Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Fort Ticonderoga captured Boston besieged New York City fortified invaded Canada No longer fighting for self-defense, or protection of their property, or to force Britain to negotiate. They were fighting for independence.

argument rhetoric

independence

pamphlet

1 in every 5 Americans read it or heard it read. George Washington read it to his troops.

Within weeks, reconciliation with Britain had gone from an honorable goal to a cowardly betrayal, while independence became the rallying cry of united Patriots.

John Adams wrote, "Common Sense appeared like a 'meteor' and propelled many to support independence."

Give up reconciliation now, or forever lose the chance for independence. "If we fail to act, we're self-deceiving cowards condemning our children to tyranny and cheating the world of a beacon of liberty. It is our calling to model self-actualized nationhood for the world. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind."

1. Introduction 2. Section One 3. Section Two 4. Section Three 5. Section Four

Readers must clear their minds of long-held notions, apply common sense, and adopt the cause of America as the "cause of all mankind." How we respond to tyranny today will matter for all time.

Man may need government to protect him from his flawed nature, but that doesn't mean he must suffocate under brute tyranny.

The monarchy is not our protector. It's our enemy. It has brought misery to people all over the world. Why should someone rule over us simply because he/she is someone's child?

Reconciliation means ruin. We're already at war.

We have an army. Build a navy. The prospect of inaction is terrifying.

Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think.

Before his essays, educated men like Franklin wrote civilly. Paine wrote with emotion and fury. Paine cursed Britain as an "open enemy," denouncing George III as the "Royal Brute of England," and damning reconciliation as "truly farcical" and "a fallacious dream." To think otherwise, Paine said, was "absurd," "unmanly," and "repugnant to reason."

weapon ammunition

He argued with ideas while convincing with raw emotion.

His intended audience was the American mob. He uses anger, the natural emotion of the mob.

He announces that his logic will be direct and down to earth, using only "simple facts" and "plain arguments" to explain his position, unlike (he implies) the complex political pamphlets addressed to the educated elite. His audience would understand "common sense" to suggest the moral sense of the yeoman farmer, whose independence and clear-headedness made him a more reliable guardian of national virtue (similar to Jefferson's agrarian ideal).

"Nothing more" implies that Common Sense will be easy to follow, presenting only what is necessary to make his argument. (Paine considered titling his essay Plain Truth.) Paragraph 55.

Be willing to put aside pre-conceived notions, he says, and judge his arguments on their own merits. paragraph 55.

He implies that any reader who would refuse to consider his arguments is narrow-minded. With the "on"-"off" contrast, he suggests that you, the individual reader, are open-minded and thus a fellow man of honor willing to consider a new point of view. Paragraph 55.

important parts: a continent. . .posterity for all times

Common sense used

1. "the sun never shined on a cause of greater worth" 2. "posterity... will be more or less affected, even to the end of time"

View it, he says, from an overarching global perspective, not the narrow perspective of American colonists in the late 1700s. The hyperboles are ultimates — the most worthy of worthy causes, affecting the future now and forever. The American cause can lead mankind toward enlightened self-determination, driving forward the progress of civilization. Paine says this directly in his introduction: "The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind." We're not just talking taxes and representation, people.

A biblical and prophetic tone. The sun shining down on human endeavors suggests divine endorsement of the American cause — a cause that will bring light and freedom ("salvation") to the world. Resisting the cause, Paine implies, would be resisting divine will.

He includes two repetitive sets: 1. "'Tis not" to begin sentences 2 and 3 [anaphora] 2. the phrases "of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom" and "of a day, a year, or an age" [prepositions with multiple objects]. Read the section aloud to hear the insistent rhythm that elevates Paine's prose to a rousing call to action (his goal in writing Common Sense).

This is the time to unite for independence. Discord among us now will escalate into future crises that could ruin the young nation.

Whether you realize it or not, the war has already begun and there is only one course of action.

