Tom Paine: Republican Pamphleteer
Vernon Louis Parrington
[Reprinted from Chapter II, Book 3, Main Currents
in American Thought,
published by Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1927, pp. 327-341]
POLITICAL THINKERS
The French Group
THE change which came over political thought in America in
consequence of the rise of French Jacobin philosophy is not
inadequately revealed in the writings of two men, quite dissimilar in
antecedents and training, but alike in fundamental purpose-Thomas
Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Both were speculative thinkers, profoundly
in sympathy with French revolutionary ideals: but the former was
detached from local patriotisms and national interests, a delegate at
large in the cause of human rights, concerned with spreading the
gospel of freedom in all lands; the latter remained wholly American,
and while a keenly interested spectator of the French upheaval, he was
primarily concerned to discover principles that would apply to native
conditions and further the cause of American democracy. Paine
therefore became the popular disseminator of the philosophy of
republicanism, and Jefferson, the practical statesman embodying it in
political programs. Warm friends, their influence became closely
interwoven during the years when agrarian democracy was gathering its
strength to strike down the rule of Federalism.
TOM PAINE
Republican Pamphleteer
No more striking figure emerges from the times than the figure of the
Thetford Quaker. English in birth and rearing, in middle life Paine
came to embody the republican spirit of the American revolution; and
that spirit he made it his after business to carry overseas and spread
among the discontented of all lands. He was the first modern
internationalist, at home wherever rights were to be won or wrongs
corrected. "My country is the world," he asserted proudly, "to
do good, my religion." Throughout his later life he was a
fearless skirmisher on the outposts of democracy -- another "Free
born John" Lilburne, seeking to complete the great work begun and
thwarted in an earlier century; and his career remains a stirring
record of a time when revolution threatened to sweep away the power
and privilege of all kings and aristocracies. Naturally his zeal cost
him dear in reputation. The passions of all who feared the loss of
sinecures gathered about his head, and he became the victim of an
odium theologicum et politicum, without parallel in our
history. The Tories hunted him in packs, and their execration and
vituperation outran all decency. In London clubs it became the fashion
for gentlemen to wear TP nails in their hoot-heels to witness how they
trampled on his base principles. He was proscribed and banished, and
his books burnt by the hangman. He was regarded as worse than a common
felon and outlaw, because more dangerous. In America gentlemen echoed
the common detestation-to he a Paine-hater was a badge of
respectability. "The filthy Tom Paine," John Adams called
him, and the phrase stuck like a burr to his reputation. But "reason,
like time," as Paine remarked "will make its own way,"
and the years are bringing a larger measure of justice to him.
Like Hamilton, Paine was an alien, but endowed with a heritage quite
unlike that of the brilliant boy from the West Indies. When he landed
in Philadelphia in the second week in December, 1774 [For
the date of his arrival, see Massachusetts Historical Society
Proceedings, Vol. XLIII, p. 246] he was in his
thirty-seventh year, and had seemingly made shipwreck of his life. He
had been schooled in misfortune and was marked as a social
inefficient. A broken staymaker and tobacconist, he had twice been
removed from the office of petty exciseman for what today would be
called unionizing activity. He had separated from his wife, and his
mean and petty environment seemed to offer no hope of a decent living.
One stroke of good fortune had come to him, when as a delegate from
his union on some business with Parliament, he made the acquaintance
of Franklin, who was taken with "those wonderful eyes of his,"
and advised America as a likely place for getting on. So provided with
little more than Franklin's letter of introduction, he set sail for
new worlds, cherishing the unmilitant plan of setting up in
Philadelphia a seminary of polite learning for young ladies. But the
times proved unpropitious for such a venture. He found himself in a
world hesitating fearfully on the brink of revolution, the electric
atmosphere of which he found strangely congenial. He at once threw
himself whole-heartedly into the colonial dispute, quickly seized the
main points, mastered the arguments, and thirteen months after his
arrival published Common Sense, a pamphlet that was to spread
his name and fame throughout America.
