By the end of 1775, American militia had already fought several battles against British troops as part of what would later go on to be called the American Revolutionary War.
Yet, despite these pitched battles, many – even among the men who would later lead the American Revolution and author America’s founding documents – still sought to reconcile relations with Britain, rather than wage war against it.
For example, Thomas Jefferson, who would later pen the Declaration of Independence, had in November 1775 written

There is not in the British Empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do.

So, to convince Americans that they should seek a clean break from Britain, an anonymous author published a pamphlet in support of American independence in January of 1776.
The anonymous author was later revealed to be Thomas Paine, an Englishman who emigrated to America at the suggestion of Benjamin Franklin, whom he met in London while Franklin was serving as the American colonies’ representative to Britain.
But Franklin could hardly have predicted the impact Paine would one day have on the fate of the colonies.
Paine’s advocacy for independence was not novel: newspapers had been publishing articles calling for separation from the British Empire years before Common Sense.
But Paine’s call for independence was particularly influential, its various editions selling throughout the American colonies and setting off fervent discussion of a rebellion against King George III.
One of the reasons Common Sense was so impactful was its style of writing: Paine, himself a member of the working class, set out to make Common Sense accessible to everyone.
Another was its timing: it found a receptive audience and was not merely an effort to persuade loyalists but also an attempt to clearly articulate the ideals of many who already harbored republican sentiments.
To do so, Paine intertwined appeals to reason - systematically laying out the case against monarchy - with appeals to emotion that made tangible his own rage at the injustice of monarchical rule:

One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

Below is a summary of the second edition of Common Sense published in February of 1776.

Summary of Common Sense

The Role of Government

Paine begins Common Sense by laying out his views on the appropriate role of government, arguing that its purpose is to provide for the security of the people it represents and restrain human vices which would otherwise encumber the success of society.

The Evils of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

He proceeds to discuss the evils of monarchy and hereditary succession, arguing that the origin of the British monarchy is ignoble, that present-day claims to the throne by descendants of this ignoble first monarch based on hereditary succession are thus invalid, and that hereditary succession – by imbuing heirs to the throne with a sense of self-importance and sheltering them from the complexities of the world – breeds rulers who are unfit to lead.
After describing what he believes to be the appropriate role of government and arguing that monarchies do not produce governments which competently serve this purpose, Paine goes on to advocate in favor of the American Revolution.

The British Constitution is Rife with Contradictions

Paine argues that the English constitution is deeply flawed:

The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor of their own government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason …. An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary …. neither are we capable of doing [justice] to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice …. [A]ny prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

Paine argues that the British constitution is riddled with contradictions, combining democratic elements in the form of its elected House of Commons, aristocracy in the form of its appointed House of Lords, and monarchy and hereditary succession in the form of a king:

[I]f we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. First. The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly. The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly. The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.

He argues that the idea that these three components parts of British government offer checks on each other is ridiculous.

Paine addresses the idea that the democratically elected house of commons, established long after Britain’s monarchy as part of the country’s centuries long effort to claw power away from its kings and queens, was a check on the monarchy.

He points out the contradiction of a constitution that both suggested that the monarchy is something which needs to be checked and authorized the commons to do so but also gives the king the authority to check the commons:

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions …. To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things. First. That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly. That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

America Can Thrive Without Britain

He claims that American commerce could thrive without a being a colony of Britain:

The commerce by which she [America] hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

He argues that America would not need the protection of Britain and that not being attached to the British Empire would extricate America from Britain’s various European rivalries:

France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain …. 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. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders …. any submission to, or dependence on Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it.

Britain is Not America’s “Parent” Country

Paine attempts to repudiate the notion that Britain is America’s “parent” country:

Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers off civil and religious liberty from every Part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home pursues their descendants still … all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole …. [are] distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Therefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.

He then argues that, even if every American were of British descent, it still would not imply that America should remain a British colony because Britain’s actions towards her colonies extinguished any good will that would result from such a connection:

But admitting that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title….

Moreover, Paine argues the idea that if Americans were all of English decent it would therefore be that case that England must rule America would imply that Britain should be governed by France because the present line of English monarchs descended from William the Conqueror, who sailed across the English Channel to seize England in 1066:

And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line [William the Conqueror] was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.

God Did Not Intend for Britain to Rule America

Paine then appeals to a theological argument, claiming that the distance of America from England and the timing of the discovery of the New World implies that God never meant for England to rule America:

Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

Britain is Incapable of Effectively Governing America

Paine further argues that the great distance between America and Britain means that Britain is incapable of effectively governing America:

As to government matters, it is not in the powers of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us …. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness. There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.

He proceeds to argue that it makes no sense to have the small island of Britain rule over the geographically much larger America:

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each Other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.

