In furrows ploughed deep by lawless despotism, watered with blood of
patriots, the Thetford Quaker sowed his seed--true English seed. Even
while he did so he was suspected of being a British spy, and might
have been roughly handled in Philadelphia had it not been for Franklin.
Possibly this suspicion may have arisen from his having, in the
antislavery letter, asked the Americans "to consider with what
consistency or decency they complain so loudly of attempts to enslave
them, while they hold so many thousands in slavery." Perfectly
indifferent to this, Paine devoted the autumn of 1775 to his pamphlet
"Common Sense," which with the new year "burst from the press with an
effect which has rarely been produced by types and paper in any age or
country." So says Dr. Benjamin Rush, and his assertion, often quoted,
has as often been confirmed.
Of the paramount influence of Paine's "Common Sense" there can indeed
be no question.* It reached Washington soon after tidings that Norfolk,
Virginia, had been burned (Jan. 1st) by Lord Dunmore, as Falmouth (now
Portland), Maine, had been, Oct 17, 1775, by ships under Admiral Graves.
* "This day was published, and is now selling by Robert
Bell, in Third Street, [Phil.] price two shillings, 'Common
Sense,' addressed to the inhabitants of North America."--
Pennsylvania Journal, Jan. 10, 1776.
The General wrote to Joseph Reed, from Cambridge, Jan. 31st: "A few more
of such flaming arguments as were exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk,
added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning contained in the
pamphlet 'Common Sense,' will not leave numbers at a loss to decide upon
the propriety of separation."*
Henry Wisner, a New York delegate in Congress, sent the pamphlet to John
McKesson, Secretary of the Provincial Congress sitting in New York City,
with the following note: "Sir, I have only to ask the favour of you to
read this pamphlet, consulting Mr. Scott and such of the Committee of
Safety as you think proper, particularly Orange and Ulster, and let me
know their and your opinion of the general spirit of it. I would have
wrote a letter on the subject, but the bearer is waiting." In pursuance
of this General Scott suggested a private meeting, and McKesson read
the pamphlet aloud. New York, the last State to agree to separation, was
alarmed by the pamphlet, and these leaders at first thought of answering
it, but found themselves without the necessary arguments. Henry
Wisner, however, required arguments rather than orders, and despite the
instructions of his State gave New York the honor of having one name
among those who, on July 4th, voted for independence.** Joel Barlow, a
student in Yale College at the beginning of the Revolution, has borne
testimony to the great effect of Paine's pamphlet, as may be seen in his
biography by Mr. Todd.
* "The Writings of George Washington." Collected and edited
by Wotthington Chauncey Ford, vol. iii., p. 396.
** Mag. Am. Hist., July, 1880, p. 62, and Dec., 1888, p.
479. The Declaration passed on July 4th was not signed until
Aug. 2d, the postponement being for the purpose of removing
the restrictions placed by New York and Maryland on their
delegates. Wisner, the only New York delegate who had voted
for the Declaration, did not return until after the recess.
In Trumbull's picture at the Capitol Thomas Stone, a signer
for Maryland, is left out, and Robert Livingston of New York
is included, though he did not sign it.
An original copy of Paine's excise pamphlet (1792) in my possession
contains a note in pencil, apparently contemporary, suggesting that the
introduction was written by Barlow. In this introduction--probably by
Barlow, certainly by a competent observer of events in America--it is
said:
"On this celebrated publication ['Common Sense'], which has received the
testimony of praise from the wise and learned of different nations, we
need only remark (for the merit of every work should be judged by its
effect) that it gave spirit and resolution to the Americans, who were
then wavering and undetermined, to assert their rights, and inspired a
decisive energy into their counsels: we may therefore venture to say,
without fear of contradiction, that the great American cause owed as
much to the pen of Paine as to the sword of Washington."*
* And yet--such was the power of theological intimidation--
even heretical Barlow could find no place for Paine in his
_Columbiad_(1807).
