THE YEAR WAS 1775, AND THE REBELLION was increasing in intensity. Blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord, and Falmouth had been bombarded by ships of the Royal Navy. The rebellion had begun, but the War for Independence had not.
The Continental Congress issued their declaration of causes, but also extended peace overtures to King George with the “Olive Branch Petition.” George Washington, now the commander-in-chief, still preceded his evening meals with a toast to the king.
In November of 1775 Congress passed a resolution affirming loyalty to the British Crown, and Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in favor of reconciliation.
As Scott Liell writes in “46 Pages,” “What the vast majority of colonists wanted was not liberty from but liberty within the British Empire. The political vision which animated their words and their actions was actually quite a conservative one.”
In short order, all of the above changed, prompted in large part by a 46-page pamphlet by a virtually unknown British citizen newly relocated to Philadelphia — Thomas Paine. This pamphlet, more than any other factor, changed the political dynamics of the day from seeking a redress of grievances to seeking independence.
The focus of “Common Sense,” justification for independence from England, was a subject that broke new ground even among most members of Congress.
The popular position of Congress was one of conservatism — maintaining the status quo, with a desire to shift power from remote London to local control in Philadelphia. Most members of Congress were under directives from home areas to specifically not consider full independence.
One of the tactics used by Paine, in his advocacy of full independence, was to focus on a single target — King George III. Indeed, Paine’s list of grievances against the king was later used as a model by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
This tactic was hugely successful, as seemingly overnight independence was openly discussed. The king now became the enemy, the individual colonies reconsidered their goals, and the rebellion became the War of Independence.
With this approach, Paine may have instigated, at least in the colonies, a tactic repeated this past election: demonization of the opposition — focusing on the person, creating a readily identifiable target, and allowing the target to take precedence in the minds of many, versus the issues of the day.
But Paine did not ignore the issues. “Common Sense” elaborated on many subjects that became the principles upon which our nation was founded, including individual liberty and freedom from a tyrannical government.
There is no arguing that by the measures of the day, Paine was a radical. This is evident from his later works:
“The mere Independence of America, were it to have been followed by a system of government modeled after the corrupt system of English government, would not have interested me with the unabated ardor that it did. It was to bring forward and establish the representative system of government … that was the leading principle with me in writing.”
This focus on a republican system of government, as opposed to either a monarchical form or true democracy, differentiated “Common Sense” from other political expressions of the time.
In “Common Sense,” Paine asserts his disdain for corrupt governments:
“Society is produced by our wants, and government by 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 is 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.”
Paine also touches on the importance of free enterprise to the emerging nation as he argues in favor of separation from England, which would then open up trade to England’s enemies:
“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.”
An additional point Paine made — that also rings true today — is the responsibility of the government toward sustainability:
“We can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure anything 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.”
Certainly that sentiment is at odds with the policies of today’s government leaders. The irresponsibility of the Bush administration now pales in comparison to that of Obama.
Thomas Paine was first and foremost opposed to tyranny, be it from a malevolent king or a corrupt parliament. This opposition was instrumental in the formation of a government based on the idea of independence. Unfortunately, our government today has devolved to the point where “independence from” has been replaced by “dependence on.”
Today we protest against many of the same injustices Paine complained of in “Common Sense.” What once was tyranny of a king has become tyranny of the majority foisted upon an unwilling minority. Voices of opposition are now ignored as politicians scheme in various ways to ensure their re-election.
We have come full circle. Our rights are imperiled, our commonwealth under threat. Our list of grievances is clear.
We await a new Thomas Paine.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992. This article originally appeared in American Thinker.
Sharing is caring!
We easily understand “common” and “sense” as combined to title Paine’s book. Apart from that context, “common sense” is a very slippery phrase. Ordinarily, it has to do with looking both ways before starting across a street and balancing your bank account before paying all the bills. Common sense today cannot likely be the same as that of our founders when we come to more general matters than strictly practical.
