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.