Edmund Randolph, our first Attorney-General, who had been on
Washington's staff in the beginning of the war, and conducted much of
his correspondence, ascribed independence primarily to George III.,
but next to "Thomas Paine, an Englishman by birth, and possessing an
imagination which happily combined political topics, poured forth in a
style hitherto unknown on this side of the Atlantic, from the ease
with which it insinuated itself into the hearts of the people who were
unlearned, or of the learned."* This is from a devout churchman, writing
after Paine's death. Paine's malignant biographer, Cheetham (1809), is
constrained to say of "Common Sense": "Speaking a language which the
colonists had felt but not thought, its popularity, terrible in its
consequences to the parent country, was unexampled in the history of the
press."**
* Randolph's "History" (MS.), a possession of the Virginia
Historical Society, has been confided to my editorial care
for publication.
** See also the historians, Ramsay (Rev., i., p. 336,
London, 1793), Gordon (Rev., ii., p. 78, New York, 1794),
Bryant and Gay (U. S., iii., p. 471, New York, 1879).
Let it not be supposed that Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Randolph,
and the rest, were carried away by a meteor. Deep answers only unto
deep. Paine's ideas went far because they came far. He was the authentic
commoner, representing English freedom in the new world. There was no
dreg in the poverty of his people that he had not tasted, no humiliation
in their dependence, no outlook of their hopelessness, he had not known,
and with the addition of intellectual hungers which made his old-world
despair conscious. The squalor and abjectness of Thetford, its
corporation held in the hollow of Grafton's hand, its members of
Parliament also, the innumerable villages equally helpless, the
unspeakable corruptions of the government, the repeated and always
baffled efforts of the outraged people for some redress,--these had been
brought home to Paine in many ways, had finally driven him to America,
where he arrived on the hour for which none had been so exactly and
thoroughly trained. He had thrown off the old world, and that America
had virtually done the same, constituted its attraction for him. In the
opening essay in his magazine, written within a month of his arrival in
the country (Nov. 30, 1774), Paine speaks of America as a "nation," and
his pregnant sentences prove how mature the principles of independence
had become in his mind long before the outbreak of hostilities.
"America has now outgrown the state of infancy. Her strength and
commerce make large advances to manhood; and science in all its branches
has not only blossomed, but even ripened upon the soil. The cottages as
it were of yesterday have grown to villages, and the villages to cities;
and while proud antiquity, like a skeleton in rags, parades the streets
of other nations, their genius, as if sickened and disgusted with the
phantom, comes hither for recovery.... America yet inherits a large
portion of her first-imported virtue. Degeneracy is here almost a
useless word. Those who are conversant with Europe would be tempted
to believe that even the air of the Atlantic disagrees with the
constitution of foreign vices; if they survive the voyage they either
expire on their arrival, or linger away in an incurable consumption.
There is a happy something in the climate of America which disarms them
of all their power both of infection and attraction."
In presently raising the standard of republican independence, Paine
speaks of separation from England as a foregone conclusion. "I have
always considered the independency of this continent as an event which
sooner or later must arrive." Great Britain having forced a collision,
the very least that America can demand is separation.
"The object contended for ought always to bear some just proportion to
the expence. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a
matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of
trade was an inconvenience which would have sufficiently balanced the
repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained;
but if the whole Continent must take up arms, if every man must be a
soldier, 't is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible
ministry only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if
that is all we fight for; for, in a just estimation, 't is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land.... It would be
policy in the king, at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of
reinstating himself in the government of the provinces, in order that he
may accomplish by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot
do by force and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are
nearly related."
Starting with the lowest demand, separation, Paine shows the justice
and necessity of it lying fundamentally in the nature of monarchy
as represented by Great Britain, and the potential republicanism of
colonies composed of people from all countries. The keynote of this is
struck in the introduction. The author withholds his name "because
the object of attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man "; and he
affirms, "the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all
mankind."
No other pamphlet published during the Revolution is comparable with
"Common Sense" for interest to the reader of to-day, or for value as
an historical document. Therein as in a mirror is beheld the almost
incredible England, against which the colonies contended. And therein
is reflected the moral, even religious, enthusiasm which raised the
struggle above the paltriness of a rebellion against taxation to a great
human movement,--a war for an idea. The art with which every sentence is
feathered for its aim is consummate.