The amazing influence of Common Sense on a public opinion
long befogged by legal quibble flowed from its direct and skillful
appeal to material interests. For the first time in a tedious,
inconsequential debate, it was openly asserted that governmental
policies rest on economic foundations; that the question of American
independence was only a question of expediency, and must be determined
in the light of economic advantage. Government is no more than a
utility, and that policy which was most likely to secure freedom and
security "with the least expense and greatest benefit," must
be preferred. The point at issue before the American people,
therefore, was whether a more useful arrangement would result from
continuing the old connection with England, or from setting up for
themselves; and it must be decided, not in the court room or council
chambers, but in the countinghouse and market place, in the field and
shop, wherever plain Americans were making a living. Let the common
people consult their own needs, and determine the case without regard
to legal or constitutional precedents. It was a simple matter to be
judged in the light of common sense and their particular interests.
To further clear thinking on this fundamental matter Paine commented
on the economic consequences to America of the English connection.
Throughout colonial history, he asserted with some disregard to fact,
dependence had resulted in disadvantage to America; England had
systematically exploited the colonies and hampered development.
Whatever prosperity had been won heretofore, had been won in spite of
English hostility and interference; the peculiar economic position of
the colonies had proved their best reliance in the past, and would
prove still more advantageous in the future, if America were free from
jealous, paternal restrictions. What reason was there to expect
generous treatment from a power that had never shown generosity in
past dealings? How skillful was the appeal to colonial self-interest
is revealed in such passages as these:
We are already greater than the King wishes us to be, and
will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter
to one point, Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a
proper power to govern us? Whoever says No, to this
question, is an Independent, for independency means no more than
this, whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the King, the
greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us there
shall he no laws but such as I like.
America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had
no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she
hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always
have a market while eating is the custom of Europe. As Europe is our
market for trade we ought to form no partial connection with any
part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of
European contentions, which she never can do while by her dependence
on Britain she is made the make-weight in the scale of British
politics.
Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our
imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.
'Tis
as great folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land.
But Paine well knew that self-interest may be so clouded by prejudice
as not to see the way its nose is pointing. Though the colonial talked
of his grievances, he remained colonial in psychology, held in
unconscious subjection to English traditions. He was in the clutch of
outworn loyalties -- loyalty to the crown and loyalty to the British
constitution; and to this difficult problem Paine addressed himself
with great skill. To a republican, as Paine seems to have been from
his landing in America, the odium which George III had incurred was a
heaven-sent opportunity. In order to strike at the monarchical
principle, it was only necessary to point out that the folly of the
King was the best commentary upon the foolishness of hereditary
monarchy. The boldness and audacity of Paine's attack on the
king-principle must have added greatly to the popularity of Common
Sense along the frontier. It was the first clear, far-carrying
appeal for republicanism addressed to American ears. How successful it
was, how ruthlessly it stripped away the divinity that doth hedge a
king, laying bare the stupidity of the king-cult, is suggested by the
remarkable change in the American attitude towards monarchy that a few
months brought about. After the appearance of Common Sense,
middle and lower class Americans shed their colonial loyalties like a
last year's garment, and thenceforth they regarded the pretentions of
kings as little better than flummery. King George's disgraced
exciseman had his revenge; he had thrust his royal master out of the
colonial affection and destroyed the monarchical principle in America.
A more difficult task remained, that of instituting "an inquiry
into the constitutional errors of the English form of
government," in order to prove what gains would result if America
took herself out of the English system. Here Paine faced,
single-handed, a solid phalanx of lawyers. He was the first
pamphleteer to question the excellence of a constitution that was
proclaimed by American Tories as the wonder of the world and the envy
of other nations. In the acrimonious disputes between 1765 and 1775,
this was the single point on which all professed to agree. A vast deal
of laudation had been uttered; innumerable legal pamphlets had been
written; and no colonial had had the temerity to question the adequacy
of the British constitution to colonial needs. And now came this
republican, with penetrating comment on its origin and working, to
disturb the common complacency by pointing out how ill fitted it was
to answer the needs of America. It was a telling attack, made with
skill and shrewd insight; and it had a great part in arousing a bitter
antagonism to the English system in the minds of the American
yeomanry.
Paine was not a constitutional historian, but he had a keen eye for
realities. The fundamental fallacy of the English system, he asserted,
lay in the so-called "mixt aristocracy," which was presumed
to gather the wisdom of the realm in conncil with the king, hut which
was no more than a convenient arrangement for dividing the spoils. The
House of Commons had grown out of the struggles of feudal barons
against the king. It presumed to speak for the common people, but the
rights of the people were thus recognized only to be thwarted by the
old tyrannies. The "Republican materials, in the persons of the
Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England," were
held in check by the "remains of aristocratical tyranny in the
person of the Peers," and further restrained by the "remains
of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King." From the play
of these elements arose the system of checks and balances which placed
control in the hands of landed property. It was based on the
assumption that "the King is not to be trusted without being
looked after," and that "the Commons, by being appointed for
that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the
Crown." But in spite of the supposed balance "the provision
is unequal to the task," for the Crown, as the dispenser of
places and pensions, is more than a match for Commons in the game of
politics.
