what is the common sense 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.

<script id=”mcjs”>!function(c,h,i,m,p){m=c.createElement(h),p=c.getElementsByTagName(h)[0],m.async=1,m.src=i,p.parentNode.insertBefore(m,p)}(document,”script”,”https://chimpstatic.com/mcjs-connected/js/users/af4361760bc02ab0eff6e60b8/c34d55e4130dd898cc3b7c759.js”);</script>

Discover more from Interesting Literature

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

Continue reading

Have Fun With History

Common Sense by Thomas Paine – Significance and Influence

“Common Sense” by Thomas Paine is a timeless and influential pamphlet that played a pivotal role in shaping the course of history.

Published in 1776 during the American Revolution, Paine’s persuasive writing and revolutionary ideas captivated the minds of the American colonists, sparking a fervent call for independence from British rule.

This brief exploration delves into the significance of “Common Sense,” its impact on the American Revolution, its role in fostering unity among the colonies, and its enduring influence on political thought both in the United States and beyond.

The Significance of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

1. advocated for american independence.

“Common Sense” was a groundbreaking pamphlet published by Thomas Paine in 1776, during a critical time in American history. Paine’s central argument was for the complete independence of the American colonies from British rule.

Also Read: Thomas Paine Timeline

He eloquently and passionately challenged the notion of a hereditary monarchy and questioned the legitimacy of the British monarchy’s authority over the distant colonies.

Paine argued that it was only natural for the American people to govern themselves, free from the control of a distant and unresponsive government across the Atlantic.

2. Played a crucial role in the American Revolution

The publication of “Common Sense” had an extraordinary impact on the American Revolution. At the time of its release, there was considerable debate within the colonies regarding the path they should take in response to British policies.

Also Read: Thomas Paine Facts

Paine’s pamphlet struck a chord with the general public, as it presented a compelling case for outright independence. The pamphlet was widely read and discussed, reaching people from all walks of life, including ordinary citizens, soldiers, and political leaders.

“Common Sense” helped galvanize public sentiment and mobilized support for the revolutionary cause. It provided a clear and powerful argument for why breaking away from British rule was not only justified but necessary for the preservation of liberty and self-determination.

3. Influenced the formation of the United States as a democratic republic

Beyond advocating for independence, “Common Sense” also laid out Paine’s vision for a new form of government for the American colonies.

Paine promoted the idea of a democratic republic, where the power to govern would be vested in the hands of the people, rather than in the hands of a monarch or ruling elite.

His ideas helped to shape the thinking of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, who played instrumental roles in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Paine’s call for a government based on the consent of the governed and the protection of individual rights echoed throughout the founding documents of the United States, making a lasting impact on the country’s political structure and principles.

4. Written in a clear and accessible style

One of the key reasons for the immense impact of “Common Sense” was Thomas Paine’s ability to convey complex political ideas in a clear and straightforward manner.

Unlike many other political writings of the time, which were often dense and filled with formal language, Paine wrote in simple and accessible prose. He deliberately used everyday language that could be easily understood by common people, ensuring that his arguments reached a wide audience.

This approach was revolutionary in itself, as it made political discourse more inclusive and helped bridge the gap between the educated elite and ordinary citizens.

Paine’s writing style set a precedent for future political communication, emphasizing the importance of clarity and accessibility in conveying ideas to the masses.

5. Widely distributed throughout the American colonies

Despite the limited means of communication and printing technology in the 18th century, “Common Sense” achieved remarkable distribution and dissemination.

Paine initially published the pamphlet anonymously, but its authorship was soon revealed. It was printed and distributed in various cities and towns throughout the American colonies.

Due to its affordable price and easy-to-read format, many copies were sold and shared among people from all walks of life.

The pamphlet’s widespread availability ensured that its message reached a vast audience and contributed to its significant influence on public opinion. Paine’s work also inspired others to write responses and engage in a broader public debate about independence and self-governance.

6. Popularized republican ideology

“Common Sense” played a crucial role in popularizing republican ideals among the American colonists. Paine argued for a government based on the consent of the governed and advocated for the abolishment of monarchy and aristocracy.

He proposed a representative democracy, where elected officials would act in the best interest of the people and uphold their rights and freedoms. Paine’s promotion of these republican principles resonated with many colonists who were seeking a new and just form of government.

His ideas reinforced the belief that the power to govern should come from the people themselves, not from a distant and unaccountable monarchy.

This popularization of republican ideology helped solidify the concept of sovereignty residing with the people and contributed to the formation of democratic institutions in the emerging United States.

7. Contributed to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence

The ideas presented in “Common Sense” had a profound influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were already sympathetic to the cause of independence. Thomas Paine’s arguments reinforced their beliefs and provided additional support for the case for separation from Britain.

Some of Paine’s language and concepts found their way into the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted on July 4, 1776.

Notably, the Declaration emphasized the principles of natural rights, the consent of the governed, and the right to alter or abolish an oppressive government, ideas that were already prominent in “Common Sense.”

While Paine himself was not directly involved in the drafting of the Declaration, his pamphlet played a significant role in shaping the intellectual climate that led to its creation.

8. Fostered unity among the American colonies

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the thirteen colonies were diverse in terms of their backgrounds, economies, and political structures. They did not always see eye-to-eye on matters of governance and resistance to British policies.

“Common Sense” helped bridge these divides and fostered a sense of unity among the colonies. By providing a coherent argument for independence and republican government, Paine encouraged the colonies to work together in their struggle against British rule.

The pamphlet made the case that the shared cause of independence was more important than any regional differences or disagreements. As a result, “Common Sense” played a vital role in consolidating the colonies’ efforts and building a collective sense of identity that would prove crucial during the American Revolution.

9. Enduring influence on political thought

Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” remains an enduring and celebrated work in the history of political thought. Its impact extended far beyond the American Revolution.

The pamphlet’s articulation of democratic principles, advocacy for independence, and criticisms of monarchy and tyranny have continued to inspire generations of thinkers, politicians, and activists around the world.

Paine’s ideas on the rights of individuals and the legitimacy of government have become foundational concepts in political theory and have shaped discussions on governance, liberty, and democracy for centuries. “Common Sense” stands as a testament to the power of persuasive writing and the ability of one individual to profoundly influence the course of history.

10. Inspired independence movements worldwide

Beyond its impact on the American Revolution and the formation of the United States, “Common Sense” had a broader influence on the global stage. Translations and excerpts of the pamphlet spread to other countries, inspiring independence movements and political revolutions in various parts of the world.

Paine’s ideas on the rights of people to govern themselves and the need to challenge oppressive authority resonated with individuals and groups seeking freedom and self-determination in different contexts. “Common Sense” became a symbol of the transformative power of ideas, inspiring movements for liberty and independence throughout the ages and across continents.

• 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

Thomas Paine

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 29, 2022 | Original: November 9, 2009

Thomas Paine was an England-born political philosopher and writer who supported revolutionary causes in America and Europe. Published in 1776 to international acclaim, “Common Sense” was the first pamphlet to advocate American independence. After writing the “The American Crisis” papers during the Revolutionary War, Paine returned to Europe and offered a stirring defense of the French Revolution with “Rights of Man.” His political views led to a stint in prison; after his release, he produced his last great essay, “The Age of Reason,” a controversial critique of institutionalized religion and Christian theology.

WATCH: The Revolution on HISTORY Vault  

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 Paine’s father intervened.

Three years later he did join the crew of the privateer ship King of Prussia , serving for one year during the Seven Years' War .

Paine Emigrates to America

In 1768, Paine began work as an excise officer on the Sussex coast. In 1772, he wrote his first pamphlet, an argument tracing the work grievances of his fellow excise officers. Paine printed 4,000 copies and distributed them to members of British Parliament .

In 1774, Paine met Benjamin Franklin , who is believed to have persuaded Paine to immigrate to America, providing Paine with a letter of introduction. Three months later, Paine was on a ship to America, nearly dying from a bout of scurvy.

Paine immediately found work in journalism when he arrived in Philadelphia, becoming managing editor of Philadelphia Magazine .

He wrote in the magazine–under the pseudonyms “Amicus” and “Atlanticus”–criticizing the Quakers for their pacifism and endorsing a system similar to Social Security .

'Common Sense'

Paine’s most famous pamphlet, “Common Sense,” was first published on January 10, 1776, selling out its thousand printed copies immediately. By the end of that year, 150,000 copies–an enormous amount for its time–had been printed and sold. (It remains in print today.)

“Common Sense” is credited as playing a crucial role in convincing colonists to take up arms against England. In it, Paine argues that representational government is superior to a monarchy or other forms of government based on aristocracy and heredity.