The work was for a time generally attributed to Franklin. It is said the
Doctor was reproached by a loyal lady for using in it such an epithet as
"the royal brute of Britain." He assured her that he had not written the
pamphlet, and would never so dishonor the brute creation.
In his letter to Cheetham (1809) already referred to, Dr. Rush claims to
have suggested the work to Paine, who read the sheets to him and also
to Dr. Franklin. This letter, however, gives so many indications of
an enfeebled memory, that it cannot be accepted against Paine's own
assertion, made in the year following the publication of "Common Sense,"
when Dr. Rush and Dr. Franklin might have denied it.
"In October, 1775, Dr. Franklin proposed giving me such materials
as were in his hands towards completing a history of the present
transactions, and seemed desirous of having the first volume out the
next spring. I had then formed the outlines of 'Common Sense,' and
finished nearly the first part; and as I supposed the doctor's design
in getting out a history was to open the new year with a new system, I
expected to surprise him with a production on that subject much earlier
than he thought of; and without informing him of what I was doing, got
it ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could, and sent him the
first pamphlet that was printed off."
On the other hand, Paine's memory was at fault when he wrote (December
3, 1802): "In my publications, I follow the rule I began with in 'Common
Sense.' that is, to consult nobody, nor to let anybody see what I write
till it appears publicly." This was certainly his rule, but in the case
of "Common Sense" he himself mentions (_Penn. Jour_., April 10, 1776)
having shown parts of the MS. to a "very few." Dr. Rush is correct in
his statement that Paine had difficulty in finding "a printer who
had boldness enough to publish it," and that he (Rush) mentioned the
pamphlet to the Scotch bookseller, Robert Bell. For Bell says, in
a contemporary leaflet: "When the work was at a stand for want of a
courageous Typographer, I was then recommended by a gentleman nearly in
the following words: 'There is Bell, he is a Republican printer, give
it to him, and I will answer for his courage to print it.'" Dr. Rush
probably required some knowledge of the contents of the pamphlet before
he made this recommendation.
That Dr. Rush is mistaken in saying the manuscript was submitted to
Franklin, and a sentence modified by him, is proved by the fact that on
February 19th, more than a month after the pamphlet appeared, Franklin
introduced Paine to Gen. Charles Lee with a letter containing the words,
"He is the reputed and, I think, the real author of 'Common sense.'"
Franklin could not have thus hesitated had there been in the work
anything of his own, or anything he had seen. Beyond such disclosures
to Dr. Rush, and one or two others, as were necessary to secure
publication, Paine kept the secret of his authorship as long as he
could. His recent arrival in the country might have impaired the force
of his pamphlet.
The authorship of "Common Sense" was guessed by the "Tory" President of
the University of Philadelphia, the Rev. William Smith, D.D., who knew
pretty well the previous intellectual resources of that city. Writing
under the name of "Cato" he spoke of "the foul pages of interested
writers, and strangers intermeddling in our affairs." To which "The
Forester" (Paine) answers: "A freeman, Cato, is a stranger nowhere,--a
slave, everywhere."*
* "The writer of 'Common Sense' and 'The Forester' is the
same person. His name is Paine, a gentleman about two years
ago from England,--a man who, General Lee says, has genius
in his eyes."--John Adams to his wife.
The publication of "Common Sense" had been followed by a number of
applauding pamphlets, some of them crude or extravagant, from Bell's
press. "Cato" was anxious to affiliate these "additional doses" on the
author of "Common Sense," who replies:
"Perhaps there never was a pamphlet, since the use of letters were
known, about which so little pains were taken, and of which so great
a number went off in so short a time. I am certain that I am within
compass when I say one hundred and twenty thousand. The book was turned
upon the world like an orphan to shift for itself; no plan was formed
to support it, neither hath the author ever published a syllable on
the subject from that time till after the appearance of Cato's fourth
letter."
This letter of "The Forester" is dated April 8th (printed on the 10th).