Moreover, he argues that America, as a British subject, will always be of secondary importance to the British government, with British interests taking precedence over American ones whenever the two are in conflict:

America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics. England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it.

Independence or Civil War

Paine then suggests that the strongest argument for American independence is that attempting to make peace with Britain may lead to a civil war between those Americans who seek independence and those who seek reconciliation with the Empire:

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence …. can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain …. Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission …. were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby…. In short, Independence is the only BOND that can tie and keep us together.

America Would Be Better Off Without Britain

Paine then proceeds to make the case that America would be better off as an independent republic than under the rule of the British monarchy because republics are less likely to enter into wars than monarchies:

The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.

Thus, for Paine, republics are less likely to suffer domestic civil wars because, in the absence of a monarchy, they are not subject to domestic feuds over the throne.

And, republics are less likely to enter into foreign wars than monarchies which are liable to start wars over issues of petty personal pride.

Paine’s line of reasoning here with respect to foreign wars is an early articulation of what today’s political theorists call democratic peace theory, the idea that democracies tend not to go to war with each other.

America Can Win

Paine then turns to the issue of building a navy, arguing that the financial cost of building a navy would be more than worth it when compared against the potential benefits of independence:

Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap …. The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished …. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this time, more than three millions and a half sterling.

He further claims that America is well-situated to build a navy, without having to import the necessary raw materials:

No country on the globe is so happily situated, so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing.

He further argues that the British navy is not as fearsome as it may appear, that its numerous imperial conquests mean it is stretched thin, that the American navy would not need to defeat the entire British navy to claim victory because Britain cannot abandon its other territories to concentrate the entirety of its navy on a conflict with America, that Britain’s vessels, being scattered all over the globe, would have to sail long distances before they even engaged a battle with the American navy patrolling its own coast line, and they would have to sail long distances once again for repairs, unlike the American navy.

In short, he argues that the British Empire’s imperial overreach left its navy vulnerable to defeat by an American navy:

The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service …. yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large …. Nothing can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit.

He further argues that America would not have difficulty producing the other instruments of war it would need for a conflict with Britain (e.g. gun powder, iron):

In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing.

Now or Never

Paine further argues that, for several reasons, the most opportune moment for a revolution was the present.

First, America being vast in size but relatively scarce in population meant that its abundant unoccupied land could be used to pay off any debts accumulated during the war effort:

Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which …. may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this …. It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk.

Second, Paine argued that the size of America’s population was in a sweet spot: its population was large enough to wage a rebellion but, were the colonies to wait to seek independence, the growth in its population in the interim may mean its inhabitants are less united, and therefore, less capable of waging an insurrection:

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.

Third, according to Paine, as the colonies’ population continues to grow, the extent of commerce grows. And, as commerce grows, men become less willing to risk losing the resultant wealth in the risky gamble of a rebellion:

[F]or trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to any thing else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence …. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.

Paine thus concludes:

Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence.

Paine’s Envisioned Republic

Paine’s call to arms envisioned replacing British rule with a republic that allowed for religious freedom and plurality:

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith …. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our christian kindness.

However, Common Sense had nothing to say about women’s rights and slavery in Paine’s envisioned new republic.

Paine was staunchly opposed to slavery: in March of 1775 he had penned a piece called African Slavery in America which excoriated the “lamentable” individuals who were “willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain.”
However, he made no mention of the subject of slavery in his call for an independent republic, perhaps out of fear that calling for an end to slavery would lead many Americans who supported slavery to reject the pamphlet in its entirety, including its call for a break from Britain.

Common Sense also omitted any reference to women’s suffrage in a new republic.

Indeed, Common Sense never explicitly defines who exactly would constitute a citizen in Paine’s envisioned new republic.

The Impact of Common Sense

The pamphlet was widely read and highly influential.
The first 1,000 copies of Common Sense, published in January 1776, sold out in just two weeks.
Paine published a second edition in February 1776.
150,000 copies of the pamphlet were sold in America alone within the first few months of its release.
And it has been estimated that half a million copies of Common Sense were bought during the American Revolution.
Moreover, these figures don’t even take into account other mediums through which Americans could access Paine’s case for independence.
Newspapers reprinted portions of Common Sense in their pages, families and friends shared copies of the pamphlet, foreign language editions were printed, publishers throughout the colonies printed their own copies for sale without permission, and people verbally discussed Paine’s arguments at home and in social settings.
Translations of Common Sense also circulated throughout Europe, its republican sentiments causing a stir as far east as Russia.
Paine’s appeal for independence had a profound impact on public sentiment and helped swing the general mood in favor of a break from England.
George Washington himself described Common Sense as consisting of “sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning.”
And whereas discussion of independence had previously been muted, now there was open talk of revolution throughout the thirteen colonies.
This growing desire for independence would culminate in Thomas Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

Written By: Aiden Singh Published: June 18, 2020 Sources

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

Table of Contents