Common Sense [Paperback]

To say the least, this iconic revolutionary pamphlet is a very interesting document. While some of Paine's arguments ring true; the fallacy behind the existence of a divine monarchy, the lack of coordination by being ruled by a country on the other side of the ocean, the countries with which Great Btritain had declared were to be supposed enemies of the Colonies and that the they were being governed for the good of England and not for the good of the Colonies, there are other arguments that are driven more from the emotion of nationalism rather than objective reasoning. If a malicious act has taken place, is the only plausible reaction that of fighting back militarily? How does Paine know that the Colonies were actually under the 'grace of God'? Was that written somewhere in a Holy Scripture or did God send Paine a direct message? Is religious toleration only the inclusion of additional Christian denominations, as Paine suggests, or is it the embrace of many different religious tenets? Are the Quakers to be chastised, as Paine suggests, because their Christian beliefs do not include violence? If Paine's view of the Colonies as being peaceful in nature, why does he place a great emphasis on the building of a huge naval fleet? If indeed 'all men are created equal' why are the Tories and the Loyalists treated as traitors to humanity? They merely felt that this issue was resolvable by a manner other than a vicious and bloody war. The differences of ideas should never label other people as being traitorous for the differences of opinions is what separates true democracy from crass imitators. Nor should they did create the spectacle of 'tarring and feathering' a person's long-standing neighbors over these differences.

It is interesting to read the writings of a man who strongly professes his Christianity but then has these values immediately overcome by stronger and less rational feelings of nationalism and patriotism! His pamphlet is more of a propaganda piece rather than 'common sense' and more of a call to arms rather than an avenue to international problem solving.

The USA has long been known to have an arrogant, imperialistic and Christian fundamentalist viewpoint. The basis for it goes back to its original founding and is shown in other its initial writings and doctrines. American 'exceptionalism' is a credo that was artificially created during this era and was based on nationalistic emotions rather than objective facts. This fantasy has carried over into present day United States foreign and domestic policies. Canada, a country in a similar circumstance during the early 1800s, in time, peacefully reconciled its differences with Great Britain and become an independent and prosperous nation. By doing it in such a much less aggressive manner, it never embraced the dominance and elitism that is became so prevalent in the USA.

It is easy to see why high school American history teachers simply teach us the propaganda! And how naive we are as 10th graders!

I know its supposed to be a masterpiece of Republicanist thought. I got bored and gave up about half way through.

Thomas Paine's fierce pamphlet is certainly a powerful piece of rhetoric; it is easy to see how his works rallied the colonists to the cause of war.

Paine is on solid ground when he attacks the legitimacy of monarchy as an institution; he skillfully cuts apart monarchist theory, showing how morally bankrupt it is for someone to reign merely because their ancestors won a battle.

Where Paine errs is in his advocacy of violence as means to end British rule. The base of his argument is that since British troops had fired on colonial militias, all legitimacy of the British crown had ended. Furthermore, because human lives had been lost, settling for anything else than full, total, immediate independence would be a "waste" of these casualties.

Here, however, Paine seems to blissfully not care exactly who fires the first shot. If violence by the other side is all that one needs to justify violence -- there will be no end to war! Paine goes on further to reject out of hand any concept of a negotiated settlement with the British, arguing that the British government is a snake that could not be trusted, utterly evil and corrupt.

I suspect, however, that Tory colonists, many of whom later found their homes burned, their possessions stolen, and they themselves brutally tarred and feathered and run out of the country, would apply the same harsh description to the rebels. Paine, however, cares little for Tories, whom he dismisses as traitors, even going so far as to call for their execution. He even encloses a harsh appendix aimed at pacifist Quakers who had advocated an end to the violence.

Furthermore, had Paine's own logic been applied at other times, the blacks of the U.S. South would have been fully justified in taking up arms when policement fired on civil rights marchers. Student protesters against Vietnam could have risen in revolt after the Penn State deaths. One reason neither did so, of course, is because they did not enjoy one advantage Paine boasts of - the advantage of home turf and the ability to outlast the British in a long-term conflict. We should fight, Paine argued, because Britain cannot win a war across an ocean. Accustomed as we are to thinking of Paine as a hero of liberty, is this really all that different from Mao's "freedom flows from the barrel of a gun"?