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 formidable shape of an
act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made
kings more subtle-not more just.
This was but the beginning of a long assault on the British
constitution which was to engage him much in after life. Common
Sense was a pronouncement of the new philosophy of republicanism
that was taking firm hold of the American mind, and which the French
Revolution was to spread so widely. It was a notable contribution, of
which Paine to the end of his life was justly proud.
As he came to America almost casually, with no conscious
revolutionary intent, so in the critical year 1787 he returned to
Europe with the peaceful intention of perfecting an iron bridge on
which he was engaged. True to his Quaker breeding he was more
interested in the arts of peace than of war, but again circumstance
was too much for him. Before he had completed his bridge, delegates
from France came to invite him to a seat in the National Assembly. A
new day was rising there; the constitution of a freer order was being
constructed, and so competent a workman could not be spared. In the
thick of that eager world of constitution-making, Paine finally
clarified his political philosophy and gave it wide currency. He
became the pamphleteer of revolution to the English-speaking world, to
Philadelphia and New York equally with London. Yet he was never an
extremist; he was a Girondist rather than a Jacobin, and when the
Girondists were overthrown and a dictatorship set up, he remained a
constitutionalist. By the Jacobin radicals he came to be regarded as a
reactionary from his willingness to retain monarchy in France; but
Paine was a practical Englishman with a shrewd judgment of what was
politically possible, and he refused to outrun reasonable expectations
of accomplishment.
It was the simplicity and clarity of his political philosophy that
made its appeal so widely effective. His thinking turned on the two
fundamental questions, the source of government and the purpose for
which it is instituted among men; and the major premise on which he
reared his logic was the thesis that sovereignty inheres in the
majority will. At the basis of his philosophy was the natural-rights
theory, but given a fresh significance and vitality by the assertion
of the doctrine of continuous reaffirmation of the social compact.
Instead of deriving the sovereign state from a fictitious compact,
presumably entered into in a remote past, he derived it-as Roger
Williams had done a century and half before -- from a continuous
compact reaffirmed by each generation. With the birth of each
individual appear fresh rights which no pre-contract can justly
circumscribe or nullify; ancestral arrangements are valid only to the
extent that they are acceptable to the living. Hence it follows,
first, that the general body of the people may at any time remake the
fundamental law, and bring it into accord with present desire; and
second, that there can be no law superior to this popular will
expressed through the majority. His most celebrated dictum -- "That
which a nation chuses to do it has a right to do" -- a dictum
that aroused a bitterer hostility than any other of his pronouncements
-- was the logical expression of his republicanism that differentiated
between the sovereign people and their agency, the government; and
this in turn he justified by a celebrated saying out of Swift, "Government
is a plain thing, and fitted to the capacity of many heads." Like
Jefferson, he would not have government kept from the people, the
agent domineer over the principal.
The purpose of government Paine discovered in the Benthamite
principle of expediency. If a diffused well-being results from the
policies of government, such government is justified; but if the
tax-levies are wasted in unsocial ways, if unjust impositions are
levied, if exploitation or tyranny results, such government is not
justified. The agent has cheated the principal, and must be called to
account. The final test of every government Paine found in its concern
for the res publica, the public affairs, or the public good";
any government that "does not make the res publica its
whole and sole object, is not a good government." In its most
obvious phase, concern for the res publica means concern for
the national economy, and this in turn conditions the taxes that shall
he levied and the ends for which they shall be spent -- whether upon
the arts of peace or war. A beneficent government has no need of
standing armies and navies, or an inquisitorial police; it is
established in the hearts of the people and rests securely on the
common gdod will. It is the injustice of government that creates
armies to defend the earnings of injustice. But every wise government
will respect its limitations. As a child of the eighteenth century,
Paine hated the leviathan state as a monster created by a minority to
serve the ends of tyranny. The political state he accepted as a
present necessity, but he would not have its prestige magnified and
the temptation to tyranny increased by the cult of nationalism. "Government
is no farther necessary," he believed, "than to supply the
few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently
competent." At best it is an artificial thing.