"Common Sense," published January 10th, had, therefore, in less than
three months, gained this sale. In the end probably half a million
copies were sold. In reply to "Cato's" sneer about "interested writers,"
Paine did not announce the fact that he had donated the copyright to the
States for the cause of independence. It was sold at two shillings, and
the author thus gave away a fortune in that pamphlet alone. It never
brought him a penny; he must even have paid for copies himself, as the
publisher figured up a debt against him, on account of "Common Sense,"
for L29 12s. 1d. Notwithstanding this experience and the popularity
he had acquired, Paine also gave to the States the copyright of his
_Crisis_ (thirteen numbers), was taunted by Tories as a "garreteer," ate
his crust contentedly, peace finding him a penniless patriot, who might
easily have had fifty thousand pounds in his pocket.
The controversy between "Cato" and "The Forester" was the most important
that preceded the Declaration of Independence. The president of
the University represented "Toryism" in distress. The "massacre at
Lexington" disabled him from justifying the government, which, however,
he was not prepared to denounce. He was compelled to assume the tone of
an American, while at the same time addressing his appeal "To the People
of Pennsylvania," trying to detach its non-resident Quakers and its
mercantile interest from sympathy with the general cause. Having a
bad case, in view of Lexington, he naturally resorted to abuse of
the plaintiff's attorney. He soon found that when it came to Quaker
sentiment and dialect, his unknown antagonist was at home.
"Remember, thou hast thrown me the glove, Cato, and either thee or I
must tire. I fear not the field of fair debate, but thou hast stepped
aside and made it personal. Thou hast tauntingly called me by name; and
if I cease to hunt thee from every lane and lurking hole of mischief,
and bring thee not a trembling culprit before the public bar, then brand
me with reproach by naming me in the list of your confederates."
"The Forester" declares his respect for the honest and undisguised
opponents of independence. "To be nobly wrong is more manly than to
be meanly right." But "Cato" wears the mask of a friend, and shall be
proved a foe.
The so-called "Tories" of the American Revolution have never had justice
done them. In another work I have told the story of John Randolph,
King's Attorney in Virginia, and there were many other martyrs of
loyalty in those days.* Four months after the affair at Lexington,
Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Randolph, in London: "Looking with
fondness towards a reconciliation with Great Britain, I cannot help
hoping you may be able to contribute towards expediting the good work."
This was written on August 25, 1775; and if this was the feeling of
Jefferson only ten months before the Declaration, how many, of more
moderate temper, surrounded "Cato" and "The Forester" in loyal and
peace-loving Philadelphia? But "Cato" was believed ungenuine. The Rev.
Dr. William Smith, who wrote under that name, a native of Aberdeen with
an Oxonian D.D., had been a glowing Whig patriot until June, 1775. But
his wife was a daughter of the loyalist, William Moore. This lady of
fashion was distinguished by her contempt for the independents, and her
husband, now near fifty, was led into a false position.**
* "Omitted Chapters of History, Disclosed in the Life and
Papers of Edmund Randolph," p. 20.
** R. H. Lee, in a letter to his brother (July 5, 1778) says:
"We had a magnificent celebration of the anniversary of
independence. The Whigs of the city dressed up a woman of
the town with the monstrous head-dress of the Tory ladies,
and escorted her through the town with a great concourse of
people. Her head was elegantly and expensively dressed, I
suppose about three feet high and proportionate width, with
a profusion of curls, etc. The figure was droll, and
occasioned much mirth. It has lessened some heads already,
and will probably bring the rest within the bounds of
reason, for they are monstrous indeed. The Tory wife of Dr.
Smith has christened this figure Continella, or the Duchess
of Independence, and prayed for a pin from her head by way
of relic. The Tory women are very much mortified,
notwithstanding this."--"Omitted Chapters of History," p.
40.
"Cato's" brilliant wife had to retire before "Continella" in
the following year. The charter of the College of
Philadelphia was taken away, and its president retired to an
obscure living at Chestertown, Maryland. He had, however,
some of the dexterity of the Vicar of Bray; when the cause
he had reviled was nearly won he founded a "Washington"
college in Maryland. He was chosen by that diocese for a
bishop (1783), but the General Convention refused to
recommend him for consecration. In 1789 he managed to regain
his place as college president in Philadelphia.
