Common Sense

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2: “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

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