is not. “The Rubicon is passed” (61), and the battle is engaged. Even loyalists ought to support the cause, since the representative government that results will treat them less harshly than would a mob angered by their support for Britain. As well, it is better to obtain a peace between nations than an accommodation between ruler and ruled. Thus, Americans should set aside their differences and unite in the cause of liberty.

Related Titles

By Thomas Paine

The Age Of Reason

The American Crisis

The Rights of Man

Featured Collections

American Revolution

View Collection

Essays & Speeches

Political Science Texts

Politics & Government

• Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Words: 721
• Thomas Paine’s Political Views and Theories Words: 1104
• Declaration of Independence and Paine’s “Common Sense” Words: 618
• Analysis of Thomas Paine’s Rhetoric Words: 412
• Thomas Paine Rebuking Conservative Arguments Words: 884
• Freedom’s Genesis: The Declaration of Independence and Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ Words: 903
• Common Sense vs. The Declaration of Independence Words: 1114
• Thomas Paine’s “Government is A Necessary Evil” Words: 586
• The Work “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine Words: 284

Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis

Certain literary works stand as transformative forces that stimulate the flames of change and alter the course of nations. Among these seminal texts is “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, a groundbreaking pamphlet that reverberated throughout the American colonies, sparking revolutionary fervor. In this summary of Common Sense by Thomas Paine, you will find a literary analysis of Paine’s words, an exploration of the persuasive techniques, radical ideas, and unwavering passion that coalesced to create a revolutionary masterpiece. Check out the sample below to unravel the essence of “Common Sense,” its rhetorical devices, and other important aspects.

📜 Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary

🎭 rhetorical devices in common sense, 🪶 common sense historical literary relevance, ↪️ common sense thomas paine analysis conclusion, 🔗 works cited.

In his chef-d’oeuvre literary narrative, Common sense, Thomas Paine dwells on the American independence. He explores the inherent and commonly mistaken definitions of society and government. He opens the narrative with a broad rumination of the pertinent issues surrounding governance, religion, and society and then delves into the matters of colonialism.

Common Sense pioneered at the start of 1776 after the conclusion of the inaugural battle of the 1975 Revolutionary War. According to Paine, the society entails all beneficial courses that individuals living together join hands to achieve, while the government is the definition of a body or an institution that ensures that people’s vices are suppressed, and thus individuals do not harm each other (Nash 16).

According to Paine, the best form of governance is democracy, where people choose their leaders coupled with being involved in the lawmaking process. Therefore, the British monarchical system, which colonized Americans, was retrogressive and archaic. For instance, Paine disagrees with the absolute powers granted to the monarchs and contends that the hereditary succession is an insult to the subjects (Marston 85).

In essence, the idea of having a powerful king is unnatural and a fruit of sin from the biblical perspective, whereby the Jews could not live under theocracy, and thus they demanded a king. Paine then digs into the American situation under the British rule, and he rebuts the misconception that America can only survive and thrive under a British king (Nelson 111).

Paine believes that the America’s achievements, as an independent nation, can surpass what it has achieved under colonialism. For instance, the independent colonies can create better navy forces as compared to the British Navy. In addition, as an independent state, America can command international respect, and thus Paine feels that the time for emancipation has come.

The first outstanding literary element in Common Sense is triad, when Paine posits, “In the following pages, I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense” (61). The function of a triad is to emphasize an issue in a bid to make sure that the audience gets it right (Cooper and Nothstine 129) and Paine accomplishes this goal by opening his narrative with such a sentence. He also uses tone, which is highly confident.

In other words, Paine adopts a tone that will compel the audience to agree with his arguments and perhaps in a bid to drive the point further and scold those dare to oppose him, he says, “O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!” (Paine 76).

Such literary device bestows convincing power upon the writer, by making the audience feel obligated to agree with whatever is being said. Apparently, Paine’s style yields the desired results as the Americans heed his words, take arms against the colonial masters, and declare independence in 13 colonies by 1783 (Dennehy, Morgan and Assenza 186).

The author also appeals to logos. According to Stiff and Mongeau, “logos refers to the reasoning or logic of an argument…speakers employ logos by presenting credible information as supporting material and verbally citing their sources during their speech” (74). The title, Common Sense, appeals to logos of Paine’s audience, which was Americans under the British subjugation.

In other words, it was common sense that Americans needed to take arms against the British rule and fight for emancipation, and thus Paine’s insinuation is straightforward by using such a title. Paine posits, “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence (defense) of custom…but the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason” (45).

This assertion appeals to pathos, as it stirs Americans to reflect on how they have tolerated the undeserved atrocities of the colonial masters without questioning. The British monarchical rulers have for long used lies to dupe a section of Americans into believing that they are better under colonialism as compared to functioning as an independent nation.

As a way of appealing to the Americans’ emotions and logic, Paine notes categorically that the “period of debate is over…and by referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck, a new method of thinking has arisen” (61). With such compelling language, Americans have only one choice and that is to fight for freedom no matter the cost.

Paine also uses symbolism throughout the narrative. In his writing, he uses words like “secondary objects” when referring to how the colonial masters perceive the Americans. He notes, “America is only a secondary object in the system of the British politics’ (Paine 71). This symbolism means that America only serves the needs of Britain as an object that can be misused according to the king’s inclinations. Paine also uses the term “parasite” to describe the people around the king.