He held the highest literary position in Philadelphia, and perhaps felt
some jealousy of Paine's fame. He picked out all the mistakes he
could find in "Common Sense," and tried in every way to belittle his
antagonist. Himself a Scotchman, his wife an Englishwoman, he sneered at
Paine for being a foreigner; having modified his principles to those of
the loyalist's daughter, he denounced Paine as an "interested
writer." He was out of his element in the controversy he began with
personalities. He spoke of the trouble as a lovers' quarrel. Paine
answers:
"It was not in the power of France or Spain, or all the other powers in
Europe, to have given such a wound, or raised us to such mortal hatred
as Britain hath done. We see the same kind of undescribed anger at her
conduct, as we would at the sight of an animal devouring its young."
The strongest point of "Cato" was based on the proposed embassy for
negotiation, and he demanded reverence for "Ambassadors coming to
negotiate a peace." To this "The Forester" replied:
"Cato discovers a gross ignorance of the British Constitution in
supposing that these men _can_ be empowered to act as Ambassadors. To
prevent his future errors, I will set him right. The present war differs
from every other, in this instance, viz., that it is not carried on
under the prerogative of the crown, as other wars have always been, but
under the authority of the whole legislative power united; and as the
barriers which stand in the way of a negotiation are not proclamations,
but acts of Parliament, it evidently follows that were even the King of
England here in person, he could not ratify the terms or conditions of
a reconciliation; because, in the single character of King, he could
not stipulate for the repeal of any acts of Parliament, neither can the
Parliament stipulate for him. There is no body of men more jealous of
their privileges than the Commons: Because they sell them."
Paine wrote three letters in reply to "Cato," the last of which
contained a memorable warning to the people on the eve of the
Declaration of Independence: "_Forget not the hapless African_." That
was forgotten, but the summing up made Dr. William Smith an object of
detestation. He never ventured into political controversy again, and
when he returned from exile to Philadelphia, a penitent patriot, he
found his old antagonist, Thomas Paine, honored by a degree from the
University of Pennsylvania into which the college had been absorbed.
On May 8th a fourth letter, signed "The Forester," appeared in the same
paper (_Pennsylvania Journal_), which I at first suspected of not being
from Paine's pen.* This was because of a sentence beginning: "The clergy
of the English Church, of which I profess myself a member," etc. There
is no need to question the truth of this, for, as we have seen, Paine
had been confirmed, and no doubt previously baptized; nor is there
reason to disbelieve the statement of Oldys that he wished to enter holy
orders. There was a good deal of rationalism in the American church at
that time, and that Paine, with his religious fervor and tendency to
inquire, should have maintained his place in that scholarly church is
natural. His quakerism was a philosophy, but he could by no means have
found any home in its rigid and dogmatic societies in Philadelphia. The
casual sentence above quoted was probably inserted for candor, as the
letter containing it opens with a censure on the attitude of the Quakers
towards the proposal for independence. The occasion was an election of
four burgesses to represent Philadelphia in the State Assembly, a body
in which Quakers (loyalists) preponderated. Had the independents been
elected they must have taken the oath of allegiance to the crown, with
which the State was at war. Indeed Paine declares that the "Tories"
succeeded in the election because so many patriots were absent for
defence of their country. Under these circumstances Paine urges the
necessity of a popular convention. The House of Assembly is disqualified
from "sitting in its own case."
* A theft of Paine's usual signature led to his first public
identification of himself (Feb. 13, 1779). "As my signature,
'Common Sense,' has been counterfeited, either by Mr.
[Silas] Deane, or some of his adherents in Mr. Bradford's
paper of Feb. 3, I shall subscribe this with my name, Thomas
Paine." He, however, in Almon's Remembrancer (vol. viii.) is
indexed by name in connection with a letter of the previous
year signed "Common Sense."
The extracts given from this letter are of historic interest as
reflecting the conflict of opinions in Pennsylvania amid which the
Declaration was passed two months later.