The pamphlet proved so influential that John Adams reportedly declared, “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

Paine also claimed that the American colonies needed to break with England in order to survive and that there would never be a better moment in history for that to happen. He argued that America was related to Europe as a whole, not just England, and that it needed to freely trade with nations like France and Spain.

READ MORE: How Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' Helped Inspire the American Revolution

The American Crisis

As the Revolutionary War began, Paine enlisted and met General George Washington , whom Paine served under.

The terrible condition of Washington’s troops during the winter of 1776 prompted Paine to publish a series of inspirational pamphlets known as “The American Crisis,” which opens with the famous line “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Political Career of Thomas Paine

Starting in April 1777, Paine worked for two years as secretary to the Congressional Committee for Foreign Affairs and then became the clerk for the Pennsylvania Assembly at the end of 1779.

In March 1780, the assembly passed an abolition act that freed 6,000 enslaved people , to which Paine wrote the preamble.

Paine didn’t make much money from his government work and no money from his pamphlets–despite their unprecedented popularity–and in 1781 he approached Washington for help. Washington appealed to Congress to no avail, and went so far as to plead with all the state assemblies to pay Paine a reward for his work.

Only two states agreed: New York gifted Paine a house and a 277-acre estate in New Rochelle , while Pennsylvania awarded him a small monetary compensation.

The Revolution over, Paine explored other pursuits, including inventing a smokeless candle and designing bridges.

'Rights of Man'

Paine published his book Rights of Man in two parts in 1791 and 1792, a rebuttal of the writing of Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke and his attack on the French Revolution , which Paine supported.

Paine journeyed to Paris to oversee a French translation of the book in the summer of 1792. Paine’s visit was concurrent with the capture of Louis XVI , and he witnessed the monarch’s return to Paris.

Paine himself was threatened with execution by hanging when he was mistaken for an aristocrat, and he soon ran afoul of the Jacobins , who eventually ruled over France during the Reign of Terror , the bloodiest and most tumultuous years of the French Revolution.

In 1793 Paine was arrested for treason because of his opposition to the death penalty, most specifically the mass use of the guillotine and the execution of Louis XVI. He was detained in Luxembourg, where he began work on his next book, The Age of Reason .

Letter to George Washington

Released in 1794, partly thanks to the efforts of the then-new American minister to France, James Monroe , Paine became convinced that George Washington had conspired with French revolutionary politician Maximilien de Robespierre to have Paine imprisoned.

In retaliation, Paine published his “Letter to George Washington” attacking his former friend, accusing him of fraud and corruption in the military and as president.

But Washington was still very popular, and the letter diminished Paine’s popularity in America. The Federalists used the letter in accusations that Paine was a tool for French revolutionaries who also sought to overthrow the new American government.

'The Age of Reason'

Paine’s two-volume treatise on religion, The Age of Reason , was published in 1794 and 1795, with a third part appearing in 1802.

The first volume functions as a criticism of Christian theology and organized religion in favor of reason and scientific inquiry. Though often mistaken as an atheist text, The Age of Reason is actually an advocacy of deism and a belief in God.

The second volume is a critical analysis of the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible , questioning the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Immediately following the Washington debacle, however, The Age of Reason marked the end of Paine’s credibility in the United States, where he became largely despised.

Final Years and Death

By 1802, Paine was able to sail to Baltimore. Welcomed by President Thomas Jefferson , whom he had met in France, Paine was a recurring guest at the White House .

Still, newspapers denounced him and he was sometimes refused services. A minister in New York was dismissed because he shook hands with Paine.

In 1806, despite failing health, Paine worked on the third part of his “Age of Reason,” and also a criticism of Biblical prophesies called “An Essay on Dream.”

Paine died on June 8, 1809, in New York City , and was buried on his property in New Rochelle. On his deathbed, his doctor asked him if he wished to accept Jesus Christ before passing. “I have no wish to believe on that subject,” Paine replied before taking his final breath.

Paine's Remains

Paine’s remains were stolen in 1819 by British radical newspaperman William Cobbett and shipped to England in order to give Paine a more worthy burial. Paine’s bones were discovered by customs inspectors in Liverpool, but allowed to pass through.

Cobbett claimed that his plan was to display Paine’s bones in order to raise money for a proper memorial. He also fashioned jewelry made with hair removed from Paine’s skull for fundraising purposes.

Cobbett spent some time in Newgate Prison and after briefly being displayed, Paine’s bones ended up in Cobbett’s cellar until he died. Estate auctioneers refused to sell human remains and the bones became hard to trace.

Rumors of the remains’ whereabouts sprouted up through the years with little or no validation, including an Australian businessman who claimed to purchase the skull in the 1990s.

In 2001, the city of New Rochelle launched an effort to gather the remains and give Paine a final resting place. The Thomas Paine National Historical Association in New Rochelle claims to have possession of brain fragments and locks of hair.

Thomas Paine. Jerome D. Wilson and William F. Ricketson . Thomas Paine. A.J. Ayer . The Trouble With Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine. Paul Collins . Rehabilitating Thomas Paine, Bit by Bony Bit. The New York Times .

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

• University Archives
• Special Collections
• Records Management
• Policies and Forms
• Sound Recordings
• Theses and Dissertations
• Selections From Our Digitized Collections
• Videos from the Archives
• Special Collections Exhibits
• University Archives Exhibits
• Research Guides
• Current Exhibits
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Past Exhibits
• Camelot Comes to Brandeis
• Special Collections Spotlight
• Library Home
• Degree Programs
• Majors and Minors
• Graduate Programs
• The Brandeis Core
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Brandeis Online
• Brandeis International Business School
• Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• Heller School for Social Policy and Management
• Rabb School of Continuing Studies
• Precollege Programs
• Faculty and Researcher Directory
• Brandeis Library
• Academic Calendar
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Summer School
• Financial Aid
• Research that Matters
• Resources for Researchers
• Brandeis Researchers in the News
• Provost Research Grants
• Recent Awards
• Faculty Research
• Student Research
• Centers and Institutes
• Office of the Vice Provost for Research
• Office of the Provost
• Housing/Community Living
• Campus Calendar
• Student Engagement
• Clubs and Organizations
• Community Service
• Dean of Students Office
• Orientation
• Hiatt Career Center
• Spiritual Life
• Graduate Student Affairs
• Directory of Campus Contacts
• Division of Creative Arts
• Brandeis Arts Engagement
• Rose Art Museum
• Bernstein Festival of the Creative Arts
• Theater Arts Productions
• Brandeis Concert Series
• Public Sculpture at Brandeis
• Women's Studies Research Center
• Creative Arts Award
• Our Jewish Roots
• The Framework for the Future
• Mission and Diversity Statements
• Distinguished Faculty
• Nobel Prize 2017
• Notable Alumni
• Administration
• Working at Brandeis
• Commencement
• Offices Directory
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families
• 75th Anniversary
• New Students
• Shuttle Schedules
• Support at Brandeis

Robert D. Farber University Archives and Special Collections

Thomas paine's common sense, 1776.

Description by Kenneth Hong, Brandeis undergraduate and special contributor to the Special Collections Spotlight.

“Common Sense,” published on January 10, 1776, was originally printed in the city of Philadelphia, but was soon reprinted across America and Great Britain, and translated into German and Danish. [1]  Thomas Paine’s pamphlet was first published anonymously, due to fears that its contents would be construed as treason; it was simply signed, “by an Englishman”. [2]  The version housed at Brandeis University is one of the London printings, which had hiatuses, where words and phrases were omitted that were offensive to the British crown. [3]  “Common Sense” sold about 120,000 copies in the first three months alone, being read in taverns and meeting houses across the 13 original colonies (the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population in 1776 to be about 2.5 million and today to be about 320 million, that would make it proportionally equivalent to selling 15,000,000 copies today!) [4]

Paine used his writing as his weapon against the crown. With masterful language, Paine united the will of the colonists, planting the seed and giving hope and inspiration to fulfill the dream of America as an independent nation. The pamphlet was originally published without his name and all of the royalties associated with “Common Sense” were donated to the Continental Army. [9]  It would appear that Paine was looking for neither fame nor fortune in writing a pamphlet that profoundly affected the creation of a nation. To Paine, these ideas came naturally, they were simply, “Common Sense.” 