He rues, “The phrase ‘parent’ or ‘mother country’ hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias…” (64). The term ‘parasites’ here symbolizes the relationship between American and the British colonizers. The king and his people depend on America for personal gains, without America gaining anything in return just as a parasitic relationship in the ecological food chains.

In this case, America is the host, while the British colonial masters are the parasites, who suck nourishment from the America’s rich natural resources. Finally, Paine gives the king a symbol of an animal by claiming that even “brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families” (63). Brutes and savages are ruthless beasts and according to Paine, the king falls in that category (Winthrop 300).

Finally, Paine uses theme as a literary element. The theme of government as ‘a necessary evil’ stands out from the beginning of the narration. The government can only be justified if it helps people to constrain their vices, but beyond that point, it is useless and unnecessary (Solinger 599). The other outstanding theme is the inevitability of America gaining independence. The sole purpose of writing Common Sense was to awaken the sleeping American consciousness concerning the British subjugation.

He posits, “Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government” (Paine 76). This assertion underscores the fact that America has to gain independence by all possible means, and for those that cannot stand the idea, they are clueless of what an independent government can do to its subjects.

Paine also highlights the theme of the insufficiencies of a monarchical system by noting that it is the worst form of governance (Claeys 101). In Paine’s view, citizens should have the opportunity to choose their leaders as opposed to automatic succession and he regrets that the “original sin and hereditary succession are parallels” (Paine 59). In other words, the monarchical form of governance is evil.

As aforementioned, Common Sense was released immediately after the end of the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The author arrived in America in the middle of the war and after assessing the situation, he jumped into the political bandwagon to push for America’s emancipation (Hogeland 65). Paine was born and raised in Britain, but he did not support its repressive governance.

Back home in Britain, he was fired after publishing a controversial article claiming that the only way to deal with corruption was to give the tax collectors a better remuneration package (Hitchens 63).

The British rulers of the time could not stand such sentiments, and thus Paine lost his job. Therefore, coming to America, Paine knew what to expect, and thus Common Sense fits in this historical context. In essence, Common Sense is a factual pamphlet that highlighted the unmerited British rule and occupation of American colonies at the time.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is a masterpiece account of the need for America to gain independence. Paine starts by discussing different issues touching on society, religion, and governance. However, the largest part of this writing dwells on the need for Americans to rise against British colonialism and seek independence.

Paine speaks plainly and he scolds Americans for entertaining a repressive rule and wrongful occupation by British masters. He uses different literary elements like triad, logos, pathos, tone, themes, and symbolism in the pamphlet Common Sense. The writing falls in its historical context as it was written at a time when America was living under the oppression of the British colonial powers.

Claeys, G. Thomas Paine: Social and Political Thought, Oxon: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Cooper, M., and William N. Power Persuasion: Moving an Ancient Art into the Media Age, Greenwood: Educational Video Group, 1996. Print.

Dennehy, R., Sandra M., and Pauline A. “Thomas Paine: Creating the New story for a New Nation.” Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science 5.4 (2006):183-192. Print.

Hitchens, C. Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography, New York: Grove Press, 2006. Print.

Hogeland, W. “Thomas Paine’s Revolutionary Reckoning.” American History 46.2 (2011): 64-69. Print.

Marston, J. King and Congress: The Transfer of Political Legitimacy, 1774-1776, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Print.

Nash, D. “The gain from Paine.” History Today 59.6 (2009): 12-18. Print.

Nelson, E. The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. Print.

Paine, T. Common Sense. Ed. Edwin Larkin. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2004. Print.

Solinger, J. “Thomas Paine’s Continental Mind.” Early American Literature 45.3 (2010): 593-617. Print.

Stiff, J., and Paul M. Persuasive Communication , New York: Guilford Press, 2003. Print.

Winthrop, J. “Familial Politics: Thomas Paine and the Killing of the King, 1776.” The Journal of American History 60.2 (1973): 294-308. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, April 7). Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis. https://studycorgi.com/literary-analysis-common-sense-by-thomas-paine/

"Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis." StudyCorgi , 7 Apr. 2020, studycorgi.com/literary-analysis-common-sense-by-thomas-paine/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis'. 7 April.

1. StudyCorgi . "Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis." April 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/literary-analysis-common-sense-by-thomas-paine/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis." April 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/literary-analysis-common-sense-by-thomas-paine/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis." April 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/literary-analysis-common-sense-by-thomas-paine/.

This paper, “Common Sense by Thomas Paine Summary & Analysis”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: August 24, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Common Sense as written by Thomas Paine was initially published in 1776 during the time of the American Revolution. It was a pamphlet that provided the colonists in America with arguments to get independence from the rule and occupation of the British. It is well-known that Common Sense reached out to hundreds of thousands of people who were desperate to get independence and inspired them into a fight for their liberty.

At a time when a lot of uncertainty prevailed after the war, Paine won over the American people with his simple words which served as motive power for people to get confident about what they wanted. He made them realize that rulers were in fact the representatives of the people and that the Monarchy of the British government had no basis to rule over them. The pamphlet was aimed at convincing people that they should not be ruled by a King who was born to rule rather than has been chosen by people to govern for them, in other words, the fact that the British Monarch had inherited his right to be a king, did not mean that he could govern for the people of America.

