Common Sense

Stirring and persuasive, Thomas Paine's short polemic Common Sense retains the passion and immediacy of the moment in which it was written: 1776, with Paine's fellow Americans in rebellion against their British parent. On one level, it is an argument against monarchy in general, but from this angle it is quite limited. Excitable and populist, using naked rhetoric to appeal to the emotions of its intended audience, it lacks the rigour such an argument requires – though it is still fun to read. Paine's appeals to Scripture to validate his case seem cynical given the atheism – or at least anti-theism – he espoused.

However, the argument against monarchy is merely the platform on which Paine pursues his true cause. Common Sense is show more primarily a plea for Paine's fellow Americans to seize their moment and establish their independence, for "no nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this" (pg. 54). He is right – America at that moment possessed strategic and commercial advantages, raw materials, reasonable military power, favourable political circumstances and politicians with the calibre to exploit them. It had momentum, and it's fascinating to detect the note of desperation, or at least unease, in Paine's writing here, that that momentum may be squandered.

We might look back now and see the United States as inevitable, given those advantages and circumstances, but might forget that it was Paine, among others, working frantically at the bellows. In this slight pamphlet, intended for a general audience, we can find the seeds of much of the United States' perception of itself; its political exceptionalism, its libertarian sensibility and its appeal to noble ideals. (We might also, perhaps a bit uncharitably, detect America's selective pursuit of those ideals, such as in Paine's off-hand dismissal of the "Indians and Negroes" who the British "hath stirred up… to destroy us" (pg. 45).)

A stable society, Paine writes in one of his more sober and analytical moments, involves a healthy and mutually-supportive relationship between government and governed; "this frequent interchange will establish a common interest… on this (and not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed" (pg. 8). 'Common sense', then, has a double meaning as Paine's title. It is not just Paine proposing that his argument is the only one that makes sense, the only one that discards of the nonsense of kings. The polemic, in its passion for an American republic borne out of revolution, provided for Americans a common sense, a shared vision or idea, of what they should seek to be. show less

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.

Unfortunate that the knee-jerk Right has appropriated this polished wit. I can't see how is reconciles with the specks of froth about emails and birth certificates. Baggage eschewed, this remains a powerful pamphlet, a catalyst for defiance. Not as convincing as J.S. Mill, but one rife with images and optimism.

4 / 5

just some light weekend reading lmao.

COMMON SENSE is one of the stronger foundational texts that influenced the declaration of independence - i found it 1) optimistic (naive?), 2) ironic considering the current state of american politics, and 3) suspiciously absent of discussion about native americans, enslaved peoples, and women.

basically, PAINE says in the very beginning that government is a necessary evil, which i found interesting. he lauds the natural rights of every man (cough cough what about women what about black people cough cough) to own property and be free, BUT!! the whole religious freedom thing is really not about total religious freedom at all - instead it’s about relative elasticity within the christian faith.

i show more thought the emphasis on convenience in government was a shrewd observation, and i think it’s paRTICULARLY portentous now. PAINE also emphasizes that the elected shall never form interests or attachments separate from the electors (the members of society), which… lmao.

it’s fascinating to read this with adult eyes and an adult brain, because i see so many places where the conceit of american independence is seen through rosy lenses. having the context of the last 250 years… im not so sure PAINE knew what he was talking about.

here are some of my favorite tidbits from COMMON SENSE:

“society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness… the first is a patron, the last a punisher.”

“society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one…”

“the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.” show less

"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."

As I see corporations capitulate to the wannabe king's nonsense in 2025 I realize that nothing has changed since Paine's time.

I feel a bit ashamed that this is the first time that I have read Common Sense in its entirety. It is a piece of American history that deserves our attention and respect. It is easy to see why it affected people of its time in the way that it did, as it is clearly and simply written and sets forth in undeniable logic the issues in question at the time.

Masterfully titled, Paine’s points do indeed seem to be common sense. I was particularly struck by his deft destruction of the divine right of kings and the portion of the pamphlet that dealt with the construction of a navy. I cannot believe that, had I been a citizen of this time, I would have hesitated to grasp his logic and embrace the ideas he put forth.

He is often credited with show more having a huge influence on the decision that was taken by many to risk everything in order to sever ties with George III and win independence from English rule. While his writing was passionate, his thoughts were solid and did not smack of any unbridled dislike of the English as much as a thoughtful study of the problem and an almost unavoidable conclusion.

One fact that I was surprised by, and did not remember ever having come across in any history class, was that he had only been in America for two years prior to writing this treatise extolling separation. I wonder what the more established “founding fathers” thought of that, since many had already been here for generations.

I think you have to give this 5✯'s for its historical value, its impact, and its writing style. show less

Thomas Paine is my favorite writer's (the late Christopher Hitchens) favorite writer, and therefore my responsibility to experience. Upon reading, I quickly understood the admiration. Paine, like Hitchens, is an enviously eloquent silver-tongued wordplayer who holds immoral sycophants to account for their cowardice. For shame that this was not part of my curriculum. How could a work like this be buried in general, purportedly as a result of future quasi-antitheistic work? This writing should be judged upon its own merits. History should have been kinder, as it is a masterpiece of reasoning and rationalism and a supreme galvanizer of men.

Thomas Paine's seminal 1776 publication arguing in favor of independence for the American colonies, and against further attempts at reconciliation with England.

As important historical documents go, this one has the benefit of being short, accessible, and still surprisingly readable nearly 250 years later. Some of Paine's arguments are better than others, and his opinions about the function of government look very simplistic from my 21st century perspective, although there is no doubt there are still plenty of people who think much the same way even now. But he does a great rant about why the whole concept of hereditary monarchies is irrational and morally bankrupt, and you can certainly see why he got people fired up and ready to get show more their rebellion on.

It also provides a fascinating sense of perspective to watch an important figure from the past thinking about the legacy the actions of his own time are going to leave for posterity, when you yourself are that posterity.

Rating: I'm giving this one a 4/5, as an interesting and painless-to-read window into history. (No pun intended.) show less