August 2 , 2015

•  Powell, Jim. “ Thomas Paine, Passionate Pamphleteer for Liberty ,” in The Freeman, January 1, 1996. Foundation for Economic Education. Accessed March 11, 2015.
•   Ibid .
•   Entry for Call# D793.P147c . Brown University Library Online Catalog. Accessed March 12, 2015.
•  Harvey Kaye. “ Common Sense and the American Revolution. ” The Thomas Paine National Historical Association. Accessed February 10, 2015.
•  “ Praise for Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, 1776 as Reported in American Newspapers, ” in “America in Class: Making the Revolution: America, 1763-1791: Primary Source Collection.” The National Humanities Center. Accessed March 13, 2015.
•   Ibid.
•  Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. London: J. Almon, 1776.
•  Kaye, Accessed February 10, 2015.

This essay, by Brandeis undergraduate Kenneth Hong, resulted from a Spring 2015 course for the Myra Kraft Transitional Year Program, taught by Dr. Craig Bruce Smith, entitled, “Preserving Boston’s Past: Public History and Digital Humanities.” In this course, students worked with archival materials, developed website content, and produced their own commemoration event, “The 250th Anniversary of the Stamp Act: A Revolutionary Exhibit and Performance,” marking one of the first steps of the American Revolution.

The Transitional Year Program was established in 1968 and was renamed in 2013 for Myra Kraft ‘64, the late Brandeis alumna and trustee. It provides small classes and strong support systems for students who have had limitations to their precollege academic opportunities.

• About Our Collections
• Online Exhibits
• Events and In-Person Exhibits
• From the Brandeis Archives

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.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

As 1776 began, America’s rebellion against British colonial rule was not yet a revolution.  Less than half the projected number of volunteers had enlisted in the Continental army with desertions mounting.  George Washington was entrenched, but stalemated in Cambridge outside of Boston. The British Commander, General John Burgoyne, mocked the situation by writing and producing the satirical play, “The Blockade”, which portrayed Washington as an incompetent flailing a rusty sword.  Then something amazing happened.

“Common Sense” was published on January 9, 1776.  It remains one of the most indispensable documents of America’s founding.  In forty-eight pages, Thomas Paine accomplished three things fundamental to America.   He is the first to publically assert the only possible outcome of the rebellion is independence from Great Britain. He makes the case for American independence understandable and accessible to everyone.  He lays the ground work for the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Paine is both the most unlikely and likely person to accomplish this pivotal Trifecta.  He was born in rural England on January 29, 1737, the son of a Quaker father and an Anglican mother. This religious diversity formed a key part of his early writings on religious freedom. His career was a mixture of failed business ventures, failed marriages, and minor positions in British Excise (tax) offices. This mix of mundane activities masked the brilliant mind of an outstanding observer, thinker, and communicator.

In the summer of 1772, Paine wrote his first political article, The Case of the Officers of Excise , a twenty-one page brief for better pay and working conditions among Excise Officers. The work had little impact on Parliament, but did bring him to the attention of political thinkers in London, and ultimately to being introduced to Benjamin Franklin in September 1774. Franklin recommended that Paine immigrate to Pennsylvania and commence a publishing career.  Thomas Paine arrived in Philadelphia on November 30, 1774 and became editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine in January 1775.

Editing the magazine gave Paine two major opportunities.  He honed his writing skills for appealing to a mass audience and he befriended those opposing British colonial rule, including Benjamin Rush, an active member of the Sons of Liberty. After open rebellion erupted in April 1775, Rush was concerned that, “When the subject of American independence began to be agitated in conversation, I observed the public mind to be loaded with an immense mass of prejudice and error relative to it”.  He urged Paine to make the case for American independence understandable to common people.

Common Sense was just that. Paine laid out methodical and easily understood reasons for American independence in plain terms. Up until Common Sense those opposed to British rule did so only in lengthy philosophical letters circulated among intellectual elites.

Common Sense ushered in a new style of political writing, devoid of Latin phrases and complex concepts.  Historian Scott Liell asserts 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.”

Paine’s simple prose promoted the premise that the rebellion was not about subjects wronged by their monarch, but a separate and independent people being oppressed by a foreign power:

“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 they have 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.” Common Sense was an instant bestseller. It sold as many as 120,000 copies in the first three months, 500,000 in twelve months, going through twenty-five editions in the first year alone. This amazingly wide distribution was among a free population of only 2 million Americans.

Originally published anonymously as “Written by an Englishman”, word soon spread that Paine was the author.  His authorship known, Paine publically declared that all proceeds would go to the purchase of woolen mittens for Continental soldiers. General Washington ordered Paine’s pamphlet distributed among all his troops. Within the year, Paine became an aide-de-camp to Nathanael Greene, one of Washington’s top field commanders.

Common Sense was not only read by the masses, it was read to them. In countless taverns and local gatherings Paine’s case for American independence and for a unique American form of government was heard even by common folk who had never learned to read.

The masses heard and embraced the concept that, “A government of our own is our natural right”.  They also heard and understood the foundations of America: Government as a “necessary evil” formed and maintained by the will of the governed – “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 the need for an engaged electorate, “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.”

While the Declaration of Independence became the philosophical core of our Revolution, Common Sense initiated and broadened the public debate about independence, building the public commitment necessary to make our Revolution possible.

March 11, 2013 – Essay #16

Read Common Sense by Thomas Paine here: https://constitutingamerica.org/?p=3523

Scot Faulkner is Co-Founder of the George Washington Institute of Living Ethics, Shepherd University.  Follow him on Twitter @ScotFaulkner53

Maybe it’s time for a refresher course on “Common Sense”. That might be the spark that is needed to reclaim our Nation and remind those in office that government is through the consent of the governed. Unless the governed today don’t mind the near tyrannical government threatening our freedoms.

Remembering why America happened is about the underlying principles as well as the pivotal events, people, and documents. Our civic culture is at risk because so few people take the time to read and understand who we are.

This may be the heart of our national problem; “The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered.” Our government has grown into such a complex monster that “we have to pass a law to find out what’s in it” and even then, no one can really understand what’s in it. Every reasonable citizen knows what the problems are, but it’s no longer easy to repair because there are so many advocates and beneficiaries for thousands of programs that it’s almost impossible to solve even one of the well-known problems without upsetting a large percentage of the citizens.

We need another “Common Sense” today. Even with it, we would need to reprint another set of Federalist Papers in language so simple that even those who buy into the Progressive agenda might understand how far that agenda is from the optimal structure that our founders left for us – and how that agenda is a path to destruction of our Republic. It reminds me of the book “Pilgrim’s Progress;” since our Republic’s journey began more than 200 years ago, we’ve found so many appealing paths to follow that we now have no idea how to get back to the path we were on. All these side paths seem so satisfying for the present that we don’t understand that we’ll never reach our ultimate, most satisfying, destination if we allow ourselves to keep getting diverted. We Constitutionalists have a lot of work to do!

We need another “Common Sense” today. Even with it, we would need to reprint another set of Federalist Papers in language so simple that even those who buy into the Progressive agenda might understand how far that agenda is from the optimal structure that our founders left for us – and how that agenda is a path to destruction of our Republic.

Many conservatives seem to think liberals are intellectually deficient compared to conservatives, but such egoism can only serve as a basis for grave strategic and tactical errors. Liberals don’t believe in absurdities because of any lack of intellectual capacity, but because their thinking has become emotionalized as a result of the increasing feminization of the American body politic.

Ron you are correct. America needs a 21st Century version of “Common Sense” to remind us that our founding principles are timeless and still very relevant today. This document also needs to make people aware of the fundamental threats to these principles (both foriegn and domestic).

I loved this guest essay! And, how very prescient his words are 200 plus years later…it seems that many of our culture’s failings have arisen out of this conflict between society and government with reference to their respective roles. Post modern America has bought into the same old lies as those in merry old England. Thomas Paine seemed to know and embrace “truth”…sadly, America has exchanged the “truth” for self-actualization and a culture of blame.

America needs another Thomas Paine – a person who can clearly communicate basic truths and make a compelling case for preserving our core principles of lberty.

As someone who has, over the past 5-6 years, begun to study the laws of nature that the Declaration of Independence centered around, around the concept that government is established for the purpose of protecting equally life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to rule over people, which is exaclty what the revolution was a fight against. When Paine wrote that the law is king, it is the laws of nature that he was referencing.

What our nation has become is the exact tyranny that the our founders fought against. They call ruling over us service, when it is really just code wording in order to sell themselves to the ignorant public, that they might retain their power and grow it.

The path that Ron speaks of is the path back to God, morality and virtue, which are the pillars of liberty, as well as the path to education based on the self-evident truths contained in the Declaration and within the laws of nature.