Today our sense is not so common or uniform among us as would cause us all to hold the same list of grievances. Differences of perception, value and word-use divide us deeply. All sides are aware of the corruption of law making and administration by lobbyist’s money and the ubiquitous propaganda and superstition which render many people too irrational to exercise whatever good judgment they might otherwise show.
We usually ascribe common sense to ourselves and lack of it to our opponents. You, Dennis, seem to see our grief as caused by government. I see our grief as caused by antisocial, irresponsible money-power bent on interfering everywhere for its own agenda. Greed. Alienation. Egotism. Invidiousness. Fear. Wish to injure and defeat any opponent. Overweening drive for power. Disharmony and imbalance in selves. Disparity between accomplishments and aspiration. Confusion of wants and needs. Floating anxiety. Volatile spitefulness. Ignorance of many important matters including one’s own motives. Inaccurate views that stem from that ignorance and its resulting, wrongful behavior.
Happy new year, Dennis.
RMS Stated: Ordinarily, it (common sense) has to do with …balancing your bank account before paying all the bills.
How much better off would the economic situation be if that tidbit of common sense was applied at local levels as well as state and national levels?
I think we do not disagree much in our ideal views of sound administration. Alas, ideals suffer in reality from forces that disrupt and distort socio-political processing. Existence meets exigency. Long-term views must often temporize with short-term priorities. The trouble with the Tea Party is its impatience with process. Progressives often show similar impatience with Tea Party wish to withdraw from or short-circuit process.
Clearly, the economic situation would be much improved by adherence to basic account-keeping. Sadly, economy is only part of our situation. Several human factors and social problems generate political complexity. If finance were all, we could readily sacrifice mankind upon a cross of this fiat money which blows us in its cyclone of up-spiraling inflation and gradual, mass impoverishment. Return to a gold standard will not cure boom & bust which characterized that era. The main problem is to find ways for everyone to sacrifice equally or at least fairly, without scapegoating or bleeding out some but not others.
If that’s socialistic, I’m sorry, but I’m totally for it. Besides, it’s not what I call socialistic. Just sociable. Or communitarian. Nor is that communistic.
Robert –
What do you mean by “disparity between accomplishments and aspiration”?
Tom, that means some degree of failure in one’s own terms to reach one’s goals or realize prior hopes.
Shelby your last paragraph was a perfect description of present day Liberal/Socialist and President Obama and his regime. Well written paragraph. Did not know you would concede. Thank you Robert.
Thumbs up Bob.
To which “last paragraph do you refer, Bob Livesay? And to which Bob do you give thumbs up, Mickey D.?
“Happy new year, Dennis” is no concession, except perhaps to the spirit of the season. Otherwise, once again, Mr. Shelby shows his quality compared to the loudmouth know-nothings on the right, “Mr. Conservative” foremost among them.
Well stated, Bob.
At least Paine didn’t have to worry about attention deficit disorder – nor, in all likelihood, acceptance by citizens of the essential relation between freedom and a free enterprise system.
Dear people, I’m just a poor, literary kid who still doesn’t know what “free enterprise” is or can be. Isn’t that just a situation where businesses can bully everybody, get away with shoddy work, trade without regulation and put its greatest creativity to work at finding ways to distort markets in its favor, cut costs and avoid taxes by “greasing its way with cumshaw” and buying legislators? All I know is what I read in the papers, hear on TV and see in the world around me. Anything good about “scot-free” enterprise? Is it better run than a well-regulated factory?
Dear Robert,
What you are describing is what is commonly known as “laissez-faire” economics. It has not existed in our country for 100 years, and perhaps longer.
Oh, my goodness, Reg, how right you are. And what are the reasons or causes for the strictures that have come to be placed on enterprise in the interests of health, safety, humanity and balance among all segments and strata of economic society?