The adjective "new" in a "new area" and a "new method." [anaphora]

alliteration: Argument/Arms/Area/Arisen Plans/Proposals/Prior/APril Consonance: politiCs/struCK meTHod/THinking/haTH Matter/arguMent/arMs

A stirring oratorical rhythm is achieved, like that of a solemn speech or sermon meant to convey the truth and gravity of an argument.

He means the idea of reconciliation is now preposterous and that no rational person could support it. No one would use last year's almanac to make plans for the current year! Also, as an almanac ceases to be useful at a specific moment (midnight of December 31), Paine implies that reconciliation ceased to be a valid goal at the moment of the first shot on April 19, 1775. (Paine often alludes to aspects of colonial life, like almanacs, that would resonate with all readers. They include references to farming, tree cutting, hunting, land ownership, slavery, biblical scripture, family and neighbor bonds, maturation, and the parent-child relationship.

Reconciliation is no longer possible

Paine begins his argument against reconciliation and does not want to insult or alienate his readers at the outset. Everyone can hope, he implies: there's nothing wrong with that, but we have to move on if a hope proves fruitless.

Reasonable. The two sentences resemble the opening of a legal argument that promises a balanced appraisal of two options on the basis of known evidence ("principles of nature") and honest ordinary reasoning ("common sense").

Paine means to deflect challenges of bias or extremism by inviting readers to give him a hearing. "If I'm being fair in my writing, you can try to be fair in your listening."

First, INDEPENDENCE and RECONCILIATION sound like equally plausible options, but Paine wants to convince the reader that independence is the only acceptable option. If so, then why did he choose SEPARATION instead of INDEPENDENCE? By January 1776, INDEPENDENCE carried the drastic connotations of war and treason. It was an irrevocable decision with unknown consequences. In contrast, SEPARATION seems less drastic, and even positive. In human development, separation from one's parents is the natural and long-sought step to full adulthood. That's the self-image Paine wants to foster in his readers. Are we adults or children? Paine chose DEPENDENCE instead of RECONCILIATION for Option 2 (staying with Britain). RECONCILIATION suggests the calm and rational agreement of two grownups, but Paine wants the reader to view reconciliation as the defeatist choice of spineless subjects who could never take care of themselves. In other words, DEPENDENCE. [Note: Paine does call the two options "independence" and "reconciliation" elsewhere in Common Sense, but he meant to avoid them here.]

Parent-child metaphor that everyone understands.

He slams it down hard. "NOTHING can be more FALLACIOUS," he yells. The argument is beyond misdirected or short-sighted, he insists; it's a fatal error in reasoning. So much for calm and reasoned debate. But Paine is not having a temper tantrum in print. His technique was to argue with ideas while convincing with emotion.

'remaining dependent on its parents forever and never growing up." And who would want that, Paine implies? By writing "first twenty years of our lives" instead of, say, "first five years," Paine alludes to the general consensus that a twenty-year-old is an adult.

He "answers roundly" (with conviction) that the colonies' growth was actually hampered by being part of a European empire. They would have been more healthy and successful "adults," he insists, if they had not been the "children" of the British empire. This was a radical premise in 1776, but one that buttressed Paine's argument for independence.

Staying under British rule is against the laws of nature.

Test the chances of reconciliation against what you know about people's reactions in similar crises throughout history, not against your own hopes and fears during this particular crisis. In other words, use common sense.

He poses two challenges to the supporters of reconciliation. If they can honestly answer each challenge, he asserts, and still support reconciliation, then they are selfish cowards bringing ruin to America.

Ask yourself if you can remain loyal to a nation that has brought war and suffering to you. If you say you can, you're fooling yourself and condemning us to a worse life under Britain than we suffer now.

Have you been the victim of British violence? If you haven't, then you still owe compassion to those who have. And if you have, yet still support reconciliation, then you have abandoned your conscience.

They are men who "can still shake hands with the murderers," i.e., men who have betrayed their fellow Americans and thus become as evil as the British invaders. There is no nuance in this condemnation, and thus no way for the reader to avoid its implications.