This essay was an eloquent and relevant reminder of Thomas Paine’s important work. Paine is responsible for boosting colonial morale during the Revolutionary War, setting the stage for American religious liberty and political freedom, and influencing the Founding Fathers in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. His message remains fundamental to the very principles and values that the United States was built upon, and it is extremely important for today’s generation to be acquainted with his work. Maybe if every American citizen read “Common Sense” and an adept background / analysis such as the one by Scot Faulkner, they would be inspired to change the course our country is on today.

Dear Jared:

You are right on target. American education steers away from teaching the fundamental principles, documents, and events that made us who we are.

As important is Pop culture. The entertainment industry would rather clutter our movie theaters with films about car chases and drug dealers instead of “Lincoln”. Up through th 1950s, movies and television shows about American history were a staple. Now they are rare. The British get it right – in the last decade they have had wonderful historical films, like “The King’s Speech” and “Young Victoria”. They strike the right balance between personalizing and enobling their history. In America we mostly have the liberal agitprop of Quentin Tarrantino and Oliver Stone.

Every one of the 90 in 90 documents have amazing stories that would make compelling films.

Perhaps the producers of “The Bible” series currently airing could be convinced to produce such a series, perhaps based on Hillsdale’s Constitutional Reader

The full text of the final edition of “Common Sense” included the addendum of the subsequent letter exchanges that spilled over into a dialogue with Quakers. In there, Thomas Paine charges the Quakers not to play politics for their requesting colonists to refrain from meddling with the affairs with Parliament and the King of England. He retorts back why they do not complain then about the King’s meddling with the affairs of the colonists.

What strikes me most; however, is the common dialogue of the day made so much use of Bible reference, Bible stories, and Bible examples as part of the debate, which in this case Thomas Paine uses the Bible as a text for making a case against why the King is not have a Divine Right to rule the American Colonies. And yet, in these post modern times we have atheists and skeptics who laud Thomas Paine as being deist at best, and atheist at worst. But regardless of the religious views of Paine, which in another letter to the constitutional convention of France encouraged French schools to teach the science and nature of God who created all things and is the progenitor of the sciences (meaning knowledge), you simply could not make any debate in those days without being versed in Scripture. Because so often was Bible references made in writings that if you did not know the Bible references or stories, you would be at a disadvantage of context.

Nowadays, we have people churning out with PhDs who have not even read the Bible, and yet claim to be an authority on these classical documents supposing to be our historians. Back then, you could not even graduate from college anywhere in the American colonies without having the ability to give a sermon, read the Latin, Greek and maybe even Hebrew in the original texts, and cite classical authors from their original writings. Today, scholars are rather classically illiterate as they cannot read original classics and have to resort to hear-say of those who have translated original classics or wrote their paraphrases and interpretations about them. Higher education, in all of its lofty accolades, has become vulgar and where does that leave the commoner today but left to fend for themselves with the classics? It gets to the point where you cannot trust that you are getting good information from the education system and have to slog through a lot of misinformation to get to the real deal.

Ralph, I’ve always enjoyed the wisdom in your comments over the three years of these studies. What you say here is absolutely correct. I’ve been amazed at how frequently the Bible is quoted directly or indirectly. I would not have known that had I not started these studies.

It’s encouraged me to work more to connect the Bible and our founding documents. For example, I see strong connections between the Biblical Exodus and the exodus of Christians from Europe to America; later, the progressivism of the Israelites, leading to their destruction, being similar to the progressivism of Europeans and Americans today, ultimately leading to our destruction if we don’t reverse our course.

One connection I’ve recently made is to the Declaration of Independence: Life: Created by God in His image Liberty: Free Will Pursuit of Happiness: Eternal happiness, not ephemeral hedonistic pleasure

Looking forward to more of your wisdom.

Join the discussion! Post your comments below.

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Common Sense Summary

by Thomas Paine

These notes were contributed by members of the GradeSaver community. We are thankful for their contributions and encourage you to make your own.

Written by Polly Barbour

In the first section of the pamphlet, Paine contends that government is a necessary evil, because there needs to be a distinction between the people running society, and society as a whole. Society have power to begin with, because they choose their own government, but once they have done so, then give government the power to set the rules and boundaries of society.

Whenever people choose to live together in a group that cannot be managed by small consensus and discussion, it is necessary to have a government in charge, because man has a natural capacity for evil, and this needs to be curbed, with laws, civil requirements and a societal power structure that maintains safety and civility for all.

This leads to elections, because it's impossible for everyone to meet independently and decide upon who their next government should be. Elections are necessary to make sure that everyone has a say in who governs them, even those who do not have friends or associates to discuss a consensus with. Paine uses England as an example of a nation ruled by tyranny. England has a monarchy, and an aristocracy, running the country. Neither were elected and both operate using the rules of heredity, meaning that society as a whole has absolutely no say at all in the choosing of those governing them.

Section Two of the pamphlet enlarges on Paine's contentions about monarchial rule. If all men are equal when God creates them, then there should be no difference between a king and his subjects. He believes that rather than advancing a nation, a monarch can actually diminish one, by waging war or by trading one area of land for another. He is not a believer in a constitutional monarchy either; that is, a parliament that makes laws and a monarch that signs them into being. John Locke believed that this constitutional type of monarchy was able to control the actions of a monarch and in some small way make them answerable to their people, but Paine does not think these limits actually work, because the monarch is still at the top of the tree, and so any efforts to control him will become null and void because he has the ability to override any decision made by his parliament.

Section Three crosses the pond to talk about the state of affairs in America. Paine looks at the hostile relationship between England and the American colonies, concluding that American independence is the only workable way forward. He believes that an American version of the Magna Carta - a charter that made peace between King John of England and his rebel barons in 1215 - would protect the rights of both sides, and should be brokered by a third party that held no bias. Each colony should vote in five representatives who would be joined by two members of the Continental Conference, and they would meet in much the same way that a parliament or government meets. This would make sure that their freedom was maintained and that they would be able to achieve some level of religious freedom as well. Paine was the first to suggest a Congress as the most effective form of American government.

A colony would be divided into five districts, with delegates that went to represent each district in congress. Congress would meet once a year and elect a president. Once a colony or district had been represented by a president they would not be allowed to have another president until every colony had been represented.

Section Four is the most optimistic of the pamphlet. Paine believes that America has the potential to emerge victorious in their revolt against British colonial rule, both because of her manpower, and because of her naval capacity.

Update this section!

You can help us out by revising, improving and updating this section.

After you claim a section you’ll have 24 hours to send in a draft. An editor will review the submission and either publish your submission or provide feedback.

Common Sense Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Common Sense is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Study Guide for Common Sense

Common Sense study guide contains a biography of Thomas Paine, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Common Sense
• Character List

Essays for Common Sense

Common Sense essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

• Making Sense of the U.S. Government: Thomas Paine's Vision and the Reality of American Institutions

Wikipedia Entries for Common Sense

• Introduction
• Publication
• Response and Impact

Common Sense

By John Saillant

Published in Philadelphia in its first edition in January 1776, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense became one of the most widely disseminated and most often read political treatises in history. It looked forward to democratic politics and universal human rights, yet it also reflected local circumstances in Philadelphia. Common Sense was thus an overture to democracy and human rights as well as part of Philadelphia print culture and local politics.

Born in England, Paine (1737-1809) adopted Philadelphia as a temporary home in November 1774, when he arrived with a letter of introduction from Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), whom he had met in London. Franklin recognized Paine’s skills as a writer and polemicist, and his letter helped Paine secure a position as the first editor of The Pennsylvania Magazine . In eight months as editor, Paine increased subscriptions and popularized colonial essays and poetry (as opposed to reprints of British material). Upon leaving The Pennsylvania Magazine , Paine was encouraged by Franklin and Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) to write Common Sense .

Philadelphia, the leading colonial political and mercantile city, was central to American resistance to exertions of British power in the 1770s. Delegates from most of the North American British colonies met in Philadelphia as the first Continental Congress in September and October 1774. A second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in May 1775, then declared independence in July 1776. Throughout 1776, Philadelphians feared invasion by water as well as by land. British ships blockaded Delaware Bay, while British soldiers moved south from New York through New Jersey toward Philadelphia. Appearing in the midst of this heightened political state, Common Sense found an audience in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

Attacking Traditional Authority

Paine’s renown in his own time and in later eras rested on his attack on traditional political authority and his defense of a radical form of democratic political participation. Paine had little inkling that politics dominated by white men would be, beginning in the nineteenth century, challenged by women and racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. But he did define political participation and representation in ways that were in theory open to all. Much of American political thought after the War of Independence has entailed accepting or rejecting the notion of full political participation that Paine enunciated in Common Sense .

