Common Sense by Thomas Paine (Modern, Updated Translation)

Book Summary

Published anonymously in January 1776, "Common Sense" presented a compelling and radical argument for American independence from Great Britain. Paine begins by making a crucial distinction between society and government, arguing that while society is a blessing that unites people for the common good, government is a necessary evil that exists only to protect people from their own vices. He contends that the simpler a government is, the better it functions.

Paine then systematically dismantles the arguments supporting the British monarchy and hereditary succession. He presents the monarchy as an inherently absurd institution, tracing its origins to sinful human nature rather than divine right. Using biblical references that would resonate with his colonial audience, he argues that monarchy contradicts scripture, pointing to the Old Testament story of the Israelites' ill-fated desire for a king. He ridicules the idea that being born into royalty somehow confers special abilities or wisdom, comparing hereditary succession to inheriting a disease.

The pamphlet then turns to America's specific relationship with Britain, challenging the common notion that Britain was the "mother country" protecting her colonial children. Paine argues that Britain had only ever acted in its own self-interest, protecting the colonies only to maintain its economic advantage. He points out the absurdity of an island ruling a continent, and argues that America's connection to Britain had embroiled the colonies in unnecessary European conflicts. Furthermore, he contends that America's growing commerce would inevitably draw it into European wars regardless of independence, so it would be better to fight as an independent nation rather than as Britain's subordinate.

Paine presents a detailed vision for American independence, including practical proposals for government structure and military organization. He advocates for a democratic republican government with a unicameral legislature and a president chosen by the legislature. He calculates the costs of building a navy and raising an army, demonstrating the feasibility of independence. Importantly, he argues that America must act quickly, as the window for independence might close if Britain's power over the colonies grows stronger.

The pamphlet's final section addresses specific objections to independence and offers a stirring call to action. Paine argues that America has a unique opportunity to create a new, just society free from European corruption. He frames the American cause as universal, suggesting that independence would not just benefit Americans but would give "liberty to mankind." He emphasizes that the time for reconciliation has passed and that moderate measures would no longer suffice.

"Common Sense" was revolutionary not just in its ideas but in its style and accessibility. Paine wrote in clear, direct prose that appealed to ordinary citizens rather than just the educated elite. He used biblical references, scientific analogies, and common-sense reasoning to make his arguments accessible to the average reader. The pamphlet's enormous success - it sold an estimated 120,000 copies in its first three months - demonstrated its effectiveness in shifting public opinion toward independence.

The impact of "Common Sense" cannot be overstated. It transformed the colonial dispute with Britain from a series of specific grievances into a fundamental philosophical argument about human rights and the nature of government. By presenting independence as both morally necessary and practically achievable, Paine's work helped crystallize colonial thinking and create the intellectual foundation for the American Revolution. His arguments would later influence other democratic movements worldwide, making "Common Sense" a foundational text not just for American independence but for modern democratic thought.

Common Sense (Modern, Updated Translation)

Support more translations by picking up a copy of this book on Amazon.

Buy Book on Amazon

Free Common Sense Book Preview

Introduction

Maybe the ideas in the following pages aren't popular enough yet to win widespread approval. When people are used to not questioning something, it can seem right just because it's familiar, and initially, there might be a loud defense of tradition. But that noise dies down pretty quickly. Time convinces more people than logic does.

When power is abused for a long time and in a violent way, it usually makes people question its legitimacy (especially in situations they might not have considered if they hadn't been pushed to do so). Since the king of England has taken it upon himself to back the parliament in what he claims is their right, and because the good people of this country are suffering under this alliance, they absolutely have the right to question the claims of both and to reject the overreach of either side.

In the following pages, the author has carefully avoided anything personal among us. There are no compliments or criticisms directed at individuals. The wise and worthy don't need the praise of a pamphlet, and those with misguided or unfriendly views will eventually change on their own unless too much effort is put into trying to convert them.

The cause of America is, in many ways, the cause of all humanity. Many situations have arisen, and will continue to arise, that are not just local but universal, affecting the principles of everyone who cares about humanity. These situations capture the interest and emotions of those who care. Destroying a country with fire and sword, waging war against the natural rights of all people, and wiping out those who defend these rights is a concern for anyone who has the ability to feel. This group, regardless of political criticism, includes the Author.

P.S. - The release of this new edition has been delayed to see if anyone would try to argue against the idea of independence. Since no response has come out yet, it's assumed that none will, as the time needed to prepare such a response has long passed.

It's not important for the public to know who wrote this piece because the focus should be on the ideas, not the man. However, it might be worth mentioning that the author isn't tied to any political party or influenced by any public or private interests—only by reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

On the Origin and Purpose of Government in General, with Brief Comments on the English Constitution

Some writers have mixed up society and government so much that there's barely any difference between them in their view. But really, they're not just different; they come from different places. Society comes from our needs, while government comes from our bad behavior. Society makes us happy by bringing us together, while government does it by keeping our bad habits in check. Society encourages connection, while government sets up boundaries. Society is like a supporter, while government is like a disciplinarian.

Society is a blessing in every situation, but even at its best, government is just a necessary evil; at its worst, it's unbearable. When we suffer or face the same problems from a government that we might expect in a place without one, it feels even worse because we realize we're providing the means for our own suffering. Government, like clothing, is a sign of lost innocence; the grand palaces of kings are built on the ruins of paradise. If our conscience was always clear, consistent, and irresistibly followed, we wouldn't need any other laws; but since that's not the case, we find it necessary to give up some of our property to protect the rest. We do this because, like in any other situation, it's wise to choose the lesser of two evils. Therefore, since security is the true purpose and goal of government, it logically follows that whatever form of government seems most likely to provide us with security at the least cost and greatest benefit is the best choice.

To really understand the purpose and goal of government, let's imagine a small group of people settling in a remote part of the world, completely disconnected from everyone else. This scenario is similar to the first people settling in any country or even the world. In this state of natural freedom, their first priority would be forming a society. There are countless reasons for this: one person's strength isn't enough to meet all their needs, and people aren't meant to be alone forever. So, they quickly realize they need help from others, who also need help in return. If four or five people work together, they could build a decent home in the wilderness. But if one person tried to do it alone, they might work their whole life without getting anywhere. After cutting down trees, they wouldn't be able to move or build with them on their own. Meanwhile, hunger would distract them from their work, and different needs would pull them in different directions. Illness or even bad luck could be deadly because, while neither might kill them directly, either could leave them unable to survive, putting them in a situation where they might be said to perish rather than simply die.

Just like gravity pulls things together, the need for community would quickly bring our new immigrants together into a society. The mutual benefits of this society would make laws and government unnecessary as long as everyone treated each other fairly. However, since only heaven is free from wrongdoing, it's inevitable that as they overcome the initial challenges of immigration that united them, they'll start to slack off in their responsibilities and connections to each other. This lack of commitment will highlight the need to set up some form of government to make up for the shortfall in moral behavior.

A handy tree will serve as their state-house, where the entire colony can gather under its branches to discuss public issues. It's likely that their initial laws will just be called regulations and won't be enforced by anything other than public disapproval. In this first parliament, every person will naturally have a seat.

As the colony grows, the public issues will grow too, and the distance between members will make it too inconvenient for everyone to meet up every time like they did at first when there were fewer people, homes were close together, and public matters were minor. This will highlight the need for them to agree to let a selected group, chosen from everyone, handle the legislative duties. This group is expected to have the same interests as those who chose them and will act as the whole group would if they were all present. If the colony keeps growing, it will be necessary to increase the number of representatives. To ensure every part of the colony is represented, it will be best to divide the whole colony into manageable sections, with each section sending its appropriate number of representatives. To prevent the elected representatives from developing interests separate from those who elected them, it makes sense to have frequent elections. This way, the elected can return and mix with the general body of electors every few months, ensuring their loyalty to the public by the sensible thought of not creating problems for themselves. This frequent exchange will create a shared interest across all parts of the community, leading them to naturally support each other. The strength of the government and the happiness of the people depend on this, not on the meaningless title of king.

Here's where government comes from and why it exists: it's a system that's needed because moral virtue alone can't run the world. The purpose of government is to provide freedom and security. No matter how much we might be distracted by appearances or misled by what we hear, no matter how much bias might influence our choices or self-interest cloud our judgment, the straightforward truth from nature and reason will tell us that it's the right thing to do.

I get my idea of the best form of government from a natural principle that no skill can overturn: the simpler something is, the less likely it is to break down, and the easier it is to fix when it does. With this idea in mind, I want to share a few thoughts on the much-praised constitution of England. It was certainly impressive for the dark and oppressive times in which it was created. When tyranny was everywhere, even a small step away from it was a huge relief. But it's easy to show that this constitution is imperfect, prone to problems, and unable to deliver on its promises.

Absolute governments (though a disgrace to humanity) have one advantage: they're straightforward. If people are suffering, they know exactly who's responsible and what needs to be done to fix it. There's no confusion about the causes or solutions. But the English system is so incredibly complicated that the country can suffer for years without figuring out where the problem is. Some people will blame one thing, others will blame something else, and every political expert will suggest a different solution.

I know it's tough to move past local or long-standing prejudices, but if we take a moment to really look at the parts that make up the English constitution, we'll see that it's basically a mix of two old tyrannies combined with some new republican elements.

• First, the lingering traces of monarchical tyranny found in the role of the king.

• Secondly, the lingering effects of aristocratic tyranny are seen in the roles of the peers.

• Thirdly. The new republican elements, represented by the common people, whose integrity is crucial for maintaining England's freedom.

The first two, since they're hereditary, don't rely on the people; so, in terms of a constitution, they don't really add anything to the state's freedom.

Saying that England's constitution is a mix of three powers that keep each other in check is ridiculous. Either the words don't mean anything, or they're just plain contradictory.

Saying that the Commons act as a check on the King assumes two things:

• First, That the king can't be trusted without oversight, or in other words, that a craving for absolute power is the natural flaw of monarchy.

• Secondly, the idea that the common people, by being chosen for this role, are either smarter or more trustworthy than the crown.

But since the same constitution that lets the commons hold back funds to keep the king in check also gives the king the power to reject their other bills, it assumes that the king is wiser than the people it already assumed were wiser than him. That's just plain ridiculous!

There's something incredibly ridiculous about how monarchy is set up. It keeps a person away from gaining information, yet expects them to make decisions that require the best judgment. Being a king isolates someone from the world, but the job of a king demands a deep understanding of it. So, the different aspects of being a king clash and cancel each other out, making the whole role seem absurd and pointless.

Some writers have described the English constitution like this: they say the king is one part, the people are another; the peers represent the king, and the commons represent the people. But this sounds like a house divided against itself. Even though the words are nicely arranged, when you really look at them, they seem pointless and unclear. Whenever you try to describe something that either can't exist or is too complicated to explain, the words end up being just noise. They might sound nice, but they don't actually help you understand anything. This explanation raises a question: How did the king get a power that the people are scared to trust and always need to keep in check? Such a power couldn't have been given by a wise people, and any power that needs to be checked can't be from God. Yet, the constitution assumes such a power exists.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either can't or won't achieve the goal, and the whole thing is self-destructive. Just like how a heavier weight will always lift a lighter one, and all the wheels of a machine are set in motion by one, we just need to figure out which part of the system has the most influence, because that's the one that will lead. Even if the others, or some of them, try to slow it down or, as people say, check its speed, as long as they can't stop it, their efforts won't work. The main driving force will eventually get its way, and what it lacks in speed will be made up for with time.

It's obvious that the crown plays a huge role in the English constitution, and it's clear that its power comes from being the one that hands out jobs and pensions. So, while we've been smart enough to block the door to absolute monarchy, we've also been silly enough to give the crown the key.

English people's preference for their government system of king, lords, and commons comes as much, if not more, from national pride than from logic. Sure, individuals are probably safer in England than in some other countries, but the king's will is just as much the law in Britain as it is in France. The difference is that, instead of coming straight from the king's mouth, it's presented to the people as an act of Parliament, which seems even more intimidating. The fate of Charles the First has only made kings more cunning—not more fair.

So, putting aside all national pride and bias towards certain ways and traditions, the simple truth is that it's entirely because of the nature of the people, not the structure of the government, that the monarchy isn't as oppressive in England as it is in Turkey.

Taking a closer look at the flaws in the English government system is really important right now. Just like we can't treat others fairly if we're biased, we also can't be fair to ourselves if we're stuck in stubborn prejudices. It's similar to how someone who's infatuated with a bad relationship can't properly choose or judge a good partner. In the same way, if we're attached to a flawed government system, we won't be able to recognize a better one.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour 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.

