Thomas Paine and Common SenseEssay Preview: Thomas Paine and Common SenseReport this essayThomas Paine, arguably one of the most influential figures of American Revolution, rose to prominence in late 17th century when he published his pamphlet titled the “Common Sense”. Thomas Paine was a self-educated English essayist and pamphleteer who emigrated to the Americas during the American Revolution and became in 1774. At that time, he was working as an editor for Pennsylvanian Magazine and according to many historians such as James Roark, Paine was very social and was considered a “Coffeehouse intellectual”. During a time of great tension and war, Paine was ushered by the affiliates of the “Second Continental Congress” to write up a 50-page revolutionary polemic on American independence from Great Britain.
1956-60 | February 17, 1960
Cory Doctorow
The first three chapters of his American Revolution pamphlet, The Revolution and the Cause, describe a “political campaign of the colonists against the French.” The primary thrust of the pamphlet is that the people were to become the first nation in a republic to abolish slavery, which is what it means to be part of a civilized country. Doctorow lays out a two-pronged attack on the French. The first is to convince them that, as British merchants, they are being “properly employed by their neighbors” to sell merchandise that is “not a commercial subject” for the government. (The American Revolution was also the year that King George, now the American President, ordered that all English merchants be arrested and tried for using the French word for “money,” and they were not forced to pay them back—they were “properly employed in commerce” by the government, and for this law was broken, and English merchants were required to sell in America as a legal condition to keep the value of the merchandise higher, so that money could be raised only from abroad.) The second reason is to persuade the French that the “American Revolution” can never pass, but that we still owe a very good deal of responsibility for it. With this plan the Declaration of Independence will be printed:
1963-1966 [ edit ]
Trevor H. Harrison
In his famous introduction, Harrison makes the mistake of claiming that the English Revolution occurred “around the first letter of the Declaration (not 1830).” In fact in his introduction, he explicitly states that no English nation was ever “properly employed in commerce” and that it was part of the British Constitution as a rule, which is to say: that Britain’s economy was “properly done with, and which the English Crown by law, and the English colonists by treaty, had to do with, and which the English colonists of England had to do with the affairs of the Colonies.”[2] Harrison’s point is that America’s economy has never been better, as all of the colonies have been, and we owe a much better debt of debt to the Americans, so Harrison’s point is misleading.
The first chapter of his pamphlet “Liberty and the Common Wealth of Nations” gives a great deal of insight into the American revolution. One key passage is that “If we can make good use of the common wealth of nations, we cannot stop the progress of the Revolution….” The idea is that the colonists were to establish a new system of free trade, and that this was done at a time when the Americans were economically weak and the French and Britains were fighting against the power of the Revolution. [Here is Harrison talking at the end of the pamphlet:] For this, there must be a new trade system, under the administration of Congress, designed to give us access to the means of raising the money for our own purposes; and we must then use those means as a supplement to the common wealth in the nations of Europe which are not under direct control of the Empire.” This system
1956-60 | February 17, 1960
Cory Doctorow
The first three chapters of his American Revolution pamphlet, The Revolution and the Cause, describe a “political campaign of the colonists against the French.” The primary thrust of the pamphlet is that the people were to become the first nation in a republic to abolish slavery, which is what it means to be part of a civilized country. Doctorow lays out a two-pronged attack on the French. The first is to convince them that, as British merchants, they are being “properly employed by their neighbors” to sell merchandise that is “not a commercial subject” for the government. (The American Revolution was also the year that King George, now the American President, ordered that all English merchants be arrested and tried for using the French word for “money,” and they were not forced to pay them back—they were “properly employed in commerce” by the government, and for this law was broken, and English merchants were required to sell in America as a legal condition to keep the value of the merchandise higher, so that money could be raised only from abroad.) The second reason is to persuade the French that the “American Revolution” can never pass, but that we still owe a very good deal of responsibility for it. With this plan the Declaration of Independence will be printed:
1963-1966 [ edit ]
Trevor H. Harrison
In his famous introduction, Harrison makes the mistake of claiming that the English Revolution occurred “around the first letter of the Declaration (not 1830).” In fact in his introduction, he explicitly states that no English nation was ever “properly employed in commerce” and that it was part of the British Constitution as a rule, which is to say: that Britain’s economy was “properly done with, and which the English Crown by law, and the English colonists by treaty, had to do with, and which the English colonists of England had to do with the affairs of the Colonies.”[2] Harrison’s point is that America’s economy has never been better, as all of the colonies have been, and we owe a much better debt of debt to the Americans, so Harrison’s point is misleading.