Common Sense did not simply try to convince people that they had to fight for their independence. Its aim was to demonstrate the incompetence of the government. Paine himself kept to the point that government might be a necessary evil, but it had to work in the best interests of people taking care of their welfare and expectations. The pamphlet made people suddenly realize that they deserved proper representation. By his work, Paine inspired a vast majority of Americans, and not only men but women (for instance, Abigail Williams) whose most utmost desire was getting independence from their husbands. At the time when the pamphlet was released, independence was much desired and Paine reached out to a large number of people at an appropriate time defending independence from the British. Moreover, the pamphlet made people realize the importance of American independence, which marked the beginning of a radical movement.

Apart from working on Common Sense, Paine is known for having a number of occupations in Britain before his coming to America in 1774. Firstly, he worked as a supernumerary officer at Thetford from 1761 to 1762. After that, he got a position of an excise officer in 1762 in Lincolnshire, and in August 1765, he was fired from this position for committing alleged discrepancies. Until he was reinstated to the position of an excise officer, he worked for some time as a stay maker in Norfolk and then as a servant for some nobility. Paine was a minister of the Church of England until 1767 after which he got work as a school teacher in London. From February 1768, he worked with Lewis in East Sussex where he developed an interest in civic matters and was introduced to members of the elite intellectual society called Society of Twelve which indulged in discussions of town politics. Paine actively associated with the church group Vestry that made collections to be distributed amongst the poor. During the years 1772 and 1773, he was occupied in working with excise officers who demanded the parliament to improve their working conditions and increase their payments. This occupation inspired Paine to the creation of his first political work titled The Case of the Officers of Excise. Finally, in 1774 he was introduced to Benjamin Franklin by a friend who recommended his emigration to America and he arrived in Philadelphia on November 30 th , 1774.

In sum, Thomas Paine had numerous occupations before arriving in America in 1774 where he published his Common Sense, a pamphlet, which has strongly influenced American people’s ideology and contributed greatly to their fight for independence.

Works Cited

Hitchens, Christopher. Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.

Paine, Thomas. Essential Thomas Paine: Common Sense, The Rights of Man. Plume, 1984.

Roark, James L. American Promise, 4 th Edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008.

• Could the American War of Independence Be Called a Revolution?
• Impact of American Revolution on the French One
• “Common Sense and Related Writings” by Thomas Slaughter
• Road to Revolution
• Health Promotion Pamphlet Analysis
• American Revolution Information
• Declaration of Independence: Self-Evident Truths Now Open to Question
• American Revolution: An Impact on the Nation
• The French Connection in Revolutionary War
• The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution: Book Analysis
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 3). Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/thomas-paines-common-sense/

"Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis." IvyPanda , 3 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/thomas-paines-common-sense/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis'. 3 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis." December 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/thomas-paines-common-sense/.

1. IvyPanda . "Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis." December 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/thomas-paines-common-sense/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” Analysis." December 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/thomas-paines-common-sense/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Teacher Opportunities
• AP U.S. Government Key Terms
• Bureaucracy & Regulation
• Campaigns & Elections
• Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Comparative Government
• Constitutional Foundation
• Criminal Law & Justice
• Economics & Financial Literacy
• English & Literature
• Environmental Policy & Land Use
• Executive Branch
• Federalism and State Issues
• Foreign Policy
• Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
• Immigration
• Interest Groups & Lobbying
• Judicial Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Political Parties
• Science & Technology
• Social Services
• State History
• Supreme Court Cases
• U.S. History
• World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

• Bell Ringers
• Lesson Plans
• Featured Resources

Lesson Plan: Extension - Thomas Paine and "Common Sense"

Thomas paine's writing style.

Actor Ian Ruskin highlights Thomas Paine's language in "Common Sense" through his portrayal of author.

Description

In 1774, Englishman Thomas Paine arrived in America as the conflict between the colonies and Great Britain was reaching its peak. Up to that point, the colonies were said to have been considering negotiation rather than a separation from Britain. Moved in part by the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, Paine, a journalist, wrote a 47-page pamphlet, titled "Common Sense," in which he made a passionate argument against the British monarchy and for full American independence. "Common Sense" was published in early 1776, sold several hundred thousand copies, and highly influenced the colonies in their decision to declare independence from Britain on July 4, 1776. In this lesson, designed by Jocelyn Chadwick and John Grassie, students extend their learning and do a deep dive from the text into historical and contemporary themes and ideas.

This lesson offers several options for you to use with your students whether you are teaching in class, using a hybrid model, or engaging through distance learning. It can be completed in steps as a class or students can move at their own pace and complete the activities independently.

You can post links to the resources in the lesson and engage in discussion to share responses on a discussion board or learning management system.

• Teacher Guide: Strategies and Resources (Google Doc).
• Video Segment: Thomas Paine and "Common Sense:" The Road to the U.S. Constitution (YouTube).

INTRODUCTION

Play the following video clip in which actor Ian Ruskin highlights Thomas Paine's language in Common Sense through his portrayal of the author. Direct your students to answer the related prompts and share their findings with a partner, small group, or the class when finished.

Video Clip: Thomas Paine's Writing Style (1:58)

• Summarize the quote from Common Sense , as read in the clip.
• According to actor Ian Ruskin, how did Thomas Paine write Common Sense ?
• What did Paine write Common Sense to appeal to?
• Explain the quote that has caused "much misunderstanding."
• Based on the clip, why do we need government?

To teach the themes of Common Sense and its connections to historical and contemporary people and issues, use one or more of the following strategies.

For more details on each strategy and the rationale and aims for each, consult the Teacher Guide: Strategies and Resources (Google Doc).

