Eleanor Finch
Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet, 'Common Sense', was a scathing critique of the injustice of rule by a king, and an argument for American independence. Paine believed that the English Constitution was so complex that the nation would suffer without being able to identify the source of its problems. He saw the constitution as a combination of two ancient tyrannies: monarchical and aristocratical, with some new republican elements in the form of the Commons. Paine criticised the monarchy as an absurdity, arguing that the king was unwise and uninformed, and that the institution was an affront to God. He also believed that hereditary succession was a degradation and an imposition on posterity. Paine's ideas influenced the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, shaping the course of American history.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Complexity of the English Constitution | Paine believed that the English Constitution was so complex that the nation may suffer for years without being able to identify the source of its problems. |
| Monarchy | Paine criticised the monarchy, arguing that it was absurd and useless, with the king being unwise and lacking information yet having too much power. |
| Tyranny | Paine saw the English Constitution as containing the remains of two ancient tyrannies: monarchical and aristocratical tyranny, with the king and peers being independent of the people. |
| Republicanism | Paine acknowledged the presence of new Republican materials in the form of the Commons, whose virtue was seen as crucial for England's freedom. |
| Inequality | Paine pointed out the inequality in the English Constitution, where the crown, as the giver of places and pensions, held too much power. |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Monarchical tyranny
Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" (1776) was a scathing critique of monarchical rule and a defence of democracy. Paine's arguments against monarchy were twofold: firstly, he believed that the institution of monarchy was fundamentally absurd, and secondly, he saw the English monarchy as a form of tyranny.
Paine's "Common Sense" argues that the English Constitution is so complex that it is difficult to identify the source of its faults. He identifies three components of the English Constitution: the remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king, the remains of aristocratic tyranny in the persons of the peers, and new republican materials in the persons of the commons. Paine contends that the first two components, being hereditary, are independent of the people and therefore contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
Paine saw the institution of monarchy as fundamentally absurd. He believed that the state of being a king "shuts him from the world", yet a king must know the world thoroughly to rule effectively. Paine thought that monarchy was an affront to God, as it implied that some people are born to be rulers and others to be subjects. He also criticised the idea of hereditary succession, arguing that there is no reason to believe that royal children will make good rulers, and that nature disapproves of it, "otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion".
Paine also saw the English monarchy as a form of tyranny. He believed that the English Constitution gave the monarchy and nobles in Parliament too much power to thwart the people's elected representatives. Paine wrote that "the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution", and that it derives its power from being the giver of places and pensions. He argued that the monarchy had the power to check the Commons by empowering the king to reject their bills, which assumed that the king was wiser than those whom the constitution had already supposed to be wiser than him. Paine saw this as an absurdity, and further evidence of the tyrannical nature of the English monarchy.
The US Constitution: Misconceptions and Reality
You may want to see also
Aristocratical tyranny
Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" (1776) was a scathing critique of the injustice of rule by a king and a defence of separation from Great Britain. Paine's arguments influenced a large part of the undecided group to support American independence.
Paine believed that the English Constitution was so complex that the nation might suffer for years without being able to identify the source of its problems. He identified three components of the English Constitution:
The second component of the English Constitution, according to Paine, was the "remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers". This was the hereditary nature of the aristocracy, which made them independent of the people. Paine believed that this contributed nothing towards the freedom of the state.
Paine argued that the English system gave too much power to the monarchy and nobles in Parliament, undermining the people's elected representatives. He criticised the idea of monarchy as an affront to God, questioning why some people should be born to be rulers and others subjects. Paine also pointed out the absurdity of a system that first deprives a man of the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases requiring the highest judgment.
Paine's critique of the English Constitution and its complexities played a significant role in shaping American colonists' push for independence and the creation of a new form of government.
Workplace Rights: Indiana's Hostile Work Environments
You may want to see also
Republican materials
In his 1776 pamphlet, *Common Sense*, Thomas Paine argues that the English Constitution is exceedingly complex, making it difficult to identify the source of its faults. Paine identifies the constitution as being comprised of "the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials".