"Whoever will take the trouble of attending to the progress and
changeability of times and things, and the conduct of mankind thereon,
will find that _extraordinary circumstances_ do sometimes arise before
us, of a species, either so purely natural or so perfectly original,
that none but the man of nature can understand them. When precedents
fail to assist us, we must return to the first principles of things for
information, and think, as if we were the first men that thought. And
this is the true reason, that in the present state of affairs, the wise
are become foolish, and the foolish wise. I am led to this reflection by
not being able to account for the conduct of the Quakers on any other;
for although they do not seem to perceive it themselves, yet it is
amazing to hear with what unanswerable ignorance many of that body,
wise in other matters, will discourse on the present one. Did they hold
places or commissions under the king, were they governors of provinces,
or had they any interest apparently distinct from us, the mystery would
cease; but as they have not, their folly is best attributed to that
superabundance of worldly knowledge which in original matters is too
cunning to be wise. Back to the first plain path of nature, friends, and
begin anew, for in this business your first footsteps were wrong. You
have now travelled to the summit of inconsistency, and that, with such
accelerated rapidity as to acquire autumnal ripeness by the first of
May. Now your _rotting time comes on_."
"The Forester" reminds the Quakers of their predecessors who, in 1704,
defended the rights of the people against the proprietor. He warns them
that the people, though unable to vote, represent a patriotic power
tenfold the strength of Toryism, by which they will not submit to be
ruled.
"He that is wise will reflect, that the safest asylum, especially
in times of general convulsion, when no settled form of government
prevails, is _the love of the people_. All property is safe under their
protection. Even in countries where the lowest and most licentious of
them have risen into outrage, they have never departed from the path of
_natural_ honor. Volunteers unto death in defence of the person or
fortune of those who had served or defended them, division of property
never entered the mind of the populace. It is incompatible with that
spirit which impels them into action. An avaricious mob was never heard
of; nay, even a miser, pausing in the midst of them, and catching their
spirit, would from that instant cease to be covetous."
The Quakers of Pennsylvania and New Jersey had held a congress in
Philadelphia and issued (January 20th) "The Ancient Testimony and
Principles of the People called Quakers renewed, with respect to the
King and Government; and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these
and other Parts of America; addressed to the People in General." Under
this lamb-like tract, and its bleat of texts, was quite discoverable
the "Tory" wolf; but it was widely circulated and became a danger. The
Quakers of Rhode Island actually made efforts to smuggle provisions into
Boston during the siege. Paine presently reviewed this testimony in a
pamphlet, one extract from which will show that he could preach a better
Quaker sermon than any of them:
"O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the
bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all
the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore,
if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political
hobbyhorse of your religion, convince the world thereof by proclaiming
your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us proof
of your sincerity by publishing it at St James's, to the commanders
in chief at Boston, to the admirals and captains who are piratically
ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting
in authority under Him whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul
of Barclay ye would preach repentance to your king; ye would tell the
Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin; ye would not spend
your partial invectives against the injured and insulted only, but, like
faithful ministers, cry aloud and spare none."
* Paine was not then aware of the extent of the intrigues of
leading Quakers with the enemy. The State archives of
England and France contain remarkable evidences on this
subject. Paul Wentworth, in a report to the English
government (1776 or 1777.) mentions the loyalty of Pemberton
and the Quakers. Wentworth says that since the publication
of "Common Sense" it had become hard to discover the real
opinions of leading men. "Mr. Payne," he says, "should not
be forgot. He is an Englishman, was schoolmaster in
Philadelphia; must be driven to work; naturally indolent;
led by His passions." These "passions," chiefly for liberty
and humanity, seem to have so driven the indolent man to
work that, according to Wentworth, his pamphlet "worked up
[the people] to such a high temper as fitted them for the
impression of the Declaration, etc." The Quakers, however,
held out long, though more covertly. M. Gerard de Rayneval,
in a letter from Philadelphia, Sept. 18, 1778, reports to
his government: "During the occupation of Philadelphia by
the English, proofs were obtained of the services rendered
them by the Quakers; some of these were caught acting as
spies, etc." La Luzerne writes (May 4, 1781): "All the
Quakers in Philadelphia who have taken up arms, or
voluntarily paid war taxes, have been excommunicated;
these, increasing in number, declare themselves loyal." See
for further information on this matter, "New Materials for
the History of the American Revolution," etc By John
Durand. New York, 1889,