I. Close Reading, Analysis, and Making Connections

Each student-group or individual examines a passage or two, closely and deliberately, examining the way Paine constructs his argument using this list as a guide: (a) Mode of Writing (persuasive, with narrative and expository and descriptive elements) Audience, Occasion, Purpose; Rhetorical Appeals (logical, ethical, emotional); (b) Word Choice; (c) Use of Bolded Text; (d) Use of Capitalization; (e) Caesura (dashes); (f) Punctuation; (g) Syntax; (h) Simple Sentence; (i) Compound Sentence; (j) Complex Sentence; (k) Compound-Complex Sentence; (l) Repetition (anaphora); (m) Juxtaposition (comparison/contrast); (n) Illustration/Examples; (o) Statistics; (p) First-Person Narrative (memory); and (q) Historical References (Old Testament, history, factual data [monarchy and parliament]).

As each group (or individual student) examines their passage(s), encourage them to express:

• what they think about the passage and how Paine constructed it
• how they would re-write or express the same idea
• determine if they themselves would be persuaded to act or not after reading Common Sense—In this section, be sure to ask students to be prepared to share-out for class conversation
• Ask students to keep their findings and notes, for later use with another activity (#4).

II. Thematic Threads-Constructing an Argument

Ask students to trace how Paine conveys a specific message/or point [allow students to rely on and utilize the Writing Style list above—on which you will selectively focus based on grade level and curriculum].

For older students, another way to approach the thematic threads is to allow them to re-write a selected passage as they would today—to redact the passage. Next, students will share their redactions for commentary and discussion. The aim here is to allow students to understand and experience how a thought and style from an earlier century can be re-expressed in contemporary writing styles and yet remain persuasive . Remember: Allow students the freedom to write as they wish within appropriate parameters.

Next, encourage students to share their redactions for collaborative discussion and analysis. (If some students are a bit shy, you may want students to submit their redactions to you, and later, you can share them out for class analysis without specific names.

III. Voice—The Individual, The Population, and POV: Why IS One’s Voice So Important? Or, IS it?

As an oral and potentially fun activity, explore with students how a point of view or an idea can gain traction on social media (this approach not only will surprise students but also will immediately grab their attention. Next, move the examination to Paine’s Common Sense , and encourage them to examine, compare and contrast their first exploration into the impact Paine’s pamphlet had. Also, explore the audience’s attention-span today’s social media sometimes has and then compare and contrast with the attention-span of Paine’s pamphlet audience. (Analysis) The culminating conversation/exploration can be not only enlightening for teachers and students but also fun and informative—an activity-snapshot into the similarities and differences of audiences from different time periods.

IV. Symbolism: 14 February 1776 and (reference an 1853 article on Valentine’s Day)

To begin, read the excerpt from the 1853 newspaper article, “St. Valentine: The History, the Mystery:” ( Note: the entire article is not in the Teacher Guide: Strategies and Resources (Google Doc); whenever possible, students’ being able to experience a real primary source is important .)

Now that you’ve reviewed a portion of the newspaper article, think about Paine’s publishing the Philadelphia edition of Common Sense on 14 February 1776, Valentine’s Day. What an interesting coincidence? Whether Paine intended to publish on Valentine’s Day or not, reflecting on the day, date, and symbolic meaning is interesting to explore and analyze. Remember: Audience, Purpose, Occasion—the 3 critical ingredients for every important and successfully delivered argument.

Begin the class conversation with some overall questions about their understanding of Valentine’s Day:

• If you were trying to describe Valentine’s Day to someone who had never experienced it or has no knowledge of it, how would you define the date?
• What do you or your friends/family do or not do on Valentine’s Day?
• Do you think there is only one way to understand/experience/define the date?
• As a class, explore how Thomas Paine’s argument in Common Sense could actually connect and relate to Valentine’s Day. For example, is the date solely for people in love, or could the meaning of the date relate to other types of love—such as love for one’s country—thereby, extending love for one another?
• Explore how Thomas Paine illustrates his love of America and what he envisions it could be.

V: Connections-Contemporary - Women and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense—How Text Can Affect and Inspire Reflection and Action

As a class, explore the following two links provided and those in the primary and secondary sources section of the Teacher Guide: Strategies and Resources (Google Doc) that focus on some of the women who were Thomas Paine’s contemporaries: The American Revolution Institute of the Society of the Cincinnati and Google Arts and Culture online interactive exhibit “Pining for Patriotism.” This activity can apply to states that require elementary teachers to explore with students the roles women and children played during the nation’s birth . Middle and high school students can gather in groups, or, can individually explore who these women were along with their impact and contribution toward establishing “the road to the American Constitution.” As students work, set aside a bit of class time—15 mins—to share and discuss—

• Pre-knowledge/Awareness: In discussion, explore how much any of us are aware/familiar with the roles women and children forged in the road to America’s independence, the American revolution, and the U.S. Constitution.
• What they have found and what they think about it all.
• What do they know now or discovered that they did not know, or even have a clue?
• What else would they like to know now ?

VI: Connections - 19th Century

Students can have multiple research and analysis activity-approaches here because, literally, so very many new perspectives and interests, and actions were emerging, almost simultaneously—politically, socially, constitutionally, and the emergence of America’s footprint in arts and letters. With this section, students can decide to drill into topics and/or people that may interest them—social studies and ELA. Interestingly, in this section, students can leverage their 21st century interest in technology, while still addressing curricular standards. For example, compare and contrast Emerson’s Man-Thinking and “amputated man” in “The American Scholar,” to Paine’s “Lovers of Mankind” and rights for all Mankind.” Links to help them are in Primary and Secondary Resources. Once students select their research or interest topic, allow them to research and read about the person, the movement/event, the document(s), Order, individual(s), speech.