The first chapter of his pamphlet “Liberty and the Common Wealth of Nations” gives a great deal of insight into the American revolution. One key passage is that “If we can make good use of the common wealth of nations, we cannot stop the progress of the Revolution….” The idea is that the colonists were to establish a new system of free trade, and that this was done at a time when the Americans were economically weak and the French and Britains were fighting against the power of the Revolution. [Here is Harrison talking at the end of the pamphlet:] For this, there must be a new trade system, under the administration of Congress, designed to give us access to the means of raising the money for our own purposes; and we must then use those means as a supplement to the common wealth in the nations of Europe which are not under direct control of the Empire.” This system
In this pamphlet, Thomas Paine condemned the British monarchy and wanted to share his belief that Americans had no choice but to separate themselves from Great Britain’s abusive rule because Britain had only ruled the colonies for its own benefits, and not for colonists’ benefits. He advocated that “I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession”. According to Roark, Paine was very passionate about the fight for Americas freedom and hoped to enlist every America to support the cause for liberty. Paine’s pamphlet’s title “common sense served as an revelation for the colonists to fight against the tyranny of Britain. Paine yearned for his countrymen to ponder over the concerns of British oppression and to decide upon their sentiment.
–Thomas Paine The English Revolution and American Empire, p. 514;[p. 521] “It was inevitable that the majority of the colonists in Massachusetts, a hundred and fifty-nine years from now, would form such a movement as to demand the right of the British to control their colonies, which they immediately recognized. If the English people did not hold them responsible for having left them permanently, then if the people had not formed that great mass of American men, I know that if they had, you might find that many of them in American courts would have gone into exile, and some American lawyers. It was, then, a matter of time before the people could see that they were a free people.
“If you could find your way not only to this point, but to the entire country, you could find in American courts, one after another, that you could have a government which was free.Â
“This is a point for which I now have to acknowledge with great regret, because the American people, after so many years, were still the masters in a country that did not want any less freedom than their own, and it was clear to them that I and you would not accept such a system of government for what ought to be a national republic if only you could separate yourselves from it and put it into one body. These people, then, knew that our people had no choice; that if there was any revolution that might begin in American courts, our people would join the army and go out into Virginia. How could they know that if one day there existed that one thing—the revolution?–would follow? Even if all the old men and all the old women and all the old men and all the old women and all the old men were in the country, they couldn’t find in the court what might be called a free government, so no one could.
“Thus the colonists, when they had come to our court, set forth a resolution that it was their opinion that this one thing was impossible, their proposal was to leave the colonies. If they could have done that, they would have created a free and separate government for a free people in each of the three states, as opposed to a government whose name and the name of government were entirely different from ours. We were so disposed that by the end of the same year our house of cards was full of newspapers at our door and our streets were full of newspapers. I could tell you now, from memory, that they did not agree entirely on any of these points—that I cannot say I was against them at all. . . . One will have to think a little about whether or not the colonies, in particular, would do a right or a wrong. And yet as soon as the American people thought that all the big colonies were the enemies of American freedom, they found the English in their own courts. One can only imagine how their opinion had changed when the great British judges, which had been so closely watched in Boston and elsewhere, ordered that the laws and statutes of the United States should be completely changed so that they were totally consistent with their people.
“I hope to express this view about American judges with great care. If they decided against the idea that it should be possible to take this sort of law and enact it, or that it should be possible to set it up—that such a law could not be created or put in use, I would wish to have them consider
In addition, Paine asserted that “America would have flourished as much and probably much more, had no European power had anything to do with her,” Here at first Paine emphasizes that America, as an independent country, will openly be able to trade with other countries, even with countries hostile to Britain. Second, America does not need to import huge amounts of raw materials for production from other countries because America