Paine’s arguments against traditional political authority dissected notions like the divine right of kings, the legitimacy of custom, the social value of aristocrats, and the ability of monarchs to ensure peace and prosperity for their subjects. Often Paine used familial metaphors such as King George III as a father who had turned against his children. The implication was that ordinary people, who had experienced familial relations, could make informed judgments about weighty political matters. He cast the situation in the Anglo-American colonies in 1776 as historic and universal. “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind,” he wrote. “Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected.”

Accordingly, in Common Sense , Paine cast himself as “under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.” His arguments for democratic politics rested on a broad suffrage, annual elections, and a large unicameral body of legislators. He aimed for representative government close to voters and responsive to their interests. Since the government recommended in Common Sense was a revolutionary alternative to the English Parliament, the British Crown, and the colonial royal governors and councils, then Paine’s conclusion was obvious. Reconciliation between Americans and the British government was impossible, and separation, independence, and unification of the colonies into a new nation should proceed.

First Edition Published Anonymously

The form of government Common Sense recommended—a unicameral legislature with annual elections—was indeed crafted in 1776 by a Pennsylvania convention charged with writing a constitution for the new state. Most of the former colonies wrote new constitutions at this time as replacements for their colonial charters.  The first edition of Common Sense was published anonymously by Scottish-born Philadelphia printer Robert Bell (c. 1732-84), who risked a charge of treason for disseminating the work. After arguing with Bell about profits and copyright, Paine appealed to Bell’s competitors, the Bradford Brothers, who published several enlarged editions, including the one most known to posterity, a third edition with new front and end matter and, for the first time, with Paine’s name on the title page. The wrangling over the work simply added to its notoriety. Moreover, Paine castigated  Pennsylvania Quakers for mixing religion and politics in their appeals for peace. The book was quickly republished in a number of American and European cities.

In the mid-1770s many Americans as well as many Philadelphians were torn between loyalty to the British empire and anger over the incursions of imperial power into the colonies in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Paine’s contemporaries (like modern scholars) perceived Common Sense as the decisive text that propelled colonial sentiment into independence. George Washington (1732-99), for instance, praised its “sound Doctrine, and unanswerable reasoning.” Edmund Randolph (1753-1813) wrote that after the dissemination of Common Sense , “public sentiment which a few weeks before had shuddered at the tremendous obstacles, with which independence was environed, overleaped every barrier.” Still, Common Sense also had critics, for example James Chalmers (1734-1806) in Plain Truth (1776, printed by Bell).

Paine continued to exhort for the patriot cause in a series of essays, American Crisis . Some of the language that Americans associate with the revolution—for example, “These are the times that try men’s souls”—flowed from Paine’s pen in these years. But in 1790 Pennsylvanians dismantled and modified their radically democratic government. A new constitution enacted mixed government, balancing a lower house with an upper house and a governor. By then Paine had moved to England (where he wrote Rights of Man ) and then France (where he wrote The Age of Reason ).

In sum, Common Sense was one of the most significant catalysts of the War of Independence as well as a bellwether of democratic thought. Although the radical structure of government that Paine recommended proved short lived in Pennsylvania, Americans at large have since the revolution grappled with some of the central concerns of Common Sense . Americans still contest the balance between popularly elected governments (both state and federal) and individual rights. Moreover, Paine, often called “a citizen of the world,” wrote in the American Crisis , “My attachment is to all the world, and not to any particular part.” His sense of world citizenship remains pertinent in the twenty-first century, an era of energetic human migration, instantaneous electronic communication, and global ecological interdependence.

John Saillant is Professor of English and History at Western Michigan University. He is the author of the monograph Black Puritan, Black Republican: The Life and Thought of Lemuel Haynes.  (Author information current at time of publication.)

Copyright 2015, Rutgers University

Thomas Paine

Library of Congress

Born in England, Thomas Paine (1737-1809) adopted Philadelphia as a temporary home in November 1774, when he arrived with a letter of introduction from Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), whom he had met in London. Franklin recognized Paine’s skills as a writer and polemicist, and his letter helped Paine secure a position as the first editor of The Pennsylvania Magazine . In eight months as editor, Paine increased subscriptions and popularized colonial essays and poetry (as opposed to reprints of British material). Upon leaving The Pennsylvania Magazine , Paine was encouraged by Franklin and Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) to write Common Sense .

In Common Sense , Thomas Paine cast himself as "under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle." His arguments for democratic politics rested on a broad suffrage, annual elections, and a large unicameral body of legislators. He aimed for representative government close to voters and responsive to their interests. Since the government recommended in Common Sense was a revolutionary alternative to the English Parliament, the British Crown, and the colonial royal governors and councils, then Paine's conclusion was obvious. Reconciliation between Americans and the British government was impossible, and separation, independence, and unification of the colonies into a new nation should proceed.

Plain Truth

Paine’s contemporaries (like modern scholars) perceived Common Sense as the decisive text that propelled colonial sentiment into independence. George Washington (1732-99), for instance, praised its "sound doctrine, and unanswerable reasoning." Still, Common Sense also had critics, for example James Chalmers (1734-1806) in Plain Truth (1776, printed by Bell).

Chalmers, a loyalist living in Chestertown, Md., wrote Plain Truth under the pen name Candidus to avoid the potential conviction for libel as Chalmers attacked Paine’s views as quackery. During the War for Independence, Chalmers became the lieutenant colonel of the First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists. Following the War Chalmers moved back to England and continued to attack Thomas Paine’s economic policies.

Related Topics

• Philadelphia and the World
• Philadelphia and the Nation
• Cradle of Liberty

Time Periods

• American Revolution Era
• Colonial Era
• Center City Philadelphia
• Continental Congresses
• Declaration of Independence
• Revolutionary Crisis (American Revolution)
• Printing and Publishing

Related Reading

Aldridge, Alfred Owen. Thomas Paine’s American Ideology . Newark, Del.: University of Delaware Press, 1984.

Claeys, Gregory. Thomas Paine: Social and Political Thought . London: Taylor and Francis, 2002.

Foner , Eric. Tom Paine and Revolutionary America , updated edition. New York: Oxford University, 2005.

Kaye, Harvey. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America . New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.

Larkin, Edward. Thomas Paine and the Literature of Revolution . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Foner, Eric, ed. Thomas Paine: Collected Writings . New York: Library of America, 1995.

Related Collections

• Rare and electronic copies of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and related works Library Company of Philadelphia 1314 Locust Street, Philadelphia.

Related Places

• Common Sense Historical Marker, site of Robert Bell’s shop
• Independence Hall
• Thomas Paine Historical Marker
• Thomas Paine Plaza

Backgrounders

Connecting Headlines with History

• Plans for American Revolution Center take shape (WHYY, June 12, 2012)
• Revolutionary Politics (ExplorePaHistory.com)
• Books That Shaped America, 1750–1800 (Library of Congress)
• Creating the United States, Founded on a Set of Beliefs (Library of Congress)
• The American Enlightenment: From Royal to Republican (Stanford University Digital Collections)
• Democratic Origins and Revolutionary Writers, 1776-1820 (U.S. Department of State)
• Paine v. Chalmers: Was Declaring Independence Common Sense? (Smithsonian Associates)

National History Day Resources

• Common Sense E-Book (Project Gutenberg)
• Plain Truth (HathiTrust Digital Library)
• The American Crisis Audio-Book (LibriVox)
• The American Crisis E-Book (HathiTrust Digital Library)
• The Rights of Man E-Book (Project Gutenberg)
• The Age of Reason E-Book (Project Gutenberg)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

Open Yale Courses

You are here, hist 116: the american revolution,  - common sense.

This lecture focuses on the best-selling pamphlet of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense , discussing Paine’s life and the events that led him to write his pamphlet. Published in January of 1776, it condemned monarchy as a bad form of government, and urged the colonies to declare independence and establish their own form of republican government. Its incendiary language and simple format made it popular throughout the colonies, helping to radicalize many Americans and pushing them to seriously consider the idea of declaring independence from Britain.

Lecture Chapters

• Introduction: Voting on Voting
• On Paine's Burial
• Colonial Mindset during the Second Continental Congress
• Serendipity and Passion: The Early Life of Thomas Paine
• Major Arguments and Rhetorical Styles in "Common Sense"
• "Common Sense's" Popularity and Founders' Reactions
• Social Impact of the Pamphlet and Conclusion

• Art History
• U.S. History
• World History

Common Sense (Pamphlet)

Common Sense was written by Thomas Paine on January 10, 1776. The 48-page pamphlet presented an argument for freedom from British rule. Paine wrote in such a style that common people could easily understand, using Biblical quotes which Protestants understood. The document played a major part in uniting colonists before the Revolutionary War for freedom from the British. Common Sense also led to the Declaration of Independence later that year.