VII: Connections - Continuing Impact: Thomas Paine and the 20th and 21st Centuries

Allow students to form groups; each group selects a movement, speech, or letter. Allow time for the students to read, discuss, and analyze. Encourage students to really break down each document and discuss among themselves: (a) Why do you think this sentiment has lasted for so long?, (b) What do you think it means to you now?, (c) Is the core of the 20th and 21st century quotes still relevant? Still meaningful?, (d) Now, try paraphrasing one of the modern quotes to what YOU would have it say to others today. [Paraphrasing: No more than four consecutive words from the original quote and using your own words to reflect the majority of the original quote]. Be sure students have access to the Primary and Secondary Resources list, as many of the links are interactive. Depending on the grade level, students can create a research piece to present, oral presentation to share with class, or class discussion. Middle and high school students can also research beyond the primary documents and movements listed to align with current events. ( Note: Be sure to remain neutral in your position. The primary focus and instructional aim of this project is for students to discover and explore the links between the past and their present from their points of view .)

VIII: Collaborative Pamphleteers Exhibit

After reading and exploring Common Sense , ask students if they’d be interested in coming together in groups of three or four to brainstorm an idea or position they want to publish in their own pamphlet. Of course, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense will be the pattern— not the topic . Students’ will select a topic on which each group agrees. ( Note: this activity is one that could be a collaboration between social studies and ELA .) Once each group meets and decides on a topic, they will set about writing the sections of the pamphlet. After each person has created a section for the pamphlet, the groups will review, edit, revise, and polish for review and comments—just like all writers who submit drafts to editors. Next, once corrections and any additions have been made, each group will create their pamphlet. The pamphlets will all be on display for the school, or, like Summit Free Public Library in NJ, social studies and ELA teachers can collaborate with community libraries to bring students and parents together to attend. Students are showcased. Parents have the opportunity to see and listen to their kids. Teachers have a moment to illustrate the import of what we do in the classroom in a real-life environment.

IX: Direct Quotes, Indirect/Paraphrased Quotes, Allusion - Illustrations of How 20th and 21st Century references to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense continue to Influence and Persuade and Inspire— Influencers Then and Now

Preparation : First, review the terms: (a) Direct Quote : Word for word, exact replication of quote; (b) Indirect/Paraphrased Quote : No more than four consecutive words from the original quote and using your own words to reflect the majority of the original quote; and (c) Allusion : writer’s own words that closely parallel or rephrase original quote, usually, on which writer or speaker expands own argument or point.

Influencers : Now, let’s compare/contrast a word that students today may very well assume belongs uniquely to them and juxtapose it with its original meaning and intent: Influencer (2007-present)—a now, a well-known 21st century term, meaning “a person who has become well-known through the use of the internet and social media, and uses celebrity to endorse, promote, or generate interest in specific products, brands, etc., often for payment ( OED ).” However, in the 18th century, an influencer was one who “or that which influences,” such as a church leader, or attributes that would make a person a good individual: “Honour is one of the most powerful influencers of human nature,” ( Examination of Human Philosophy , 1867) ( OED ). Thomas Paine and his Common Sense most assuredly affected and influenced American colonists to the extent that a nation—the United States of America—would be the ultimate result, guided and led by the American Constitution and by three branches of elected government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. The people of the United States would review, weigh, select, elect, and assess its government. In lieu of personal wealth and stature a 21st century influencer seeks, Mr. Paine’s aim of influence was the thematic threads cited earlier—aims that would, if nurtured, endure through the life and existence of the United States of America.

Examination : So, how impactful and lasting has Paine’s argument been? Examine the following 19th, 20th, and 21st century direct and indirect quotes, as well as allusions to Common Sense ? Now you’re ready to examine and analyze not only how others today have cited Thomas Paine’s words and thoughts in Common Sense but also experience how and under what circumstances the citations were made (Audience, Purpose, Occasion). For this activity, students may want to collaborate or work individually, or a bit of both.

• Select one of the 19th, 20th or 21st century quotes listed in the Teacher Guide: Strategies and Resources (Google Doc).
• Read, examine, and analyze the following: (a) Theme, (b) Writing style, (c) Audience, (d) Purpose, and (e) Occasion
• Highlight, take notes, record thoughts and questions. Create a brief report of findings, including any extra thoughts or new questions to share-out with the class. Include in the share-out what you learned and think about Thomas Paine’s continued influence. Finally, include in your sharing whether you/group have any personal “take-aways.” In other words: What do you know now or think now that you did not before you experienced Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and its ripple-effect through the following centuries .