Firstly, Paine identifies the "remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King". Paine ridicules the idea of a hereditary monarch, claiming that the passing down of power from father to son is a bad idea, and that there is no reason to believe that royal children will make good rulers. Paine argues that the state of being a king shuts the king off from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly. Paine claims that the constitution gives the Commons the power to check the King by withholding supplies, but then gives the King the power to check the Commons by allowing him to reject their other bills, which assumes that the King is wiser than the Commons. Paine also claims that the King and Parliament will inevitably rule for Britain's benefit, not America's.
Secondly, Paine identifies the "remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers". Paine claims that the Peers, like the King, are independent of the people and therefore contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
Thirdly, Paine identifies "new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England". Paine argues that the Commons are the only element of the constitution that contributes towards the freedom of the state.
Paine's pamphlet was written at a time when reconciliation with Great Britain seemed unlikely, yet independence seemed unthinkable. Paine's forceful and democratic arguments in favour of separation from Britain were written in plain language that appealed to the common capacities of all people. The pamphlet was a success, selling an estimated 500,000 copies and shifting American sentiment towards independence. Paine's ideas about the need for a new form of government influenced the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment: Teachers' Right to Bear Arms
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$0.99 $7.75
$34.01
$1.99 $15.95
Excessive complexity
Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet, 'Common Sense', was a scathing critique of the injustice of rule by a king and a defence of separation from Great Britain. Paine's arguments influenced a large part of the undecided group to support American independence.
Paine believed that the English Constitution was so complex that the nation might suffer for years without being able to identify the source of its problems. He saw the constitution as being composed of the base remains of two ancient tyrannies: the remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king, and the remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Paine believed that these two elements contributed nothing to the freedom of the state because they were independent of the people.
Paine also criticised the idea of hereditary monarchy, arguing that there was no reason to think that royal children would make good rulers. He saw the passing down of power from father to son as an insult and imposition on posterity. Paine further argued that the constitution gave the monarchy and nobles in Parliament too much power to thwart the people's elected representatives.
Paine's pamphlet promoted the idea of American exceptionalism and the need to form a new nation. He envisioned a strong central government, with a constitution that protected individual rights, including freedom of religion. Paine's ideas found their way into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Gestures, Gaze, and Posture: What's Not Non-Verbal?
You may want to see also
Lack of regulation
Thomas Paine's views on the English Constitution were outlined in his 1776 pamphlet, "Common Sense". Paine believed that the English Constitution was exceedingly complex, and that this complexity was detrimental to the nation. He argued that the constitution was so complex that it was difficult to identify the source of any issues, and that different people would blame different parts of the constitution for the same problem. This made it challenging to find effective solutions, as different experts would recommend different approaches.
Paine attributed the complexity of the English Constitution to its composite nature, which he saw as comprising "the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials". The first of these "ancient tyrannies" was the monarchy, in the person of the king. Paine saw the monarchy as an inherently absurd institution, which gave the king power while simultaneously limiting his access to information. He believed that the king's seclusion from the world hindered his ability to govern effectively. Paine also criticised the hereditary nature of the monarchy, arguing that there was no reason to assume that royal children would make good rulers.
The second "ancient tyranny" identified by Paine was the aristocracy, represented by the peers. Like the monarchy, the aristocracy was criticised for its hereditary nature, which Paine saw as contributing nothing towards the freedom of the state. Paine believed that these two elements of the constitution, by being independent of the people, were inherently opposed to the concept of freedom.
In contrast to the monarchy and aristocracy, Paine saw the commons as representing the new Republican materials in the constitution. The commons had the power to check the king by withholding supplies, but the king could then overrule them by rejecting their bills. This dynamic, Paine argued, assumed that the king was wiser than the commons, which he saw as an absurdity. He believed that the crown was the overbearing part of the English Constitution, deriving its power from being the giver of places and pensions.
Overall, Paine's critique of the English Constitution centred on its lack of regulation and the resulting complexity. He believed that the constitution's composite nature, including both ancient tyrannies and new Republican elements, led to confusion and ineffectiveness in governance.
Executive Orders: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Paine believed that the English Constitution was complex because it was composed of the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.
The first was the remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the King. The second was the remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.
Paine referred to the Commons as the new Republican materials, on whose virtue the freedom of England depended.
Paine argued that the English Constitution was designed to give the monarchy and nobles in Parliament too much power to thwart the people's elected representatives.
