Paine writes against the lucrative business of war, yet his entire reason for writing not only this book but also Common Sense is to encourage the people of certain nations to rise up and if necessary start a war if not a civil war. He fails to accept the consequences or think his urging of revolutions through. In the French Revolution many heinous acts occurred, one in particular was the lynch mob, executioners of Foulon and Bertier. Paine states, “ These outrages were not the effect of the principles of the Revolution, but of the degraded mind that existed before the Revolution, and which the Revolution is calculated to reform.” (p. 58-59) His ideal revolution took a nasty and realistic turn, yet he writes it off by blaming the former government, instead of thinking as Hume and question whether the cure is really better than the disease. Throughout the piece Paine speaks of war and revolutions with a disconnect between the two, war is always bad and a business for governments but he supports revolutions, at least Euro-centric ones. He does not mention that revolution is a war, albeit it is the people’s war, nevertheless they can be just as nasty as government run wars.
Paine writes against the lucrative business of war, yet his entire reason for writing not only this book but also Common Sense is to encourage the people of certain nations to rise up and if necessary start a war if not a civil war. He fails to accept the consequences or think his urging of revolutions through. In the French Revolution many heinous acts occurred, one in particular was the lynch mob, executioners of Foulon and Bertier. Paine states, “ These outrages were not the effect of the principles of the Revolution, but of the degraded mind that existed be...
... middle of paper ...
...etely thought out would have made his argument perhaps not as fiery but it would be more enlightened. It is true that one can never know how something will turn out, but the people need to know not only that they are being mistreated by a government but also the effects of the revolution that he so persist is the best thing for them.
There is another fact about Thomas Paine’s Part One of the “Rights of Man” that is baffling. In an essay that defends the principles and events of the Revolution of France, it is remarkable that Paine discusses only one of the French Revolutionary leaders, the Marquis de Lafayette. Paine fails to discuss any of the other leaders or even other revolutionary writers but brings up Lafayette in at least four other sections in Part One. Being that the Marquis set up a Liberal government in France and ignored the radicals,
Paine’s use of language to appeal both to his reader’s reason and emotion has given him the advantage of creating an emotional connection between himself and the reader, attempting to raise their spirits and show them what could be, while also asking them to put their own minds to the problem at hand. Asking them to make sense of their current situation. He gives hope and then appeals to their ability to discern what is best for their new world. By doing this, he has presented reason after reason for them to declare independence before he practically turned to them and said “Don’t you think so?” the only ‘reasonable’ answer would at that point be, “Yes of course Mr. Paine you’re completely right!”
When it comes to the topic of the American Revolution, most of us will readily agree that it influenced essentially every code of ethics in today’s society. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine address an identical topic. That is, they both provided inspiration to the American Revolution cause. Patrick henry on one point of view, speaks of the harshness of the British rule over the American colonies. In his statement, Patrick Henry addresses the oppressive British rule and emphasis grounds to maintain basic human rights. “Common Sense”, on the other hand stresses on the trials and tribulations of the American colonies under the British rule. With the use of persuasion in their writings, both Henry and Paine support the war against the Great Britain.
Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine were the infrastructures are the Revolutionary movement against their father country, Great Britain. Patrick Henry was a Governor from Virginia, who became notorious for his presence as a persuasive orator in the Virginia House of Burgess. One of the most intricate works he utilized to get Congress on board for war spoke to the Convention on March 23, 1775, Speech to the Virginia Convention. He offered a proposition to the Convention as he saw them tilting towards a diplomatic approach but Henry saw that war was inevitable and they needed to bear down for the struggle. In contrast, Thomas Paine was blatant with his purpose for writing The Crisis, No. 1. Paine was a gun hoe political activist with a niche for radial pieces. His audience differed from Henry, who was appealing to Politicians and had to evoke the logical side to augment credibility amongst the Convention. Paine had to render the spirits of soldiers beaten and weary from the extended periods of war and brutal winter. Markedly, the soldiers endured bouts of depression provoked by a sense of defeat and loss of time with their families. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine knew they had to conjure fighting spirits in the people, who have allowed domination by a country thousands of miles away. Henry and Paine had a proclivity to move people with graphic and thought-provoking works bursting with rhetoric and figurative language that awakened the souls of their diverse audiences to ignite the war for freedom.
The first thing that Paine did was to attack the king in his writing. He says that all mankind is created equally so why should there be a separation of kings and subjects. This is a good statement because it probably touched upon what the people of that time were feeling about there king.
Both Paine and Henry tried to push for support against Great Britain and motivate the colonies and their residents to side with the revolutionaries. Both felt obligated to stand up for their unalienable rights and the good of the nation, and this is most evident when Henry declared that he had to speak up, or "[he] should consider [him]self as guilty of treason towards [his] country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven [...]" (Henry 232). Both agree that compromise with Great Britain is not a solution, for it had been ineffective in the past. Both believe that only war can solve the problems of the colonies, and "only in this way [...] we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country" (Henry 230). When Henry pronounces that through freedom, which can only be reached through winning a war, is the only way to accomplish the nation's goals, he sets an objective. Henry's logicality and straightforwardness hits the audience with ...