The Author, Thomas Paine

Ironically, Thomas Paine was born in England. Dropping out of school at age 13, he developed interests in science, religion, and ethics. He tried working in his father’s corset shop, and also worked as a grocer, teacher, and tax collector. His rebellious ideas and political ideas led him to write about various human inequities. In 1774, Paine met Benjamin Franklin in London, where Franklin convinced him to move to America at a time when the colonists were on the brink of revolution. He saw independence as a great cause, declaring his opposition to the British monarchy.

Common Sense presented two main points: independence from England, and the creation of a democratic republic. Because of its treasonous content, Paine wrote Common Sense anonymously. He wrote in a language colonists used every day, making a more significant impact in spelling out the inequities which colonists faced under British rule. The clearly defined reasoning in his writing led colonists to unite in the patriotic cause of freedom.  Volcanoes. At a time when American colonists were on the brink of revolution, Common Sense focused on reasons for independence from Britain. Paine pointed out that there was no sense for an island to rule a continent. He reminded the colonists that America was not a British nation, but a nation composed of many different people, of varied influences. He also posed a moral question, asking, “If Britain was the true ‘mother’ country, would a mother burden her children, and treat them badly?” A more practical and less emotional topic was that the distance between the two nations prevented timely correspondence of governing petitions and issues. The charge was that Britain did not consider the best interests of the colonies that represented it. Being a part of Britain would also involve America in unnecessary wars. This would prevent the colonists from foreign trade. Paine pointed out that colonists were oppressed and persecuted under British rule.

Thomas Paine’s pamphlet supposedly sold 500,000 copies in its first year of circulation. Because Paine was intent in pointing out an alternative to British rule, he donated any royalties from Common Sense to George Washington’s Continental Army . He intended to assist the oppressed colonists and a fair and worthwhile cause, the American Revolutionary War. To the American colonists, Paine’s straightforward and simply-written expressions made political ideas real to the people. He targeted the deeply felt sentiments of the colonists, presenting reasons for breaking free in a manner that they understood. Common Sense made the war for freedom an individual choice, which could be attained in a united manner by the colonists. Continue to the Full Text »

Newest Additions

• The Beheading of John the Baptist
• Jesus Sends Out His Twelve Apostles
• The Miracle of Healing: Jesus and the Paralytic
• Parables of Wisdom: The Teachings of Jesus
• Jesus’ Response to John’s Disciples

Copyright © 2020 · Totallyhistory.com · All Rights Reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

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…

Ohio State nav bar

Ohio state navigation bar.

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence: A Comparison and Contrast

Lesson plan.

(Thomas Paine)

Core Theme: 

Grade level: , estimated duration of lesson: , state standards:   , primary sources used:, summary of lesson:, instructional steps:, enhancement:, post assessment:.

Why "Common Sense" Is Not So Common

Personal perspective: common sense confuses reality with truth..

Posted July 29, 2021 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

• Common sense is not reasoning, logic, intuition or innate. It is acquired, and is changing, since the contents of nature (reality) are changing.
• Common sense is the true understanding of cause and effect: the pragmatic function of the scientific method to operationally define "the truth."
• In everyday speech, people refer to and confuse "truth" with "reality." The two ideas are not equivalent or synonyms.
• The field of psychology as science exists to understand the "Second Big Bang," with therapy addressing abnormal behavior emerging from it.

How many of us have been admonished, "Use your common sense!" In actuality, the person has no idea what they are talking about, unfair to you.

Reality and truth are not the same.

We confuse the idea of reality and the idea of the truth all the time. "The reality of the situation is..." The truth of the situation is…" These ideas used to be synonyms 300,000 years ago but no longer are equivalent. Why?

Reality is changing faster than cognition can make sense of it.

Reality has evolved over time, redefining it, so if you equate reality and truth, you are ignorant or in denial about this evolutionary change. Yes, reality has a history, and therefore so does "common sense," which used to be considered innate good judgment when it is, in fact, learned.

Philosophy is the subject area of "what is real and what is true."

Reality is part of the "what is real" part. Science is part of the "what is true part," a function of the 16th century Enlightenment replacing scientific understanding from theological dogma. I just separated confounding factors in "making sense" or, in shorthand, "common sense."

Common sense is more about common knowledge derived from the scientific method.

How has reality changed over time, and are these changes redefining definitions of truth? If there is more than one type of truth, reality and truth can no longer be equated. In everyday speech, referencing common sense, or lack of it, is only an assertion, belief, or opinion. If based on replicated scientific facts, then the statement is true and "makes common sense," a sloppy way of referring to peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

There have been not one but three "Big Bangs."

The question is, how has reality changed over time, and how do we know? Think of current events as the product of not one, not two, but three "Big Bangs." The first Big Bang was the existence or emergence of physical reality containing a constant: atoms. In physics, matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Then there are manifestations of the material world causing a second Big Bang, consciousness, defined by the existence of neurons in nature, and only 200,000 years ago, sentient connections forming higher order cognition defining our species Homo sapiens. Hence, neurons came online from the material world.

Only 108 billion human beings have ever existed.

There are more bacteria and viruses in our body than all of human nature ever existed over time.

A third Big Bang is technology, a function of the late 1940s and early 1950s with the invention of the transistor, integrated circuits, and the microprocessor, a Big Bang so recent it has disrupted society and civilization, changing our way of life.

Who could have imagined our wired world and mobile connections and social networks in 1900 when radio was new or later in 1940 when RADAR was in its infancy.

One of the reasons cyberspace is the Wild West with hacking rampant is that this form of truth is relatively unknown. Humanity lacks experience understanding and regulating it. We are living inside this learning curve, and it is not pretty. Do we formally regulate cyberspace like we regulate space?

The nature of reality circa 2021, including where psychology fits into this big picture.

Each new reality defines another form of truth and scientific discipline.

Physical reality is truth in objectification comprised of atoms and forces and the disciplines of physics and cosmology.

The magnitude of the material world is fixed at 10 80 atoms within the Standard Model for large-scale (Newtonian) and small-scale (quantum) events. Humans evolved to be aware of large-scale inventing instruments to know and investigate small scale-making inventions, an essential evolutionary force creating our species' dominance.

Psychological reality is truth in interpretation, comprised of neurons in our neocortex, causing thinking and imagination . Currently, there are only 65.5 x 10 28 neurons in reality (based on a current world population of 7.8 billion people).

The existence and emergence of higher cortical functioning created the scientific disciplines of psychology, neurosciences, and other sub-disciplines organized to understand human nature, the new kid on the reality block after 13.8 billion years.

Reality then again suddenly changes with technology and computers. The Third Big Bang is an artificial reality––truth is transformation––containing bytes (8-bits) generating a global datasphere of 2.4 x 10 22 zettabytes and growing daily.

Why care about distinguishing the multiple forms of truth?

Why does distinguishing the three forms of truth in nature matter in everyday life? If common sense is learned, teaching common sense is too general an idea. You must now specify the plane of existence you are teaching.

In physical reality, during socialization, "Look both ways before you cross the street." This assertion has a basis, in fact: F=MA.

During socialization, in psychological reality, "Don't get into cars with strangers at the bus stop." This assertion has a basis in fact: the paraphilias.

In artificial reality during socialization, "Don't open attachments from people you do not know." This assertion has a basis in fact, based on the pervasiveness of malware and online sociopathic behavior.

In each case, the assertion "makes common sense" because it is is scientifically valid , making the idea of common sense a pseudonym for common knowledge.

Higher education should be a function of what nature (reality) is now, and not just the material world.

The ambiguous nature of common sense correlates to what life literacies make the most sense to teach––the common knowledge part of the equation. In school,

We pay big bucks for technical help in artificial reality to master truth in transformation (the material world "transformed" into pixels on a screen) and big bucks for psychotherapy in psychological reality to help master truth in interpretation.

Reality: The whole shebang

To understand common sense, we must redefine (upgrade) the definition of reality:

Physical: 10 80 atoms. The material world. Truth in objectification. A constant.

Psychological: 65.5 x 10 28 neurons. Sentience. Truth in interpretation. A variable.

Artificial: 2.4 x 10 22 zettabytes. Technology and cyberspace. Truth in transformation. A variable.

These forms of truth interact and are one reason fewer events "make common sense" anymore. Natural selection has failed to keep pace with the evolution of reality. We lack sophisticated perceptual systems across these planes of existence.

Problems in living, psychopathology, happens when these various forms of truth are not adequately isolated or understood.

Psychopathology is an attribute in psychological reality. It coexists as a function of these previously unknown, interdependent, under-appreciated forces on the individual. Their interactions make independent and dependent variables in science harder to control and conceive in determining truth, and hence "common sense."

