Thomas Paine, Common Sense Document

Pubished January, 1776

Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-common.html
2.8

Introduction
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure
them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being
right…
As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question… and as
the King of England had undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs,
and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an
undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of
either….
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will
arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are
affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country desolate with
Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders
thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of
feeling….
Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is
the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any
Party, and under no sort of influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Common Sense
On the Origin and Purposes of Government
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between
them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants,
and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our
affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates
distinctions. 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; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which
we might expect in a country without government, our calamities [are] heightened by reflecting that we
furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces
of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience Wear,
uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds
it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this
he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to
choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably
follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and
greatest benefit, is preferable to all others….
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of
moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and
security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of
reason will say, it is right.
 On the English Constitution
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that
the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when
disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of
England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the
world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject
to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are
simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the
remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so
exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in
which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will
advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if 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 [the House of Lords].
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.
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!
….
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. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in
some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with
this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the
most formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First, hath only made kings
more subtle not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is,
that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government
that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
 On Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation1, the equality could only be destroyed by
some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted
for…
But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned,
and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of
nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted
above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are
the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings 2; the
consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the
monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the
first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of
Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of
Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the
promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world
hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred
majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust.
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so
neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by
Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial
parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form…
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a
national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases,
where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the
tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the
Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons
of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form
of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced
against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small
army, and victory, thro' the divine interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate with success, and
attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou
and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but [a]
hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son
rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not
decline the honor but denieth their right to give it…
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which
the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so
it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular
concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old and thy

1
Note that this was written before the Declaration of Independence.
2
“In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” -- a recurring passage in the Book of Judges
sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot
but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens,
whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel
when they said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto
Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected
thee, but they have rejected me, THE I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works
which have done since the day; wherewith they brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day;
wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore
hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king
that shall reign over them, i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after.
And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion,
And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This
shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for
himself for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots [conscription]…
and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war… and he
will take your daughters to be confectioneries and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the
expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards,
even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your
vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and
favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid
servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work… and ye shall be his
servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE
LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither
do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the
sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but
only as a man after God's own heart.
Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said. Nay, but we will have a king
over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and
fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their
ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto
the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being the time of wheat
harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of
the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain
that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel,
Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS
THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no
equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial
government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much
of king-craft, as priest-craft in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For
monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation
and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on
posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family
in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of
honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them….
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger
number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a
very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of
England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly
hath no divinity in it…