An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

On Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

Humans were originally created as equals, and any inequality that exists now must have come from later circumstances. The differences between rich and poor can mostly be explained without resorting to harsh terms like oppression and greed. Oppression is often a result of wealth, but it's rarely the way people become rich. While greed might keep someone from being desperately poor, it usually makes them too cautious to become truly wealthy.

But there's another, bigger difference that doesn't really have a natural or religious explanation, and that's the difference between kings and regular people. Male and female are natural distinctions, and good and bad are distinctions made by heaven. But how did a group of people come into the world so elevated above everyone else, almost like they're a different species? It's worth looking into whether they bring happiness or misery to humanity.

Back in the early days of the world, according to the Bible's timeline, there weren't any kings. Because of this, there were no wars. It's the pride of kings that throws people into chaos. For the past hundred years, Holland, without a king, has experienced more peace than any of the monarchies in Europe. History supports this idea too; the peaceful and simple lives of the first patriarchs have a certain charm that disappears when we get to the stories of Jewish royalty.

Kingship was first introduced by the pagans, and the children of Israel adopted the practice from them. It was the most successful scheme the Devil ever devised to promote idolatry. The pagans worshipped their deceased kings as gods, and the Christian world has taken it a step further by doing the same for their living ones. How blasphemous is the title of "sacred majesty" when applied to a mere mortal, who, even in all his glory, is still turning to dust!

Raising one person so far above everyone else can't be justified by the natural right to equality, nor can it be defended by religious texts. In fact, the will of God, as expressed by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, clearly disapproves of rule by kings. Parts of scripture that are against monarchy have often been glossed over in monarchies, but they definitely deserve the attention of countries that are still figuring out their governments. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" is often quoted by courts, but it doesn't actually support monarchy, since the Jews at that time didn't have a king and were under Roman rule.

Almost three thousand years went by from the time of Moses' account of creation until the Jews, caught up in a national delusion, asked for a king. Up until that point, their government (except in special cases where God intervened) was like a republic, run by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They didn't have any kings, and it was considered sinful to recognize anyone with that title other than the Lord of Hosts. When you think about the idol-like worship given to kings, it's not surprising that God, always protective of His honor, would disapprove of a form of government that so boldly challenges the authority of heaven.

In the scriptures, monarchy is considered one of the sins of the Jews, and there's a curse reserved for them because of it. The story behind this is pretty interesting.

When the Israelites were being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon led a small army against them. Thanks to divine intervention, he won the battle. The Jews, thrilled with their success and crediting Gideon's leadership, suggested making him their king, saying, "You should rule over us, and your son, and your grandson too." This was a huge temptation—not just a kingdom, but a hereditary one. However, Gideon, in his deep faith, replied, "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you." His words couldn't be clearer; Gideon wasn't just turning down the honor, he was denying their right to offer it. He didn't flatter them with made-up expressions of gratitude but, speaking like a true prophet, he accused them of being disloyal to their true Sovereign, the King of heaven.

About 130 years later, they made the same mistake again. The Jews' fascination with the idolatrous customs of the heathens is really hard to understand. But it happened that, using the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were in charge of some secular matters, they came to Samuel in a sudden and noisy way, saying, "Look, you're old, and your sons don't follow your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the other nations." It's important to note that their reasons were bad—they wanted to be like other nations, meaning the heathens—when their true glory was in being as different from them as possible. Samuel was displeased when they said, "Give us a king to judge us," and he prayed to the Lord. The Lord told Samuel, "Listen to the people in everything they say to you, for they haven't rejected you, but they've rejected me, SO I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. Just like all the things they've done since the day I brought them out of Egypt until now, they've forsaken me and served other gods, and now they're doing the same to you. So listen to them, but warn them solemnly and show them what the king who will reign over them will be like—not any specific king, but the general way kings of the earth behave, whom Israel was so eager to imitate. Despite the long passage of time and the difference in customs, this description still fits today. Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will be like: He'll take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they'll run in front of his chariots (this sounds like the current practice of drafting men). He'll appoint commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and make them plow his fields and harvest his crops, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He'll take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings). He'll take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He'll take a tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officials and attendants (showing that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the common vices of kings). He'll take a tenth of your servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He'll take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you'll cry out for relief from the king you've chosen, but the Lord won't answer you in that day." This explains why monarchy continues; the few good kings that have existed since don't justify the title or erase the sinful origin. The high praise given to David doesn't mention him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel and said, "No, we want a king over us, so we can be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and go out before us and fight our battles." Samuel kept trying to reason with them, but it was no use. He pointed out their ingratitude, but it didn't matter. Seeing they were determined in their foolishness, he said, "I will call on the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain (which was a punishment at the time of the wheat harvest) so you'll realize how great your wickedness is in the sight of the Lord for asking for a king." So Samuel called on the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. They said to Samuel, "Pray to the Lord your God for your servants so we won't die, for we've added this evil to our sins by asking for a king." These parts of scripture are clear and straightforward. They don't allow for any ambiguous interpretation. It's true that the Almighty has protested against monarchical government here, or the scripture is false. And one has good reason to believe there's as much manipulation by kings as by priests in keeping the scripture from the public in Catholic countries. Because monarchy, in every case, is the Catholicism of government.