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESOURCES

• C-SPAN and Library of Congress : Books That Shaped America: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
• References within Common Sense : (A) Sir William Meredith—House of Commons (p.31), (B) Prime Minister Henry Pelham , (C) Battle of Lexington 1776 , (D) Thomas Jefferson to Jonathan B. Smith, 26 April 1791 (on the first American publication), (E) 1776 Timeline: Articles and Essays: 1764-1788 , and (F) “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British colonies” (1767, John Dickinson, the first of twelve letters) - Massachusetts Historical Society
• Google Arts and Culture: Images of the Revolutionary War in America : (A) “Pining for Patriotism” and (B) Women and the American Revolution : The American Revolution Institute of the Society of the Cincinnati
• Children and the American Revolution : Children played supportive and important roles during the American Revolution as messengers, drummers, helping with mending uniforms and gardening, even helping with the wounded. One young boy was Nathan Futrell: (A) “How kids helped during the Revolutionary War” (Adam Sullivan, The Gazette, 3 July 2020; Updated 5 August 2020), (B) Video Game: Liberty’s Kids: Live the Adventure of the American Revolution , (C) “Trigg settler drummed his way into early U.S. history” Nathan Futrell, The Paducha Sun, Paducha, KY, Friday, 13 November 1981, (D) Committee of Style--Composing the U.S. Constitution , and (E) Spirit of `76 . Copy of painting by Archibald M. Willard, 1876–National Archives
• Nineteenth Century : (A) The American Scholar —Ralph Waldo Emerson (Speech: 31 August 1837; Published Essay—31 August 1837), (B) Women’s Suffrage Memorabilia , (C) Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls (July 1848) LOC, (D) Douglass, Stowe, Stanton at Conference , (E) Abraham Lincoln “House Divided” Speech -1858, (F) “Gettysburg Address,” 19 November 1863, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, (G) General Order 143 [allowing Blacks—free and slave—to join the efforts for American independence (National Archives)], (H) General Order No. 3 [Enforcing the Emancipation Proclamation in Texas] (National Archives), (I) Elizabeth Freeman - National Women’s History Museum, (J) The 19th-Amendment: Women Win the Vote (1917-1920) (in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified to include Black women—18 August 1920), and (K) How Did Women Win the Nineteenth Amendment? A Strategy for Suffrage
• 20th and 21st Centuries : (A) Barbara Jordan: 1976 Democratic National Convention Address , (B) Rep. Barbara Jordan, House Judiciary Cmte Statement , 24 July 1974, during the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, (C) Barbara Jordan: An Exhibition of the Congresswoman (Google Arts and Culture), (D) Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1967) The Atlantic Presents King Spring 2018, (E) Barack Obama 2013 Inaugural Address - White House Archives, and (F) Joe Biden at Gettysburg 2:08-3:43 (6 Oct 2020, C-SPAN)
• Other References: Articles, Books, Plays : (A) Paine, Thomas. Common Sense The Origin and Design of Government. Rpt. King Solomon, 2021., (B) Briggs, Amy. “Espionage and Intrigue: Harriet The Spy,” National Geographic History . Vol 9. No 6. Feb/Jan 2024. (Brilliant piece with primary source quotes and images, focusing on not only Harriet Tubman and her roles in the Civil War, but also the echoes of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense throughout the piece., (C) Eco, Umberto. “Waiting for the millennium,” FMR. No. 2 , July 1981, 66. (Excellent essay: the quote cited here clearly defines the power texts can have over generations of time.), (D) Morrison, Toni, playing in the dark: whiteness and the literary imagination . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992. (While there have been many redactions of William Shakespeare’s plays, no one has ever attempted to examine voice and presence of Desdemona and her companion-servant Barbary, until Toni Morrison.), and (E) Desdemona . London: Oberon, 2012. The play premiered 26 October 2011.

Related Articles

• Common Sense (Britannica)
• Thomas Paine and "Common Sense:" The Road to the U.S. Constitution (YouTube)

Additional Resources

• "Common Sense" (C-SPAN Podcast)
• "Common Sense" (C-SPAN.ORG)
• On This Day: Thomas Paine
• Bell Ringer: The Importance of Thomas Paine on the Founding of the United States
• Bell Ringer: Thomas Paine
• Bell Ringer: Philosophers Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine
• Lesson Plan: Thomas Paine and Common Sense
• Lesson Plan: Book That Shaped America - "Common Sense"
• Common Sense
• Thomas Paine

Common Sense

THE BRADFORD EDITION, February 14, 1776

Man knows no Master save creating Heaven Or those whom choice and common good ordain. - Thomson.

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong , gives it a superficial appearance of being right , and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own Right , to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs , and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.

In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR.

P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a performance ready for the Public being considerably past.

Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself , not the Man . Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government , which we might expect in a country without government , our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore , security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out of the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors , prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First — The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the king.

Secondly — The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.

Thirdly — The new republican materials in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things:

First — That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly — That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined, they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question, viz.  How came the king by the power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking , be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed, is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution, needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions, is self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

The prejudice of Englishmen in favour of their own government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the first hath only made kings more subtle $mdash; not more just.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.

An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man. who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence , but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s” is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

Now three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic administred by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, through the divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son’’s son . Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you . The Lord shall rule over you. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations . And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me , THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen , and the Lord will not hear you in that day. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king , but only as a man after God’s own heart. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles . Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord , in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion .

Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say, “We choose you for our head,” they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say “that your children and your children’s children shall reign over ours for ever.” Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.

This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.

England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. $mdash; It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should be. If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind we were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish , the wicked , and the improper , it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.

The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.

The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.

This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. ’Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle ground. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea “that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of Commons from out of their own body $mdash; and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on , or rather that he will not put off , the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide this contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.

It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho’ an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, “ they will last my time. ” Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent $mdash; of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new aera for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of the last year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point. viz. a union with Great-Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.

As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connexion with Great-Britain that the same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.

Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great- Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment ; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account , but from her enemies on her own account , from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account , and who will always be our enemies on the same account . Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.

It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enmity enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans , but as our being the subjects of Great-Britain .

But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.

In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour ; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman ; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman , i.e., country-man ; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe , their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishman . And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen ; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.

But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of England are descendants from the same country; therefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.

Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port . Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.

I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.

But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.

Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain . The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now, will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls “the present constitution” is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.

Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions.

Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three.

It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficient brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us far a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now, no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn and beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury of both armies.

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “ Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all of this. ” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity . The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”

Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning $mdash; and nothing hath contributed more than that very measure to make the Kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child.

To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.

As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness $mdash; There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity, $mdash; that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth.

As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.

The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expence. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land. As I have always considered the independancy of this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of father of his people can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.

But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons.

First . The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “ You shall make no laws but what I please. ” And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution , that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. $mdash; We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independant, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “ there shall be no laws but such as I like. ”

But the king, you will say, has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being the King’s residence, and America not so, makes quite another case. The king’s negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defense as possible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.

America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics. England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the king at this time to repeal the acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces ; In order, that he may accomplish by craft and subtilty, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.

Secondly . That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispense of their effects, and quit the continent.

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate) Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an independance, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connexion than from independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.

The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.

Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The Republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing ruffians at home ; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negociate the mistake.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out $mdash; Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.

Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority $mdash; He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.

But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose,

A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each colony. Two Members from each House of Assembly, or Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business, knowledge and power . The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being impowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.

The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Carta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said Conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen comformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness may God preserve, Amen.

Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts or that wise observer on governments Dragonetti . “The science”, says he, “of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense”. (Dragonetti on “Virtues and Rewards”)

But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reacts on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a Constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello (note below) may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, that relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independance now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.

(Note: Thomas Anello, otherwise Massenello, a fisherman of Naples. who after spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppressions of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day became king.)

To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?

Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber, and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.

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 overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round 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.

OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA; WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS

I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the countries, would take place one time or other: And there is no instance, in which we have shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring to describe, what we call the ripeness or fitness of the continent for independance.

As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavour, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time hath found us . The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact.

It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built, while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that, which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.

Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea porttowns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade.

Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independant constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy of a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.

The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this time, more than three millions and an half sterling.

The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following calculations, which are now given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is just one. See Entic’s “naval history”, intro. p. 56.

The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a proportion of eight months boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy.

[pounds Sterling]

For a ship of a 100 guns = 35,553

90 = 29,886

80 = 23,638

70 = 17,795

60 = 14,197

50 = 10,606

And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:

Ships. Guns. Cost of one. Cost of all Cost in pounds sterling

6 100 35,553 213,318

12 90 29,886 358,632

12 80 23,638 283,656

43 70 17,785 764,755

35 60 14,197 496,895

40 50 10,606 424,240

45 40 7,558 340,110

58 20 3,710 215,180

85 Sloops, bombs, and fireships, one with another, 2,000 170,000

Cost 3,266,786

Remains for Guns 233,214

No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of their materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver.

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not necessary that one fourth part should he sailors. The Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New-England, and why not the same now? Ship-building is America’s greatest pride, and in which she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.

In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence ought to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns might have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.

Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbours, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?

The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed, that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West-Indies, which, by laying in the neighbourhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy.

Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defense is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear no external enemy.

In almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of America again, this continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.

Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless dependants, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this.

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favour of independance. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident. For trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel.

Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other’s assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament, that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterward: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity — to begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent, that the seat of government, in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are willing to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.

In page forty, I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of re-mentioning the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.

In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonoured a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few , a very few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of the whole colony ; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a Congress, every well wisher to good order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary.

It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New-York Assembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty. (See note.)

Note: Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read Birgh’s political disquisitions.

To Conclude, however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to shew, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration of independance. Some of which are,

First — It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while America calls herself the Subject of Great-Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever.

Secondly — It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only, to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.

Thirdly — While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace , for men to be in arms under the name of subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding.

Fourthly — Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer, to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections with her; at the same time, assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.

Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independance, we take rank with other nations.

These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independance is declared, 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.

Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King’s Speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody mindedness of the one, shows the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the Speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of Independance.

Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the King’s Speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the Congress and the people. Yet, as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends greatly, on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King’s Speech, hath not, before now, suffered a public execution. The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of Kings; for as nature knows them not , they know not her , and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us , and are become the gods of their creators. The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain.

Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, “ The address to the people of England to the inhabitants of America,” hath, perhaps, from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: “But” says this writer, “if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of,” (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act) “it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by those nod alone they were permitted to do any thing .” This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality — an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered — as one, who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.

However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and christians — YE, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation — But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads.

First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.

Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance? with some occasional remarks.

In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to he benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independant of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independance of this country on Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.

First. Because it will come to that one time or other.

Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.

I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking, the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general, viz. that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now , the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this time , arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus — at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.

The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position, viz.

Should affairs he patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which, as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point intirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have, or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.

It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expence of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental trustees.

I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance; with some occasional remarks.

He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally — That independence being a single simple line, contained with ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which a treacherous capricious court to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.

The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which, is nevertheless subject to change, and which, every secret enemy is endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between, English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.

Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be busy in spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New-York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty.

It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only , regardless of others, the event will convince them, that “they are reckoning without their Host.”

Put us, says some, on the footing we were on in the year sixty-three: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretense, of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? — No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent — but now it is too late, “The Rubicon is passed.”

Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independancy of America, should have been considered, as dating its aera from, and published by, the first musket fired against her . This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.

I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three , will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independancy be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful — and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.

Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an Independance be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of Independance, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independant or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore , if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independance.

In short, Independance is the only Bond that can tye and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well, as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, “rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independantly redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favour of it are too numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind, and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Home — Application Essay — Liberal Arts Schools — Analysis of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: College Admission Essay Sample

Analysis of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: College Admission Essay Sample

• University: Claremont McKenna College

About this sample

Words: 779 |

Published: Jul 18, 2018

Words: 779 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Of all the founding fathers in America's history, few have played a role equaling the paramount importance of Thomas Paine, and few have been so repeatedly overlooked. At a time when even the most devout patriot stood uncertainly in the shadow of British tyranny, Thomas Paine wrote with power and charisma enough to fortify the resolve of young America; single handedly rousing thousands to join the Revolutionary cause. Rising from a modest upbringing in England to become America's most outspoken patriot, Paine was indisputably responsible, at least in part, for stirring up the seeds of war that would eventually lead to the birth of a new nation.

Say no to plagiarism.

Get a tailor-made essay on

'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'?

Born in the country town of Thetford in 1737, Thomas Paine was not always a master of rhetoric and rebellions. For the first thirty years of his life Paine, like his father, worked as a staymaker in England. However, Paine was far from happy with the monotonous banality of his career, so he began to study politics. He wrote furiously for several years, occasionally drafting pamphlets, but ultimately remaining penniless. Then, in 1774, Paine was approached by Benjamin Franklin, who persuaded the struggling writer to seek work in America. Upon arrival, Paine worked a short stint as a school teacher before becoming a successful contributor to the Pennsylvania Magazine. Quickly, he became involved in America's heated political conflict, which prompted Paine to pen the opening pages of Common Sense.

Unlike other political essayists of the 1700s, Thomas Paine wrote in the clear, direct voice of a common person. He realized that war against the world's most powerful country could not be won or loss with the support of a few rich men, so Paine appealed to the masses of potential Revolutionists. His use of language was not pretentious or diluted with flowery descriptions, and because of that, Paine swayed thousands to rebel against England. As one patriot noted, "It would be difficult to name any human composition which has had an effect at once so instant, so extended, and so lasting... It worked nothing short of miracles and turned Tories into Whigs." Men, women, and children tore through the pages of Common Sense, which had become an overnight success.

Coupled with his straightforward style, Thomas Paine also used various literary techniques to persuade his readers. Predominant in Common Sense is Paine's infallible reasoning, which expounds his message point by point, driving the author's logic through his reader's head like a sledgehammer through cardboard. However, Paine also relies on religious allusions, figurative language, and statistics in hopes influencing a more varied crowd. Additionally, Paine possessed great skill in twisting words and penning inspirational mottos, as shown in his writing: "In America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free governments the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other... Let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished and scattered among the people whose right it is." Such words, infectious in their simplicity, spread through the colonies like wildfire, igniting passion in the hearts of rebels everywhere.

Although Paine spent months writing over fifty pages of rhetoric, the entirety of his work can be boiled down into one concise thesis statement: All citizens have a natural right and duty to free themselves from oppressive governments, no matter the cost. This concept is explained, analyzed, and reiterated consistently throughout Paine's writing. Even when fleshing out complex philosophical principles Paine never strays far from his thesis, giving the statement more effectiveness.

200 years after writing Common Sense, the ramifications of Thomas Paine's significance can still be felt. Without Paine, rebel colonists never would have gathered the support needed to instigate revolution. As a result, America would have remained a possession of England, strengthening the British Empire and weakening the rest of the world. So much so, in fact, that there would be nearly no chance of another super power emerging to counter England's force. And with such incontestable dominance, England would be able to exert its will on people everywhere, good or bad. Considering that, Thomas Paine is almost single handedly responsible for instilling a lasting balance of power and curbing the influence of England.

Keep in mind: This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Paine's powerful, emotionally charged essay stirred up sentiments strong enough to unify a nation and overthrow an empire. After ending his life as a staymaker, Paine rose up to draft the most monumental American essay of all time. His simplistic style and use of persuasion appealed to a wide range of people, and his achievements have spanned the centuries to remain an integral part of today's culture.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Liberal Arts Schools

+ 125 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 653 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Are you interested in getting a customized paper?

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Liberal Arts Schools

Ask any high school student about the John Hughes film Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and you'll find that this mid-eighties teeny bopper flick still has kids hooked. Matthew Broderick stars as Ferris, the rebellious teenager from a [...]

Growing up in a small town in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by green fields and dense forests, I was always fascinated by the natural world. I was in awe of the complex interplay between different species and the delicate [...]

In our society, there is a divide between physical health and mental health. When we are young, we are taught to eat fruit and vegetables, exercise 60 minutes per day, and wash our hands before eating. Starting in Kindergarten, [...]

For four dollars, anyone can buy a bag of heroin in a town five minutes from my school. Prescription cousins of heroin, like Oxycontin and Vicodin, have been over-prescribed for decades. But as the war on drugs has progressed, a [...]

One of my favorite business mantras is from Simon Sinek: "people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it." This idea is based on what Sinek calls the "golden circle" of business. The outside of the circle is the "what," [...]

“Peux-j'aller à... el baño? No… Me Permite ir…à la toilette? No…” My head spun, my bladder throbbed and my voice stuttered in some incomprehensible, newly invented language. Regretting all the water I drank at morning swim [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free