Robert,
I think you have missed my point. You suggested that there are no strictures (as you term them). My interpretation of your comment was that you thought there weren’t any and I simply wanted to challenge you on that point. The free enterprise system, with the laws and regulations that we have and have had for years, is not “free” to do whatever it wants and even the hint that that is the case, or that all we need to do is to have more laws and regulations (without considering the economic consequences) at this juncture is lunacy. Moreover, if you really believe that regulation, rules (whatever) can protect us you need to interview some folks in San Bruno. Finally, “reasons or causes” are important, of course, but when we pine for resolution from those who we entrust to our safety it would be good to identify them correctly.
This was a very nice book report. Happy New Year!
Thomas,
To which book do you refer (multiple sources were utilized).?
For the next assignment, please include a full bibliography for additional credit.
You are a real funny guy, tommy. I will speak to you again when you grow up.
Wrong response, Deputy D. Should have been “Duly noted. I promise, I’ll try harder next time.” A little humility goes a long way.
One smart ass comment deserves a second. Why should I show tommy a modicum of respect, when you offer none?
Genuine respect needs to be continually earned and cannot be automatically expected, let alone demanded. The trouble with congress is, members are not really earning each other’s respect. It’s merely a pro-forma pose, often masking snide scorn and enmity. Who can really be content with someone’s empty posture of respect?
Perhaps “manners” should have been used in a reconstructed sentence. Tommy has none for those with whom he disagrees.
Where was it, that you think I disrespected you? You, as well as your lap dog, have a level of hypocrisy that is off the charts. As an aside, you will notice that it was you who started this exchange. “Grow up”, indeed!
I recognize condescension when I see it and your posts are consistently dripping with it: ‘book report’, ‘extra credit’, ‘deputy dawg’, etc etc.
And I have not been a hypocrite on anything; I deal back that which I receive from the likes of you and your friends.
Thomas Gunter Petersen who are you to give orders.
Bev said I could. BTW – Mind your own business. Capiche?
You telling me to mind my own business is a joke.
I’m glad you can laugh about it. However, as long as continue to comment on my comments, this will keep going. For quite a while, it has been you who starts in, not me. If you keep it up, you will continue to get owned. I recently gave you an address of where you can find me if you like to file complaints in person. You have yet to show up. Strange.
Not strange at all. I would not give you the time of day. You seem to think it is ok to mention my wife,and grandchildrens names. Sorry Gunter you are not that privileged. Grow up. Capire
Ha! Cowardice!
I think you actually just gave me the time of day. Say hello to Bev. “Capire” (sic)?
Dennis, take a look at the House of Representatives. It is not tyranny of the majority, but tyranny of the minority that is making our system look dysfunctional. Maybe you could elaborate on the difference between rule of the majority and “Tyranny” of the majority.
Pete I am not sure what you are saying. I will take a stab at it. Senate ruled by the Liberals, President with veto power. House run by the Republicans. Now please explain to me Tryanny of the majority. Now you could be speaking of President Obama and the Senate. Let us know.
Pete, thanks for the comment. There is a companion piece running next week, which I believe will address your comment in some detail. Take a look at that when it runs and let’s table this discussion until after that piece is posted.
Not at all Cowardly Lion. Actually very smart.
Sorry Lioness
Pusillanimity, Scarecrow.
At least I am not like you Cowardly Lioness and hiding behind a no name. Cuddling under a bush in the front yard. Meow Meow.. Poor little kitty that the Scarecrow scared the crap out of you. You run like a scared rabbit. Run Run and hide in the bush after I just. ran you into hiding. Meow Meow.
Bob I am just going to say it. No self-respecting man would ever type or say what you just did. This ain’t pretty. These are the words of a child, Bob. Time to step away from the computer friend.
Yes you could be right. But when playing a childs game you comment back with child like comments. Frank I suggest you follow Real Americans comment not only about me but also about DDL. There is an obession there to try and out rank both of us with Her comments. I can be just as childish as Real American and will continue to be until she wants to play this silly comment game as an adult. It was never meant to be pretty just a school yard fight that could go on for a long time. Can this be avoided? Yes. But it will take two to make it happen. Try telling your comment to Real American. At least you know that I do admit and understand these comments. I also comment under my real name.