We've added the problem of hereditary succession to the issue of monarchy. While monarchy itself is a blow to our dignity, claiming hereditary succession as a right is an insult and a burden on future generations. Since all people are fundamentally equal, no one has the right by birth to elevate their family above all others forever. Even if someone deserves some respect from their peers, their descendants might not be worthy of inheriting that honor. One of the clearest natural signs of the absurdity of hereditary monarchy is that nature often mocks it by giving us a fool instead of a leader.

Secondly, just like no one could originally have any public honors except those given to them, the people giving those honors couldn't decide the future rights of the next generations. Even if they said, "We choose you as our leader," they couldn't, without being unfair to their children, say, "Your children and their children will rule over ours forever." Such a foolish, unfair, and unnatural agreement might end up putting them under the rule of a bad or incompetent leader in the future. Most wise people, in their honest opinions, have always looked down on hereditary rights. However, once this kind of system is in place, it's hard to get rid of. Many people go along with it out of fear, others because of superstition, and the more powerful ones share the spoils with the king at the expense of everyone else.

Let's assume the current line of kings around the world started off with some noble beginnings. But honestly, if we could peel back the layers of history and see how they really got started, we'd probably find that the first kings were just the biggest bullies in some unruly gang. These guys were either the most brutal or the sneakiest, which earned them the top spot among a bunch of thieves. As they gained more power and expanded their raids, they scared the peaceful and defenseless folks into paying them off for protection. However, the people who first chose these leaders likely never intended to give their descendants any kind of permanent right to rule, because that would go against the free and easygoing lifestyle they claimed to live by. So, in the early days of monarchy, passing down the throne wasn't a given right but more of a random or honorary thing. But since there weren't many records back then and history was mixed with myths, it became pretty easy, after a few generations, to make up some superstitious story—kind of like what happened with Muhammad—to push the idea of hereditary rule onto the common people. Maybe the chaos that came with a leader's death and picking a new one (since elections among thugs weren't exactly smooth) led some to support the idea of hereditary succession. So, what started as a convenient solution eventually turned into something claimed as a right.

Since the conquest, England has had a few good monarchs but has suffered under a much larger number of bad ones. No sensible person can claim that their lineage from William the Conqueror is particularly honorable. A French illegitimate child landing with an armed gang and making himself king of England against the will of the locals is, frankly, a pretty lousy and disgraceful origin. There's certainly nothing divine about it. However, there's no need to waste much time pointing out the absurdity of hereditary right; if there are people foolish enough to believe in it, let them go ahead and worship both the donkey and the lion, if they wish. I won't be following their example, nor will I interfere with their beliefs.

I'd really like to ask how people think kings first came to be. There are only three possible answers: by chance, by election, or by force. If the first king was chosen by chance, it sets a precedent for the next one, which rules out passing the throne down through family lines. Saul was chosen by chance, yet his succession wasn't hereditary, and it doesn't seem like there was ever any intention for it to be that way. If the first king of any country was elected, that also sets a precedent for the next one. Saying that the rights of all future generations are taken away by the decision of the first electors, who not only chose a king but a whole family of kings forever, is as absurd as the doctrine of original sin, which claims that all human free will was lost in Adam. Hereditary succession can't gain any honor from such a comparison, and there isn't any other comparison to be made. Just as all sinned in Adam, and all obeyed in the first electors; just as all humanity was subjected to Satan in one case, and to sovereignty in the other; just as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and just as both prevent us from reclaiming some former state and privilege, it follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. What a dishonorable rank! What an inglorious connection! Yet even the most clever debater can't come up with a better comparison.

When it comes to taking power by force, nobody would dare to defend it; and it's undeniable that William the Conqueror was a usurper. The simple truth is, the ancient history of the English monarchy doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.

The real issue with hereditary succession isn't just how ridiculous it is, but how harmful it can be for society. If it guaranteed a line of good and wise leaders, it might seem like it had divine approval. However, since it allows foolish, wicked, and unsuitable people to take power, it becomes a form of oppression. People who believe they are born to rule while others are born to obey quickly become arrogant. Being set apart from the rest of humanity, they are often spoiled by a sense of self-importance from an early age. The world they operate in is so different from the real world that they rarely understand its true needs. As a result, when they come into power, they are often the most ignorant and unqualified individuals in the entire realm.

Another problem with hereditary succession is that the throne can be taken over by a child at any age. During this time, the regency, acting in the name of the king, has every chance and reason to betray their responsibilities. The same national disaster occurs when a king, exhausted by age and illness, reaches the final stage of human frailty. In both situations, the public falls victim to anyone who can successfully exploit the weaknesses of either youth or old age.

The most convincing argument ever made for hereditary succession is that it prevents civil wars. If this were true, it would be significant. However, it's actually one of the most blatant lies ever told. The entire history of England contradicts this claim. Since the conquest, thirty kings and two minors have ruled over that troubled kingdom, and during that time, there have been (including the Revolution) no fewer than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. So, instead of promoting peace, it actually undermines it and destroys the very foundation it claims to support.

The battle for the throne and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster turned England into a bloody mess for many years. Twelve major battles, along with various skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Henry was captured by Edward twice, and then Edward was captured by Henry. The unpredictability of war and the mood of a nation, especially when the conflict is based on personal issues, meant that Henry was once celebrated and taken from prison to a palace, while Edward had to escape from a palace to a foreign country. However, since sudden changes in mood rarely last, Henry was eventually forced off the throne, and Edward was brought back to replace him. Parliament always sided with whoever was strongest at the time.

This conflict started during the reign of Henry the Sixth and didn't completely end until Henry the Seventh, when the families were united. It lasted for 67 years, from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and succession have caused not just this or that kingdom, but the whole world to be drenched in blood and reduced to ashes. It's a form of government that the word of God speaks against, and bloodshed will always follow it.

If we look into what a king actually does, we'll find that in some countries, they don't really do much at all. They just drift through life without much enjoyment for themselves or benefit to the nation, and then they step down, leaving their successors to do the same thing. In absolute monarchies, all the responsibilities, both civil and military, fall on the king. When the children of Israel asked for a king, they wanted someone "to judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." But in places like England, where the king isn't a judge or a general, it's hard to figure out what exactly his job is.

The closer any government gets to being a republic, the less need there is for a king. It's a bit tricky to find the right name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic, but in its current state, it doesn't really deserve that title. The corrupt influence of the crown, with its control over appointments, has effectively taken over the power and undermined the integrity of the House of Commons (the republican part of the constitution). This makes the government of England almost as monarchical as that of France or Spain. People often argue about labels without really understanding them. It's the republican aspect of England's constitution that English people take pride in, specifically the freedom to elect a House of Commons from among themselves. It's clear that when republican values fail, tyranny follows. Why is the English constitution struggling? Because monarchy has tainted the republic, and the crown has taken over the commons.

In England, a king doesn't have much more to do than start wars and hand out positions, which, to put it simply, means draining the country's resources and causing conflict. Quite the job, isn't it? Getting paid eight hundred thousand pounds a year for that, and being idolized too! One honest person is more valuable to society and in the eyes of God than all the crowned troublemakers that ever existed.

Thoughts on the Current State of American Affairs

In the next few pages, I'm just sharing straightforward facts, clear arguments, and common sense. All I ask from you, the reader, is to set aside any biases or preconceived notions and let your own reason and feelings guide you. Embrace, or rather don't abandon, the true nature of being human, and try to look beyond just the present moment with an open mind.

A lot has been written about the conflict between England and America. People from all walks of life have jumped into the debate, driven by different reasons and with different goals. But all these efforts have been in vain, and the time for talking is over. Weapons, as the last resort, will settle the dispute. The king chose to go this route, and the continent has taken up the challenge.

It's been said about the late Mr. Pelham (who, although a capable minister, had his flaws) that when he was criticized in the House of Commons for his policies being only temporary, he responded, "They will last my time." If such a short-sighted and cowardly mindset takes hold in the colonies during the current struggle, future generations will remember the name of our ancestors with disgust.

The sun has never shone on a cause more important than this. It's not just about a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but an entire continent—at least one-eighth of the habitable world. This isn't just about today, this year, or even this era; future generations are deeply involved in this struggle and will be affected by what happens now, even until the end of time. Right now is the time to plant the seeds of continental unity, trust, and honor. Any small crack now will be like a name carved with a pin on the soft bark of a young oak tree; as the tree grows, the mark will grow too, and future generations will see it clearly.

By turning the issue from argument to arms, a new era for politics has begun; a new way of thinking has emerged. All plans, proposals, etc., before April 19, which marks the start of hostilities, are like last year's calendars; they were relevant then but are outdated and useless now. Whatever was put forward by supporters on either side of the issue back then all aimed at the same goal: a union with Great Britain. The only difference between the groups was how they wanted to achieve it; one suggested using force, while the other suggested friendship. However, it has turned out that the first approach has failed, and the second has lost its influence.

A lot has been said about the benefits of reconciliation, which, like a pleasant dream, has faded away and left us unchanged. It's only fair that we look at the other side of the argument and consider some of the many significant harms these colonies suffer, and will continue to suffer, by being connected to and dependent on Great Britain. Let's examine that connection and dependence using common sense and natural principles to understand what we can rely on if we separate and what we can expect if we remain dependent.

I've heard some people say that since America thrived while connected to Great Britain, that same connection is essential for its future happiness and will always have the same positive effect. This kind of argument couldn't be more misleading. It's like saying that because a child grew up healthy on milk, they should never eat solid food, or that the first twenty years of our lives should dictate the next twenty. But even this gives too much credit, because I firmly believe that America would have thrived just as much, if not more, if no European power had been involved with her. The trade that has enriched America consists of life's necessities, and there will always be a market for them as long as people in Europe continue to eat.

But some people say she's protected us. It's true that she's kept us busy, and it's acknowledged that she's defended the continent at both her expense and ours. She would have defended Turkey for the same reasons—trade and power.

Unfortunately, we've been misled by old prejudices and have made big sacrifices to superstition. We've bragged about Great Britain's protection without realizing that her motive was self-interest, not loyalty. She didn't protect us from our enemies for our sake, but from her enemies for her own sake—enemies who had no issue with us otherwise and will always be our enemies for the same reason. If Britain gave up her claims on the continent, or if the continent broke away from dependence, we would be at peace with France and Spain, even if they were at war with Britain. The hardships Hanover faced in the last war should warn us against such alliances.

Recently, someone in Parliament claimed that the colonies are only connected to each other through their relationship with the parent country, meaning that places like Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and all the others, are like sister colonies because of England. This is definitely a very indirect way of showing a connection, but it's the closest and only real way to show enmity, if I can put it that way. France and Spain have never been, and probably never will be, our enemies as Americans, but rather because we are subjects of Great Britain.

But some say Britain is the parent country. If that's the case, then shame on her for her actions. Even animals don't harm their young, and even the most primitive societies don't attack their own families. So, if this claim is true, it only reflects poorly on her. However, it's not entirely true, or only partly so. The terms "parent" or "mother country" have been cleverly used by the king and his followers to manipulate us by playing on our emotions. In reality, Europe, not just England, is the true parent country of America. This new world has been a refuge for those seeking civil and religious freedom from all over Europe. People came here not because of the loving embrace of a mother, but to escape the cruelty of a monster. And it's true for England that the same tyranny that forced the first emigrants to leave still affects their descendants today.

In this vast part of the world, we forget the small size of just 360 miles (the length of England) and embrace friendship on a grander scale. We see every European Christian as a brother or sister and take pride in the generosity of this feeling.