Many peer-reviewed papers are not replicated in the psychological sciences, given the "interpretive nature" of operational definitions. The four scales (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) further complicate a coherent truth in understanding, making science, common sense, a probability function creating opinions and assertions.

The Fourth Big Bang is probably at the quantum level challenging the Standard Model in cosmology.

There are confounds unknown to the investigators, but perhaps delineating the current nature of reality might help clarify the search for the truth and what that means. What it now means might well change with a Fourth Big Bang, presently inconceivable, but likely to be a discovery and useful application at the quantum level.

Reid Daitzman, Ph.D., is interested in promoting the life of the mind over the lifecycle, teaching wisdom and creativity using various literary formats that explore what he has learned as a therapist about human nature in the last 50 years.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Philosophy and Common Sense 1: What Is Common Sense?

Sebastian Sunday-Grève and Timothy Williamson discuss the question of where philosophy starts and the idea of philosophy as a non-natural science

Common Sense or Curiosity?

Sebastian Sunday-Grève

Timothy Williamson tells a story of the naturalness of philosophy -- that is, of how natural it is to engage in doing philosophy. This is an important kind of story to tell, because philosophy tends to seem unnatural to many people, and hence their opinion of it is rather low. It is of course not very surprising that they can easily have this impression, given some of the claims typically made by philosophers, such as that nothing ever changes (Parmenides), that everything constantly changes (Heraclitus) or that “the nothing noths” (Heidegger). Perhaps Williamson’s own view that vagueness is a form of ignorance is another example, insofar as it entails that one hair can make the difference between being bald and being not bald.

Be that as it may, the story Williamson tells is compelling. Part of the reason why it is compelling is that when he tells it he is practising what he preaches. By developing his account of the naturalness of philosophy in this way, Williamson is of course engaged in doing philosophy himself, and he manages to do this bit of philosophy in exactly the way that he says should be possible. Williamson argues that all it takes for an individual in suitable circumstances to engage in doing philosophy is curiosity and common sense . And in attempting to show this, he does indeed appear to be relying on nothing but these two basic ingredients. Thus, his account appears to be doubly demonstrated: the way in which he presents its general claims appears at the same time to constitute an instantiation of them.

To be sure, the apparent reliance on nothing but his own common sense and curiosity in presenting the account must be regarded as a considerable feat, even if Williamson is right that philosophy normally requires no more than that. Developing an account of the cognitive basis required for an individual to engage in doing philosophy is not itself the sort of thing that philosophy starts with for an individual. On the contrary, it is a rather more advanced step: developing a plausible account of the matter and presenting it in a clear and precise fashion, as Williamson has done, is no easy task for even the most experienced philosophers.

Williamson begins by telling us that a natural answer to the question of where philosophy starts is “common sense”. He then offers various explanations of what he takes common sense to be, which can be summed up by the following three equations:

Common-sense knowledge = widely shared knowledge

Common-sense belief = widely shared belief

Common-sense cognitive methods = widely shared cognitive methods

But looking at these three equations has made me wonder why the notion of common sense is even employed. In this context, “widely shared” appears to mean just the same as “common”. Thus, it seems it might have been the better choice to speak simply of common knowledge, common belief and common cognitive methods instead of common- sense knowledge, common- sense belief and so on.

While trying to figure this out, I thought about how “common sense” is typically translated into German, namely as gesunder Menschenverstand , literally “healthy human reason”. Williamson does not, however, want to restrict common sense to humans. In fact, he argues that common sense and curiosity, the only two requirements he has mentioned for getting philosophy started, can also be found in non-human animals. So can non-human animals perhaps engage in doing philosophy too? Where would Williamson draw the line? And how? Is it perhaps a matter of degree of common sense or curiosity, or is there something else to the cognitive basis required for philosophy (such as language, for example, which he says “enables us to construct more abstract questions, to become curious about more abstract matters”)?

The same consideration applies to curiosity. If, however, Williamson’s intention is indeed to give nothing but a natural answer to the question of where philosophy starts, in order to suit his narrative, then will it not perhaps be the case that curiosity could serve equally well as the sole driver of the story? That is, not as an answer to the question of what more is required for philosophy, in addition to common sense, but as a better answer instead of this first one? For does not curiosity, on Williamson’s plausible definition of it as an appetite for knowledge, entail enough of that which he wishes to pick out by “common sense”? After all, you can only have an appetite for knowledge, if you have at least some knowledge already. And, as regards common-sense cognitive methods, it can perhaps be granted that an individual with an appetite for knowledge is normally capable of acquiring new knowledge. So, it seems, the story might perhaps be told even better simply in terms of curiosity.

Common Sense, Curiosity, and Language

Timothy Williamson

In “Common Sense or Curiosity?”, Sebastian Sunday-Grève asks whether common sense is needed to get into philosophy: why isn’t curiosity, understood as the appetite for knowledge, enough?

Cats and dogs are curious, as are animals of many other species, including humans. The appetite for knowledge has an obvious evolutionary explanation. Knowledge of your environment comes in useful in all sorts of ways. You need to know where you can get food or drink, you need to know about potential sexual partners. Unsurprisingly, anything new tends to excite curiosity, because it may indicate danger or opportunity. What made that unfamiliar smell?

Of course, an appetite for knowledge enhances your evolutionary fitness only if you are capable of satisfying that appetite. Thus we can expect curiosity to be accompanied by a capacity for acquiring knowledge. Sebastian goes further: “you can only have an appetite for knowledge, if you have at least some knowledge already.” That is not automatic. After all, an animal can have an innate appetite for sex before it has ever had sex, otherwise it might never get started. But animals typically get a stream of knowledge of their current environment through their senses – sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, … – whenever they are awake, so if you have an innate appetite for knowledge, you probably have lots of knowledge already. Moreover, you presumably acquired most or all of that knowledge in ways which you have in common with other members of your species. Those ways are common-sense cognitive methods in my sense. If you belong to a social species, as you do, much of your local knowledge is probably shared with other members of your group. That is common-sense knowledge in my sense.

But then, if curiosity and common sense suffice for getting into philosophy, we face Sebastian’s question: “can non-human animals perhaps engage in doing philosophy too?” One would have to be rather besotted with one’s cat or dog to think that it has philosophical thoughts. Non-human animals sometimes look wise – owls famously do – but that is surely our projection. Some people look wise until they start talking. That brings us to the question of language.

Knowledge without language is possible. If a cat didn’t know where a mouse was, she couldn’t catch it. In knowing where it is, she knows something like: it’s there . She has that knowledge while unable to put it in the English words “It’s there”, or any other words. We speakers of a language use our words to describe what the cat knows, but the cat can know it without describing her knowledge. Languageless animals may even have some general knowledge, for example about which types of plant are good to eat.

Curiosity may involve asking oneself questions. If the mouse disappears, the cat may wonder where it has gone; we can describe her as asking herself: where’s it gone? She can do that without using the English words “Where’s it gone?”, or any other words. Presumably, if the cat were not wondering where the mouse has gone, she would not be looking around for it. Perhaps a pig can even wonder whether some newly encountered type of thing is good to eat.

Still, there are limits. It’s not that cats and dogs aren’t curious enough to ask themselves philosophical questions; they seem pretty much as curiosity-driven as humans are. Rather, the point is that, whatever form thinking takes in languageless animals, its content seems to be very closely related to sense perception and action, far more closely than a philosophical question would be. For example, if the cat asks where’s it gone? , her ability to do so presumably depends on her capacities for spatially organised perception and action, but those capacities do not enable her to ask the abstract question “What is space?”.

Of course, language too may well have originated in ways closely related to sense perception and action. Linguistic communication still depends on hearing, when we listen to what someone says, on sight, when we read what they write, and on touch in the case of braille. Still, what a word means normally doesn’t depend on its sound, and once we have a language, we can manipulate its words to form all sorts of new combinations, with meanings which might never have occurred to us otherwise. In that way, you understand the sentences making up this article, even though you have never encountered most of them before.

We can also appreciate the dependence of philosophy on language by considering how humans do philosophy. When we talk about what past philosophers achieved, we are talking almost entirely about what they achieved in their writings . Although Socrates famously did not write philosophy, he did it in conversation instead. In all these cases, what they achieved was achieved in language. Some philosophy books also have diagrams, or pictures, or logic formulas, which may be important to the book’s overall argument, but their philosophical significance still depends on the surrounding text. Anyway, languageless animals do not use diagrams, or pictures, or logic formulas. A few contemporary philosophers claim to have made contributions to philosophy in the form of dance , but again it is hard to see how a dance could have philosophical significance except in ways which depend on an associated verbal discourse.