Addressed to "you" directly and not a faceless "he or they," the questions deliver an in-your-face challenge that allows no escape. Here's my question to you: Answer it! or your silence will reveal your cowardice.

The reader is off the hook. Since the challenges are deflected from "you," the reader, to the third-person "other," no immediate personal reply is demanded. The reader can blithely read on and avoid the aim of Paine's questions.

To govern ourselves is natural.

A colonial leader could grasp dictatorial power by taking advantage of the postwar disorder likely to result if the colonies have no constitution ready to implement. Even if Britain tried to regain control of the colonies, it could be too late to wrest control back from a powerful dictator. "Ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny," Paine warns, "by keeping vacant the seat of government."

He states that "some Massanello may hereafter arise" and grasp power, alluding to the short-lived people's revolt led by the commoner Thomas Aniello (Masaniello) in 1647 against Spanish control of Naples (Italy). The Spanish ruler granted a few rights, but Masaniello was soon murdered, ending the uprising and its short-lived gains for the people.

While suffering on the cross before his death, Jesus calls out, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23: 34); that is, his crucifiers do not know they are killing the Son of God. With this compelling allusion (which most readers would instantly recognize), Paine warns that opposing independence is as calamitous a decision for Americans as killing Jesus was for his executioners and for mankind.

They must establish the "free and independent States of America" as the sole preserve of human freedom in the world. A desperate fugitive, "freedom" has been "hunted" and "expelled" throughout the world, and it is America's mission to protect and nurture her. America's victory will be mankind's victory, not just the feat of thirteen small colonies in a distant corner of the world. NOTE: "A government of our own is our natural right" asserts Paine at the beginning of this excerpt. Six months later Thomas Jefferson asserted the same right in the opening of the Declaration of Independence. This Enlightenment ideal anchored revolutionary initiatives in America and Europe for decades.

Light, newness, glory

massacre, suffering

illusion, vain hope

adulthood, self-reliance

tying cord, unity for surivial

all future generations of mankind

replaced something old or no longer useful

an action or policy that serves as an example or rule for the future

as a metaphor, a test of the quality or genuineness of something (in the past, the purity of gold or silver was tested with a "touchstone" of basalt.)

a return to a previous worse condition after a period of improvement

someone who acts submissively to another in power in order to gain advantage; yes-man, flatterer, bootlicker, toady

uncertainty, instability; dependence on chance circumstances or unknown conditions

a cataclysmic flood

In writing or speech, the deliberate repetition of the first part of the sentence in order to achieve an artistic effect,

It helps lead the reader to a climax of the speech/writing. It is often used by politicians because it plays on emotion and rhythm. It's like the drum and fife leading the infantry. It sets a drum beat for the written beat leading the reader to the finale.

No. It was originally written anonymously.The large quantity of newspapers and pamphlets the Framers produced during the various crises of their generation show the extent to which the Framers relied upon anonymity. During the break with Great Britain, the revolutionaries employed pseudonyms both to conceal their identity from Crown authorities and to impart a message. Often, writers would choose names to signal their point of view or to invoke specific classical and modern "crusaders in an age long struggle against tyranny." Thus, leaders of the struggle for independence would adopt descriptive names such as [514 U.S. 334, 344] "Common Sense," a "Farmer," or "A True Patriot," or historical ones such as "Cato" (a name used by many to refer to the Roman Cato and to Cato's letters), or "Mucius Scaevola." Id., at xii-xiii. The practice was even more prevalent during the great outpouring of political argument and commentary that accompanied the ratification of the Constitution. Besides "Publius," prominent Federalists signed their articles and pamphlets with names such as "An American Citizen," "Marcus," "A Landholder," "Americanus"; Anti-Federalists replied with the pseudonyms "Cato," "Centinel," "Brutus," the "Federal Farmer," and "The Impartial Examiner." See generally 1-2 Debate on the Constitution (B. Bailyn ed. 1993). The practice of publishing one's thoughts anonymously or under pseudonym was so widespread that only two major Federalist or Anti-Federalist pieces appear to have been signed by their true authors, and they may have had special reasons to do so.[3]