The measures made to ensure the king does not have absolute power are not enough to prevent him from ultimately getting his way no matter what that may be. On page 27 Paine tells how the king made the declaration that there will be no law unless put in place by himself. This effort to make the colonists powerless as to how they are governed is tyranny. Paine’s also argues that this event shows how Britain believes America has become too powerful and is trying to slow its growth and development (27). Those who are in parliament so far away from the tragic events that take place in America who live in such a vastly different world are too ignorant to make judgements for America (23). Paine’s statement that in America “law is king,” demonstrates the author’s argument that law developed for the people should be what runs the country not a single man (30). This coincides with the way America was running well before the war ended and Britain decided to exert more power over the colonies. This is made even more evident when Thomas Paine states Britain cannot be relied on to defend them because Britain is the entity that had been trying to take away America’s power and the people rights. Furthermore,
Paine believed that America needed to break free of the British clutches. He spoke out against slavery and joined the army to help fight the war. He did not agree with hereditary monarchy and wrote another paper to argue this point (Franklin 321). Paine was very aware of his criticizers, and worked very hard to persuade them toward his way of thinking. In his pamphlet Common Sense he writes: "I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect"(Paine 323). Paine states the following argument: ."..for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and proba...
Paine had not entertained the idea of independence from Britain when he arrived in America. He thought it was “a kind of treason” to break away from Britain. It was not until the Battle of Lexington in 1775 that he considered “the compact between Britain and America to be broken” (Claeys). This idea of a broken compact allowed Thomas Paine to write a political pamphlet.
Paine attempts to show how America is far greater than any one man. For example, Paine states, “Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom; but of a continent-of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe” (642). This showcases that Paine does not feel as if America is a fledgling nation by any means. He believes America is one of the major continents on the Earth. This statement is also way for Paine to show the reader how they are not fighting for a small piece of land, but that they are fighting for a continent to establish a new nation on. He utilizes this as a way to illustrate how the significance of this revolution is gigantic and will not just have effects on the colonists presently living in America, but that it will effect the world as a whole till the end of time. Once again, Paine is able to show that this revolution is not just a mindless overthrow of the present government, but it is a significant way to altar the lives of the colonists’ descendants in an extremely amazing
Paine declares his problems with the British monarchy, he says they are essentially being liars because they are a country where they believe all men are created equally, but yet they have a king. This is how he argued against the sanctity of the monarchy, he argues that the idea of kings originates from the Bible, when the Jews asked the prophet, Samuel, for a king. According to Paine’s sources, Samuel warned the Jews of the outcomes of having a King but they did not listen. This is why Paine is convinced the kings come from sins. This is how Paine was so successful in changing the peoples’ understanding because they were strict on religion. Paine is saying that there is no real reason to have a king because they have generals and judges, therefore, the duties of a king are meaningless. Paine concludes the monarchy has only produced nothing besides a wrongful
... criticizes the English constitution for the flaws it contains due to the oppression it puts on its people. Paine also gives an incite to the idea of having a single powerful person in charge of the government but at the same time dividing up the power to multiple parties which represents all aspects of the population. This leads to the idea of monarchy and hereditary succession and how it is extremely flawed, from causing internal complications to having minors who are appointed ruler. With these theories I can see how religion can play a role in complicating his theories because they will always be in the back of his mind and how some religions may complicate while other not. Some may feel that his arguments are plain and just off his own opinion, but I feel that his theories can be a clear starting point to developing an equal, just, and long-lasting government.
Back in the late 1700s America was still a newly founded country and Paine was trying to make and image where America was great with absolutely no problems. America suffers with almost no unity and though some of Paine 's statements were accurate and some not so much this shows that with time everything changes. The country Paine characterized is a country where the majority of Americans want to live in. A country where there is equality and justice, but one day this country will achieve that again with
The language used in Common Sense is that of a leader hoping to inspire his followers to heed his warning and answer his call. Paine's audience was the people of the colonies, he wanted them to realize that the oppression of the crown has not limit and sure there were benefits of belonging to the crown, there were far more oppression beyond measure that comes with such benefits.
Thomas Paine is undoubtedly one of the most prolific founding fathers of the United States, albeit not in the manner most would expect from a founding father. Paine was not a drafter of the constitution, nor was he an early member of Congress or President of the United States. However, Paine did have a profound impact on society, not only in America, but also abroad. Often remembered for helping spur the American Revolution, yet not as often remembered for the other revolution in France. Two of the more famous writings from Paine are, of course, Common Sense and The Rights of Man, both of which were written during revolutionary times in separate countries. It goes without saying that when a revolution is taking place there will be many on both sides of the war; in both of these instances, Paine was the voice of the people and stood up for what was right regardless of the consequences. I posit Thomas Paine was the most influential man for revolution in America and France despite fear of backlash or imprisonment. In fact, near the end of his life Paine was not only imprisoned, but somehow evaded being beheaded as well. Thomas Paine was even more influential as a result of his extreme lack of self-interest and ability to stay true to the cause of his writings rather than wither away in fear.
Thomas Paine was part of the Enlightment era that made people realize it is more out there than just one religion and the rule of law is enforced by God not the King. Paine tried to get people to see that the government was evil self-destructing and it did not do them any good to remain loyal to England. Thomas Paine tried to get others to see that God made everyone equal and the King does not recognize us as being equal because he is better and that is why he is king “MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstances”(8). Paine mentions to the people that in early ages of the world, according to scripture there were no kings; which there was no wars (9). Government was into the world by Heathens, which Paine stated that this was the greatest, the invention the Devil ever made. The people where idolizing one man and that was the king and Paine tried to get people to see God does not want you to idolize no one but him, because he has the say so in the world and heavens. Paine said, “Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins