Common Sense

I finished Common Sense last week, but haven't gotten around to summing up the read.  After reading the pamphlet I have some questions and ponderings.

Seceding from the Crown is treason.  The speaking of or planning of secession is more than likely viewed to be treasonous.  It seems to me, to be convinced of the need of secession, a pamphlet calling to do so would need to be cognitive and cite specific grievances.  Which Common Sense does not do.  The pamphlet works mostly in the state of nature.  It is unnatural for this relationship to continue and since it is against the state of nature it will continue to create friction.

Paine argues for independence over reconciliation.  His main reasoning is that cutting ties will solve the issues and not prolong them to worsen with time.  Also, calling it quits is easier.  The most information Paine gives into the issue of independence over reconciliation comes from the four things he lists as a reasons for independence.  I have paraphrased them below:

1.  No other country can mediate as long as America remains a subject of Great Britain

2.  No foreign aid to help us against Great Britain if we remain a subject of Great Britain - why would France or Spain help America which would be strengthening their enemy of Great Britain?

3.  We must appear to be rebels to foreign powers - all those in power fear rebellion wherever it may be

4.  We must send a declaration of our peace and grievances not only to Great Britain but to other courts as well to outline our troubles and efforts of reconciliation.  We must also extend a hand of friendship and trade to these courts. Basically, make friends!

What he is saying here, is that negotiations will continue to be one sided.  Talks will be a waste of time and yield no conclusion favorable for the colonies because there is no party to force the King to do so.

What the pamphlet's lack of grievances tells me is that the American people did not need to be told.  Everyone every where had felt or come into contact with the King's tyrannical policies in some way.  Independence was not the first option.  In the beginning it was probably not even on the minds.  After all, most Americans felt and believed they were still British subjects, but most Britons held the colonists on a lower tier.  I am trying to put together an argument for the Loyalists but I am having a hard time.  Maybe we will settle on calling them CANADIANS.  Some of the Loyalists fled to Canada.

I jotted down some neat quotes I think are relevant to today.

"We are already greater than the King wishes us to be, and will he not endeavor to make us less?"

"...that it would be policy of the King at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order that he may accomplish by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one..."

Paine also views the role of government is to, "Secure freedom and property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."

Paine sounds very American.  Which is kind of strange seeing as how he emigrated to the Colonies in 1774 when it was suggested to him by Benjamin Franklin.  Paine had a lot of failed endeavors when he was in England either due to misfortune or laziness on his part.  He started to frequent intellectual circles that got him thinking on things and somehow came into contact with great Americans like Franklin.  I find this interesting.  Here we have a man viewed to have written a great document that is considered to have great influence on the American people to seek independence from the Crown.  He sounds like an American in his philosophy but he was hardly an American by time he wrote Common Sense.

I am inclined to believe, after a brief look into his past endeavors and finding nothing of value, that Paine was proficient in reading the currents.  He had positioned himself to be introduced to the ideas of great thinkers.  He also mixed himself up with a revolution twice.  I have a hard time believing in 1774 he did not have an idea or a want to see an American revolution.  Why else did he come here, other than to escape debtors prison?  (Another story for another time perhaps)  When the French revolution loomed on the horizon he ran off to stir up anyone and everyone.

I feel I do not yet know enough of the man to pass judgement.  I can't help but feeling, "Thanks for push and solidarity your pamphlet seemingly brought to the American people, bro, but it was nice of you to run off to France so we were rid of your mischief!"