A more radical challenge might come from a mystic, who claims to have had a languageless experience of reality which constitutes a great philosophical insight. If the experience inspires a philosophical book, we can judge the book rather than the experience. But a hard-line mystic might claim that the languageless experience itself, not anything it inspired, is the real philosophical achievement. Maybe cats, dogs, pigs, or owls have had similar languageless experiences.

One problem with the mystic’s claim is that philosophy is not a private enterprise. It is carried on from generation to generation of philosophers, teachers and students, authors and readers, working together in communities, discussing and arguing with each other. An individual’s experience, as opposed to a verbal description of it, cannot be passed down from generation to generation. What might be passed on is a recipe for having an experience of that type, by taking drugs, or practising meditation techniques, or whatever. But that leaves another problem. If it is claimed to be a languageless experience of reality , is reality indeed the way the experience presents it as being? Even if anyone who has an experience of that type is utterly convinced at the time that reality is that way, that does not mean that the conviction is infallible; the drugs or meditation techniques might just be a way of inducing a convincing hallucination. The more important the “insight” would be if right, the more important it is to test whether it is right.

Can words express how reality is mystically experienced as being? If they can, we have claims in words which need to be tested. But if we are told that words cannot express how reality is mystically experienced as being, and that the only way of testing the great insight is by having the experience oneself, we should start to suspect a scam . If an insight is genuinely important, it is so because it has lots of significant consequences, which make some sort of difference and so can be independently tested. If we are allowed no way to question the veracity of the mystical experience, we are falling victim to some kind of intellectual authoritarianism, quite alien to the traditional spirit of philosophy.

Alternatively, mystics might avoid the claim that the mystical experience is of reality , and say that it is just a great experience. If they add that having the experience is good for your mental health, that claim too should be tested. However, they might just say that having the experience is good in itself, irrespective of consequences. Fine; but how is having a great experience supposed to be relevant to philosophy? It would be relevant if philosophy were just a matter of having a good time, in a spiritual sort of way, but that is an utterly impoverished and self-indulgent conception of philosophy.

As it has more traditionally been understood, philosophy is an attempt to answer very general questions about the nature and structure of reality (which includes the attempt itself), about how things are (which includes how they appear). Because the attempt is serious, answers given to those questions cannot simply be taken on trust; no guru has the last word. They must be tested seriously by other philosophers, against any relevant evidence. The strengths and weaknesses of alternative answers must be identified, discussed, and compared. Once philosophy is understood that way, it is obviously out of reach for creatures with no well-developed language for communication.

None of this means that philosophy must be about language. Its medium is language, extended by diagrams, pictures, formulas, and so on, but physics has more or less the same medium, yet physics is not about language. Philosophy is about reality much more generally, of which language is just a small part. But since philosophy is mainly done in language, philosophers have to be careful and critical in their use of language, otherwise they may be misled by its subtle complications. In ordinary language, valid arguments and invalid arguments can easily look very like each other; sometimes we can tell them apart only by analysing the fine structure of our premises and conclusions.

That account may sound far from the natural beginning of philosophy in curiosity and common sense. But once we express our curiosity by asking questions in common language, and try to answer them by the methods of common sense, including critical discussion, iterating that process can gradually refine what we are doing, taking us towards the most sophisticated methods of philosophy.

This is an edited version of the discussion that followed a recent lecture by Timothy Williamson at Peking University. A recording of the lecture is available here .

Sebastian Sunday-Grève is a German philosopher, who was educated at Oxford and is living in Beijing, where he works as an assistant professor at Peking University. He is a member of the Chinese Institute of Foreign Philosophy and, in 2020–21, a Fellow of the Berggruen China Research Center, where he works on the philosophy of artificial intelligence .

Timothy Williamson is the Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford and a Visiting Professor at Yale. His recent books include Philosophical Method: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2020) and an enlarged edition of The Philosophy of Philosophy (Wiley, 2021). In addition to logic, he works on epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language.

You might also like...

The Transgender-Rights Issue

Of Our Great Propensity to the Absurd and Marvellous

The Art and Style of Crosswords

Woman as Resource: A Reply to Catharine MacKinnon

Women, Men and Criminal Justice

Philosophia

What Is the Philosophy of Madness?

Who Is Feminism For?

Subscribe to The Philosophers' Magazine for exclusive content and access to 20 years of back issues. 

Most popular.

The Fact/Opinion Distinction

The Meaning of "Asshole"

Want to Be Good at Philosophy? Study Maths and Science

Do Animals Have Free Will?

Can Psychologists Tell Us Anything About Morality?

The Endless

September 1, 2022

Essay On Common Sense | Suitable for all class students

Common sense essay

Introduction: Common sense, it has been said, is the most uncommon thing in the world. Common sense is only the combination of experience with intelligence. It is a rare commodity that is not exactly the mother or native wit. This is only a clever paradox which it seems to instinctively show at unexpected moments.

Practical wisdom: Common sense is practical wisdom. So we often look upon common sense as a blind instinct. It is a quality that neither wealth nor learning can confer on a man. It is supposed to come as a gift from above, and that one is born with, – a sharp insight into matters and promptitude that helps us much In the practical field of work. Education or book-learning, no doubt, makes us sophisticated but does not engender common sense.

Somebody called Mr, Pickwick (of Charles Dickens) from the road; Pickwick looked upwards at the sky. Albert Einstein was a very great scientist. But he made two holes in the cage – one big and the other small — so that his two cats, one big and the other very small (mother and the young one / kitten), may come out through the two respective holes. Does he lack common sense? For this reason, common sense is often spoken of like a mystery.

The learned man may be a wonderful theorist, a man of many devices. There may not be any doubt about his shrewd intelligence in the abstract. But when faced with a situation, he is utterly lost. He is like the wise man of Sukumar Roy who turns over the pages of his book of recipes in vain for the right remedy that can save him from the angry bull.

But if instead of being bookish, he acts on wisdom, tested and proved by experience, he can almost unerringly hit upon the proper line. That is a common sense, the ability to use the experience to meet immediate circumstances. It is practical wisdom applied to common life.

Don’t Forget to Check: Essay in English

Importance: Common sense is something different from a laborious process of reasoning. It implies swift decision, a capacity to do the right thing without jumbling. An intelligent man, when guided by a wide experience of life, develops a spontaneous reflex power to act quickly and sensibly in any situation.

It must not be thought, however, that common sense rules out the higher faculty of the mind. On the contrary, where it goes hand in hand with common sense, it amounts to genius. But if a man is to have only one sense, let him, by all means, have common sense: For without common sense, he is of no use at all. He may know how to do the job, but to be successful he must apply that knowledge with sure effect; tact is the gift of common sense and is more important than talent.

Common sense is a gift that a prince has in common with a peasant. A pampered child of fortune is oftener than not unrealistic in his approach to life’s problems. Naturally, he misses that success. But the man of experience knows what he can reasonably expect from life, and his common sense works without fail. His judgment remains clear and is not lost or blurred in the midst of danger.

In the practical affairs of life, the value of common sense is great indeed. It helps one to make the most of one’s knowledge and experience. Where book-learning confuses and misleads, common sense may stand him in good stead. Because it is born of experience; it comes easily to the common man who works with his own hands.

Uncommon sense: An extraordinary sense of anything not found in all and sundry in general is an uncommon sense. Many can learn many things from this. But in fact, many a time, common sense becomes uncommon and vice-versa.

Conclusion: The uncommon never escapes the shrewd judgment of common sense. The extra-ordinary principle has to submit ultimately to the test of common sense. Common sense is what makes for permanence, continuity and sweeps away much that is merely eccentric and out of the way. It governs the day-to Life of a man.

FAQ’s of Essay On Common Sense

What is common sense.

Common sense is only the combination of experience with intelligence.

What is the value of common sense?

It helps one to make the most of one's knowledge and experience. Where book-learning confuses and misleads, common sense may stand him in good stead.

What are examples of common sense?

Albert Einstein was a very great scientist. But he made two holes in the cage – one big and the other small – so that his two cats, one big and the other very small may come out through the two respective holes

About the Author

This is my personal Blog. I love to play with Web. Blogging, Web design, Learning, traveling and helping others are my passion.This blog is the place where I write anything whatever comes to my mind. You can call it My Personal Diary. This blog is the partner of My Endless Journey

Comment Policy: Your words are your own, so be nice and helpful if you can. Please, only use your real name and limit the number of links submitted in your comment. We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it, please.Let's have a personal and meaningful discussion.

Please Say Something or Ask Any question about this topic! Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .