Abstract
Tom Paine and Common Sense played a crucial role in advocating for American independence from Britain during the American Revolution. Paine's ideas challenged the traditional views on freedom, equality, and independence, particularly differing from John Locke's concept of the "Social Compact". Paine criticised monarchy as inherently corrupt, arguing against hereditary succession and advocating for a more representative form of government. He believed the United States' Constitution was a model of representative government, emphasising independence and freedom, with a strong system of checks and balances. Paine's influence also extended to the French Revolution, where his writings helped shape democratic ideals and challenge monarchy.
Context
Tom Paine (1737–1809) was an influential English writer and thinker who supported the American Revolution (1775–83) against British rule of the American colonies. In Common Sense (1776), Paine argued that the colonies should seek full independence from Britain. His pamphlet convinced many who were unsure of the purpose of the war and played a role in influencing the opinion of laymen and lawmakers alike. Common Sense was crucial in turning American opinion against Britain and was one of the key factors in the colonies' decision to engage in a battle for complete independence. Paine also wrote a long pamphlet, Rights of Man, as a response to the British writer Edmund Burke's 1789 Reflections on the Revolution in France, a criticism of the French Revolution.
Paine and Locke
Paine's ideas and concepts about freedom, equality and independence were new and they went beyond the opinions embraced by Europeans and colonial Americans. For example, according to John Locke man was free, equal and independent in the state of nature, but gave up that status when he accepted the "Social Compact" and joined society. Locke apparently sees no conflict between individuals giving up equality, liberty, and executive power over themselves and their likely status and treatment within an autocratic society. Paine objects that Locke’s "Social Compact" takes away from the individual the very ideals the author appears to be espousing. In the mind of Tom Paine, men were free, equal and independent within society. This was a radical notion and a threat to the political and social structure of the 18th century world. The consequences of this changed a world view and value system that Europeans had revered for centuries.
Because men are born having equal rights and retain these rights within the social and political order, government, according to Paine, must be based upon the will of the people. To ensure their rights, citizens must be allowed to direct their own affairs. This belief in the consent of the governed presents a sharp contrast to John Locke's philosophy in which government and society are based upon rule by monarchs and patricians. The objective of Locke's social and political thinking is to protect those who have property and social status. For Paine, Locke's thought system was not predicated on power to the people. His was an elitist conception of society. Dominant power in the social and political orders was shared by the king and aristocracy. In fact, the purpose of Locke's writings was to confirm and justify existing conditions in British society and government, conditions that were inherited from a medieval world order and worldview.
Anti-monarchical
Historically, Paine claims, it’s been proven that monarchy is corrupt and corrupting. He builds an anti-monarchical case on the basis of the Bible. In the early ages of humanity,
“there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion.”
Whether Paine considers this part of Christian scripture to be straightforward history or not is beside the point. Regardless, he makes rhetorical use of the Bible to persuade his largely Christian audience that kingship is a corrupt form of government, founded on pride, that only leads society into strife. Even though there were eventually biblical kings, even good kings, that doesn’t prove that kingship in itself is a desirable form of government. Paine points out that:
“[…n]either 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 [Israel’s King] David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart.”
In other words, individual virtuous examples don’t negate the fact that the office of kingship is still inherently faulty, the result of human pride and envy and thus inevitably tending toward corruption of society at large.
Monarchy is even made worse for society by its connection to the practice of hereditary succession. The idea of succession, in fact, is insulting to humanity, according to Paine. Succession,
“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 honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.”
Not only does hereditary succession inevitably lead to the coronation of individuals unworthy of the office, it weakens the character of those who wear the crown. It feeds entitlement, and, as Paine elsewhere argues, a lifetime of royal privilege fails to prepare individuals for the duties they’ll one day assume. In fact, it does the opposite, ensuring a pattern of incompetent rulers who cannot effectively serve their people.
By portraying monarchy as distorted and oppressive, he helps build his larger case for America’s independence from Britain and the move toward a more representative form of government.
The US constitution
Paine saw the United States as one of the most influential and inspiring forms of representative government after the country gained its independence. He believed a nation without a constitution could not claim to have a healthy government. Delegates debated issues surrounding States' rights, slavery, and representation. The issue of representation came down to the idea of how many representatives each new state should have in the legislature. A Senate and a House of Representatives were established to provide equal representation for all states based on their populations. However, Congress did not revise the Constitution to ban slavery until 1808.
Some of the guiding principles of the Constitution — the ones that most inspired Paine to make his argument — centered on the ideas of independence and freedom. The Constitution aimed to create a strong representative federal government with three distinct branches that could hold each other accountable. A bill of rights was introduced in 1791 to establish freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the right to bear arms, peacefully assemble, and have a fair public trial by jury.
In Common Sense (1776), Paine argued that the colonies should seek full independence from Britain. His pamphlet convinced many who were unsure of the purpose of the war and played a profound role in influencing the opinion of laymen and lawmakers alike. Common Sense was crucial in turning American opinion against Britain and was one of the key factors in the colonies' decision to engage in a battle for complete independence.
The French Revolution
The French were inspired by stories of the American Revolution which they heard from their own soldiers returning from the conflict in the American colonies and were eager to stage a revolution of their own. Paine was inspired by what he witnessed during the American Revolution and he believed true government should take into account the natural rights of its citizens, particularly concerning ideals of freedom and liberty.
Paine played a similar role in the French Revolution to that in the American Revolution. His Common Sense was translated into French and was widely read, which greatly spurred on the forces against monarchy and for democracy. He wrote Rights of Man in defence of the French Revolution against the attacks of England, and he was greeted in France as a hero and elected to the Assembly. On the revolutionary calendar of '19th of Messidor in the year III' (July 7, 1795) he gave a speech to persuade the National Assembly to introduce universal suffrage to the new French Constitution. He read from the tribune in the Assembly pointing sharply to the contradictions between the principles of 1789 and the property requirements for suffrage in the proposed Constitution of 1795. The Convention, dominated by the wealthy bourgeoisie who were determined to keep political power in their own hands, listened impatiently to Paine's fervent call for universal suffrage. No one rose to speak in support of Paine and the Convention went on to adopt the conservative Constitution on September 23rd., 1795.
Summary
Paine begins by distinguishing between government and society. Society, according to Paine, is everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish. Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own vices. Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best. Paine says that government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.
The author then considers an imagined scenario in which a small group of people has been placed on an island and cut off from the rest of society. In time, these people develop ties with one another, and lawmaking becomes inevitable. Paine says the people will be much happier if they are responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. Having expressed his disagreement with British reign in America, Paine proceeds to launch a general attack on the British system of government. He says the British system is too complex and rife with contradictions and that the monarchy is granted far too much power. The British system pretends to offer a reasonable system of checks and balances, but in fact, it does not.
The writer then moves on to discuss, in general, the notions of monarchy and hereditary succession. Man, Paine argues, was born into a state of equality, and the distinction that has arisen between king and subject is an unnatural one. At first the world was without kings, but the ancient Jews decided they wanted a king. This angered God, but he allowed them to have one. Paine presents pages of biblical evidence detailing God's wrath at the idea of the Jews having a king. The conclusion Paine reaches is that the practice of monarchy originates from sin, and is an institution that the Bible and God condemn. Paine calls hereditary succession an abominable practice. He says that even if people were to choose to have a king, that does not legitimise that King's child acting as a future ruler. Furthermore, hereditary succession has brought with it innumerable evils, such as incompetent kings, corruption, and civil war.
Having dispensed with the preliminary theoretical issues, Paine sets in to discuss the details of the American situation. In response to the argument that America has flourished under British rule, and therefore ought to stay under the king, Paine says that such an argument fails to realise that America has evolved and no longer needs Britain's help. Some say that Britain has protected America, and therefore deserves allegiance, but Paine responds that Britain has only watched over America in order to secure its own economic well-being. Paine adds that most recently, instead of watching over the colonies, the British have been attacking them, and are therefore undeserving of American loyalty.
The author says that the colonies have little to gain from remaining attached to Britain. Commerce can be better conducted with the rest of Europe, but only after America becomes independent. Paine also asserts that if the colonies remain attached to Britain, the same problems that have arisen in the past will arise in the future. Paine argues that it is necessary to seek independence now, as to do otherwise would only briefly cover up problems that will surely reemerge. He even proposes the form of government that the independent colonies should adopt. His recommendation is for a representative democracy that gives roughly equal weight to each of the colonies.
The writer then explains why the current time is a good time to break free of Britain. Primarily, he focuses on the present size of the colonies, and on their current capabilities. He presents an inventory of the British Navy and gives calculations revealing how America could build a navy of comparable size. Paine recommends this as a way of ensuring America's security and prosperity in trade. Paine also argues that America is sufficiently small as to be united now. If time were to elapse, and the population of the colonies to grow, the same feeling of unity would not be present. Paine adds that if the Americans revolt now, they can use the vast expanses of uncharted land to the West in order to pay down some of the debt they will incur.
The author ends by saying that as a colony of Britain America lacks respectability on the international scene. They are seen simply as rebels, and cannot form substantial alliances with other nations. In order to prosper in the long term, the colonies need to be independent. He adds that, by declaring independence, America will be able to ask for the help of other countries in its struggle for freedom. For all of these reasons, Paine says it is imperative and urgent that the colonies declare independence.
Themes
Government as a Necessary Evil
From the outset, Paine makes it clear that he is not particularly fond of government, whose sole value he thinks lies in "restraining our vices". For him the natural state of man is to live without government, and government's existence is justified only to the extent that it alleviates problems that would be created by this natural, anarchic way of life. If a government fails to improve society or, worse, actively causes some of the same troubles that would result from anarchy, it is particularly blameworthy.
State of Nature
Much of Paine's analysis proceeds by considering an imagined natural state in which man might have first found himself. This method of analysis, used by political theorists such as Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes, considers man as he might have been before society was formed. Such an analysis then imagines what man would have been like, and what rights he might have had, if it were not for the interference of outside circumstance. Paine uses this imagined natural state to analyse a political dilemma with his parable of the settlers first coming to America. Furthermore, in discussing monarchy, he presumes men to be "originally equals", and in doing so, hearkens back to some imagined age where he presumes men to have all been equal.
The Inevitability of American Independence
A linchpin in Paine's argument is that America will eventually be independent. At times, he presents this as a simple fact that everyone accepts, but occasionally, he argues for it, citing the extent of the rift separating the colonies and the English king. Since many people were uncertain about the idea of a revolution that would sever them from the king, establishing the principle of American independence was an important first step for Paine to take in his arguments. By convincing his audience that America will be independent some day, it is much easier for him to make the case for an immediate and full rebellion.
The Inevitability of British Oppression
Another key point in Paine's argument derives from considering what will happen if America reconciles with Britain. Paine argues that even if the colonists reach an agreement with Britain, the problems that have developed between the colonies and the king will inevitably repeat themselves. New taxes will be levied and parliament will interfere with colonial life. Paine attempts to demonstrate this in two ways. First, he points to the history of colonial relations with Britain, especially the events surrounding the Stamp Act, a law passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that required American colonists to pay a tax on printed materials, such as newspapers and legal documents, by using specially stamped paper. Second, he attacks the structure of Britain's government, arguing that it is corrupt and unjust, and will inevitably lead the British to continue mistreating the colonies.
Religion
Paine used numerous biblical references in Common Sense to convince his readers of his political views. However, in his philosophical book The Age of Reason (published in three parts: 1794, 1795, 1807), he defends Deism, a religious philosophy recognising that God exists as Creator, discoverable through nature and reason. However, God does not intervene in human affairs with miracles or revelations. The book emphasises reason and natural law, and is a criticism of organised religion. Paine argues that reason, rather than revelation, is the best guide to understanding God and the universe.
Paine’s narrative style
Common Sense sold over 100,000 copies in the first few months, representing roughly one in five adult colonists. It was widely reprinted in newspapers and broadsheets.
Paine used plain, direct language and expressed himself in short sentences, everyday vocabulary and concrete examples so that his ideas were immediately understandable to colonists of varying education levels. He appealed to the emotions by mixing moral urgency (rights, injustice) with clear, immediate benefits of independence (security, trade, reduced taxes), so readers felt both righteous and rational.
Repetition and memorable phrases were other narrative strategies in lines like “summer soldier and sunshine patriot”. Repeated contrasts (freedom vs. tyranny) made his points stick and easy to cite in conversation. He framed his audience as citizens, not subjects, shifting identity and responsibility onto readers and implying action was their duty, calling them to immediate action. Paine closed with practical steps and an urgent tone, turning opinion into momentum for staging protests, joining militias, and supporting independence.
No comments:
Post a Comment