Reactions to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

I think that the parent-child analogy that is often used to discuss one country's dominance over another is interesting; it is often a flawed concept. Thomas Paine discusses the reasons why Britain was not a good parent and explains why he does not consider Britain to be America's parent. I love the points that he makes here. The first, that Britain is a shameful parent, is fitting. As Paine says, "even brutes do not devour their young" and "nor savages make war upon their families," yet Britain was abusive to America through their use of the military, taxes, and by not allowing America to have a voice in politics. The second, that America was built with descendents of all of Europe, is also a valid point. This refutation of the parent-child analogy is, honestly, common sense.

I think there are other reasons why the parent-child analogy is flawed. For example, in human relationships, the child usually does not live with their parent for the entire duration of their life. At some point, children become adults and are ready to move out into the world as their own autonomous being. At age eighteen (in America and many other countries), a child is considered an adult and has their own legal rights that are independent of the parent's. The child becomes a free agent and does not have to abide by the parent's wishes. The same is true of America; even if Britain were the sole founder of America, it is natural that America would eventually grow into its own autonomous country.


Paine makes excellent use of rhetorical appeals in "Common Sense." He appeals to logic when he points out the flaws in the parent-child analogy, and also when he discusses the consequences of being affiliated with Britain during war time. His ethical appeals stem from his references to God; by using God's will as part of his argument for America's freedom, Paine makes himself seem credible to the Christian people of the nation. He entreats his audience to trust him by making himself seem like a moral, God-loving man. Paine's emotional appeals come across when Paine reminds his audience that Britain has contributed to the burning of American houses, has destroyed American families' properties in front of them, has left families "destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on," and has caused the death of both parents and children. In this last case, he throws out harsh names at anyone who could withstand all of these injuries and still love Britain; he calls these people "unworthy [of] the name of husband, father, friend, or lover" and tells them that they "have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant." In these lines, he is almost daring a person to support Britain and still keep their dignity.

One thing that I found disappointing in Paine's "Common Sense" was his exclusion of women. I know that gender neutrality was a rare thing in that time period, but I think that if a person is forward-thinking enough to suggest a country fight for independence, there is a chance that they might be forward-thinking enough to include women in their texts. Unfortunately, Paine consistently addresses men; he refers to "the concern of every man," "men of all ranks," "countrymen," and many other "men." Reading texts such as this one remind me of how little freedom women were allowed and how excluded they were. A part of me is disappointed that it was this way for so long, but another part is glad to see how much progress we have made.

Overall, I think that "Common Sense" is a convincing appeal to Americans to support independence from Britain. If I had read this as a colonist, I think I would have agreed with Paine wholeheartedly.

The Pennsylvania Gazette: King George's War and Runaway Servants

I decided to read issue 1021, published July 7, 1748, because July 7 is my birthday and that's as good a reason as any other when it comes to choosing a date to read about. This issue was published near the end of King George's War, which was fought between the French colonies and the British in North America.

The first thing that stood out was the slogan at the top: "Containing the freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestick." I liked that it used the word "freshest" rather than "latest" or some other synonym. "Freshest" sounds more appealing; I want to start referring to new items as "the freshest." The second was the spelling of certain words. For example, using "f" instead of "s." That looks so strange and I don't understand why that was done in that time period. It made it difficult to read the text because I had to consider whether the letter was an "f" or an "s" each time one appeared.

The dates at the top of each article were interesting to take note of because several of them are from February and April. This issue was published in July, so there was often a lapse of several months between the article's original publishing date and its inclusion in The Pennsylvania Gazette. It's hard to believe that it took that long for an article to circulate given how news works today. Now, people across the globe can access articles about events that happened only twenty minutes ago; it's hard to imagine not having that instant access to news.

The first article, "Expediency of Taking Quebec and Canada from the French," was about the Indian involvement in King George's war. The author discusses how the French attempted to bribe the Indians to help them with the war. I thought this discussion was intriguing. The author says that the French sent the Indians presents and made them promises. The French are also accused of attempting to use Christianity to gain compliance from the Indians; the author says that one of the catechisms used by the French in their attempts to convert the Indians teaches the Indians that the "saviour of the world" is French-born and that the English crucified the saviour. I would like to know if there is any truth to this statement or if it was a joke.

"Extract of a Letter from a young Lady at Lincoln, to her friend" was a story about performing good deeds. The young lady describes visiting a family who is distressed because something is killing their cattle and it is going to drive them into poverty. The lady responds by giving the family some of her own money. She describes this experience as providing her with a "more exquisite delight than [she] ever before had experienced" and then the letter ends by saying, "Go thou and do likewise." I found this article interesting because it centered on morality and social justice. In the midst of a page full of political articles about King George's War, there is this one piece that instead focuses on the joy of helping other people. It seems like an odd article to include, so I would like to know why Franklin thought it was fitting. Another article mentions that much of France "is in much distress, on account of the heaviness of taxes and the scarcity of provisions." This makes me think that perhaps Franklin was suggesting an end to the war between the French and the British because it was costing the people too much. If Britain is understood to the young lady with money to spare, then Franklin might be suggesting that Britain needs to have sympathy for the people of France and end the war.

One article mentions that the room in which a conference is to be held between several countries' ministers has to have five doors in order to prevent arguments over who should enter when (because of rank and precendency). I thought that was funny. It seems so silly to have something as simple as who gets to enter the room first be an important political issue.

I founds the advertisements section of this issue interesting as well. The first ad is about a slave that someone is trying to sell; I thought this was sad because it is so casual. It's hard to think that another human being was ever referred to as just a piece of property; the woman being sold is given less of a description than that of a lost horse that is in another ad. It's upsetting to see a human being advertised in the same section as land, kettles, and other goods. There were ten different ads pertaining to runaway servants; all but two were black or Irish. These ads indicate that these two groups of people were considered "less than" others; they were treated as property rather than people. Reading things like this remind me of America's past and how far we've come in accepting others, but also how far we still have to go.