Formal government makes but a small part of civilized
life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is
established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact.
The
more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for
government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and
govern itself.
All the great laws of society are laws of
nature. [Rights of Man, Part II, pp.
407-408]
The maturest elaboration of Paine's political philosophy is found in
The Rights of Man. This extraordinary work, the most
influential English contribution to the revolutionary movement, was an
examination of the English constitution in the light of what Paine
held were the true source and ends of government. It is a brilliant
reply to Burke, who rested his interpretation of the English
constitution on the legal ground of the common law of contract.
Following the Revolution of 1688, Burke had argued, the English people
through their legal representatives, entered into a solemn contract,
binding "themselves, their heirs, and posterities forever,"
to certain express terms; and neither in law nor in equity were they,
of whatever generation, free to change those terms except by the
consent of both parties to the contract. This was an elaboration of
the theory of government tacitly held by the Old Whigs, which derived
government from a perpetual civil contract as opposed to the radical
doctrine of a revocable social contract; and in attacking it Paine
allied himself with such thinkers as Price, Priestley, Franklin and
Rousseau. [For an excellent discussion of this,
see C.M. Walsh, The Political Science of John Adams, pp.
203-226] He pointed out the absurdity of carrying over the law
of private property into the high realm of political principle -- to
seek to impose the dead past upon the living sovereignty. If
sovereignty inhered in the English people in 1688, it must inhere in
the English people in 1793, unless it had been violently wrested from
them; no parchment terms of another age can bind that sovereignty
other than voluntarily. Over against Burke's theory of a single,
static contract, Paine set the doctrine of the reaffirmation of
natural rights. Any generation -- as the generation of 1688 -- is
competent to deal with its affairs as it sees fit, but it cannot
barter away the rights of those unborn; such a contract on the face of
it is null and void.
Every age and generation must be free to act for itself
in all cases as the ages and generations which preceded it.
The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most
ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.
Every generation is,
and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions
require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to he
accommodated. [The Rights of Man,
Part I, p. 278]
Burke's defense fares even worse when the argument is examined in the
light of expediency. Illogical as the English system must appear to
the political philosopher, can it plead the justification that it
works; that it does well the things it is paid to do; that it makes
the res publica its main concern? The reply to such questions,
Paine believed, should be sought in the condition of the national
economy; more particularly by an examination of the account-books of
the exchequer. The English people paid annually seventeen millions
sterling for the maintenance of government, and what did they get in
return? Nine millions of the total went to pay interest on old wars,
which in the budget was known as the funded debt; of the remaining
eight millions the larger part was spent in new wars and sinecure
pensions; whereas the real needs of England-the true res pablica
were shamelessly neglected. The English people got little for their
money except new debts to justify new taxes. The poor were even taxed
for the benefit of the great. Thus my Lord Onslow, who was
particularly zealous in the business of proscribing Paine as "the
common enemy of us all," drew four thousand pounds from the royal
chest in sinecures, which made him "the principal pauper of the
neighbourhood, and occasioning a greater expense than the poor, the
aged, and the infirm, for ten miles around." ["Letter
to Lord Onslow," in Works, Vol.III, p.36]
Government on the hereditary principle of Burke did not appear to
advantage in the light of such facts.
The injustice of aristocratic government, Paine believed, was fast
bringing it to its "rotting time" in England. "The
opinions of men with respect to government are changing fast in all
countries; the enormous expense of governments has provoked the people
to think, by making them feel." Englishmen must soon throw aside
the outworn monarchical system and set up a republic. Economics was on
the side of revolution. The great work of revising fundamental laws
was the pressing business of the time. If this could be done
peacefully, by means of a national convention, it were well; if not,
it would come by means 6f an uprising of the people. It was no
lawyer's business to be determined by the law of private property, but
a practical matter of determining the real will of the nation and
putting it into execution. The judgment of the people must be
recorded, and the judgment of the people could be had only through an
adequate system of representation based on free publicity. "I do
not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly and
candidly dealt by," Paine declared. Henceforth they must be taken
into full confidence. There must be no more arcana imperii --
-"Nations can have no secrets; and the secrets of courts, like
those of individuals, are always their defects." [Rights
of Man, Part II, p.428]
One of the great advantages of the American Revolution
has been, that it has led to a discovery of the principles, and laid
open the imposition of governments. All the revolutions till then
had worked within the atmosphere of a court, and never on the grand
floor of a nation. The parties were always of the class of
courtiers.
In all cases they took care to represent government
as a thing made up of mysteries, which only themselves understood;
and they hid from the understanding of the nation the only thing
that was beneficial to know, namely, That government is nothing
more than a national association acting on the principles of a
society. [Ibid., pp. 410-411]
For the follies of government the people pay the bill -- it was this
elementary lesson in public economics that Paine sought to impress
upon the popular mind; and they would still be cheated and plundered
by gentlemen who prospered in cozening, until they took matters into
their own hands. He had no fear of popular government. He believed in
the essential fairness of men and their capacity to deal wisely with
the problems of society if the necessary information were set before
them. "As far as my experience in public life extends, I have
ever observed that the great mass of people are always just, both in
their intentions and their object; but the true method of attaining
such purpose does not always appear at once," [Conway,
Life of Paine, Vol.II, p. 428] he argued before the
French Assembly; and the words express his settled conviction. Those
who fear the people usually have very good reasons. Heretofore
politics had been jealously guarded from free discussion; but now that
the common people were coming to understand that government is
justified only by its measure of service, the beginning of a new age
was at hand.
The ripest product of Paine's speculations on the relation of
government to the individual, is Agrarian Justice, a work too
little known to modern readers. It is a slender tract, written in the
winter of 1795-96, although not published till a year later; and it
was an answer to a sermon by Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, [Author
of An Apology for the Bible (a reply to Paine's Age of
Reason), which was distributed among Harvard undergraduates.]
entitled The Wisdom and Goodness of God in having made both Rich
and Poor. In this remarkable essay, Paine advanced from political
to social theory, pushing his thought into the unexplored realm of
economic justice. The prime impulse of his speculation is found in the
contrast between the augmenting poverty of Europe and the ideal of
equality; a contrast which in France had lately produced a proletarian
revolt under Babeuf, and which in England was harshly aggravated by
the brutal inclosure movement of the last forty years of the
eighteenth century. The question which he considers lies at the heart
of our social problem, namely, whether civilization is competent to
cure the disease of poverty which everywhere it disseminates?
The question emerged naturally from the development of Paine's
thinking. It was implied in his major principle of the res publica,
and the solution must lie in the problem of the relation of government
to social well-being. But in prescribing means to end, he parted
company from Babeuf. [For the program of
Babeuf, see R.W. Ppostgate, Revolution from 1789 to 1906, pp.
24, 54-60] The latter was a Communist who approached the
problem from the point of view of the proletarian who had been
disappointed of the promised equality; whereas Paine, like Jefferson,
was essentially a Physiocratic agrarian. His long residence in America
had confirmed him in the belief that land monopoly was the root of
economic inequality; and his observations of the evictions then going
on in England, uprooting the peasants and sending them to industrial
centers to become wage-workers, strengthened his conviction. The land
problem must be solved if civilization were to be worth its cost, and
the technique of the solution, he believed, must be worked out by the
state. With his usual directness Paine went to the heart of the
problem:
The first principle of civilization ought to have been,
and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into
the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be
worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is,
that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far
worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had
been born among the Indians of North-America at the present day. [Works,
Vol.III, p. 329]
It is not charity hut a right, not bounty but justice, that I am
pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it
is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be.[This
and the peceding sentence were expunged from all early editions by
the censor.]
The contrast of affluence and wretchedness
is like dead and living bodies chained togerher. [Ibid.,
p.337]
It is the practice of what has unjustly obtained the name of
civilization
to make some provision for persons becoming poor
and wretched only at the time they become so. Would it not, even as
a matter of economy, be far better to adopt means to prevent their
becoming poor? [Ibid., p.338]
The crux of the problem, Paine proceeds to point out,
lies in the principle of private property; whether property rights are
sacredly individual -- as Locke had asserted -- or are limited by
social needs. In reply to this searching question Paine laid down the
principle of social values, a theory curiously modern and profoundly
suggestive, which makes Agrarian Justice read like a chapter
out of Progress and Poverty. The principle is so broad, as
Paine states it, that it applies equally to a capitalistic and an
agrarian order.
Personal property is the effect of society; and
it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property
without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land
originally.
All accumulation, therefore, of personal property,
beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living
in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude,
and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to
society from whence the whole came
if we examine the case
minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property
is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor
that produced it; and the consequence of which is, that the working
hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It
is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to
the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for
the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages
daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for
it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for
him in a common fund; for it is no reason, that because he might not
make a good use of it for himself, another should take it. [Ibid.,
p.340]
It is the value of the improvement only, and not of the earth
itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of
cultivated land, owes to the community a ground-rent
for
the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the
fund proposed in this plan is to issue. [Ibid.,
p.329]
Having thus pointed out an equitable source of social income the
returning to society what society has created -- Paine proposed to
deal with the problem of poverty by means of a ten per cent
inheritance tax to provide a fund for the endowment of the young and
the pensioning of the old. It was an early form of the state insurance
idea. In his own thinking Paine doubtless went much farther than this,
but the practical difficulty of separating the social moiety from the
private right inclined him to favor an inheritance tax as the simplest
and best plan; that it would lead to greater things as the social
intelligence quickened, he very likely believed. To bring men to
realize that society is responsible for poverty, and that its total
eradication must be regarded as the first object of civilization, was
his prime purpose. He was seeking to awaken the social conscience of
his generation -- a generation sorely in need of idealism to offset
its love of profits. Agrarian Justice was a contribution to
the slowly developing humanitarian sentiment, and it made appeal to
minds already aroused by the revolutionary movement. The republican
clubs that were springing up in England and America reflected the new
social thought, and the most radical became the most humanitarian. As
early as 1791, in an address signed by Horn Tooke, one of Paine's
English lieutenants, it was declared:
We are oppressed with a heavy national debt, a burthen
of taxes, an expensive administration of government, beyond those of
any people in the world. We have also a very numerous poor; and we
hold that the moral obligation of providing for old age, helpless
infancy, and poverty, is far superior to that of supplying the
invented wants of courtly extravagance, ambition, and intrigue. [Address
and Declaration of the Friends of Universal Peace and Liberty,
quoted in Conway, Life of Paine, Vol.I, p. 316]
The more critically one follows the thought of Paine the more evident
it becomes that the master passion of his later years was concern for
a new social economy. The well-being of society became an engrossing
interest with him; and his zeal for political revolution was
predicated on the belief that popular control of the political state
was a necessary preliminary to a juster social economy. Nothing was to
be expected from the old aristocratic order. His main attack,
therefore, was directed against the monarchical system, but now and
then he paused to level a thrust at the rising system of capitalism.
If he hated King George and the Tories, he hated the younger Pitt and
the imperialists even more. Over against Agrarian Justice
should be set his pamphlet entitled The Decline and Fall of the
English System of Finance, written in 1796, a skillful attack upon
the new funding system. Paine could not foresee, of course, the
enormous expansion of credit that was to accompany the industrial
revolution, but in his commentary on the quantitative theory of money,
and the social consequences of inflation, he unconsciously foretold
later conditions. War he regarded as the great waster, the fruitful
mother of social misery. With his Quaker training he was dedicated to
pacifism, and he spent his life warring against war, and disease, and
poverty, and injustice, and ignorance, and unreason; but no other war
would he sanction. For those futile wars bred of the ambitions of
courts and monarchs, and which for all their cost in blood and money
served no social purpose, he would substitute arbitration. "War
is the Pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game,"
he declared [Rights of Man, Part II, p.
413] -- whereas arbitration is an appeal to reason which alone
should adjudicate and determine between nations.
It would be idle to attempt to trace to their sources the major ideas
of his philosophy. Probably Paine did not know where he got them. He
was not a student like John Adams, familiar with all the political
philosophers; rather he was an epitome of a world in revolution. He
absorbed ideas like a sponge. He was so wholly a child of his age that
the intellectual processes of the age were no other than his own. But
he was very much more than an echo; he possessed that rarest of gifts,
an original mind. He looked at the world through no eyes than his own.
There is a curious remark in an early pamphlet which admirably
expresses his method:
"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." [Works,
Vol.I, p. 155] It was his remarkable ability to think from
first principles that gave such freshness and vigor to his pen. He
drew largely from French thought, but at bottom he remained English.
If he was Gallic in his psychology of human nature and his passionate
humanitarianism, he was English in his practical political sense and
insistence on the economic sources of political action. In his
political theory he was curiously like Roger Williams. A thoroughgoing
idealist in aim, generous and unsparing in service to humanity, he was
a confirmed realist in the handling of facts. He refused to be duped
by imposing appearances or great reputations, but spoke out unpleasant
truths which gentlemen wished to keep hidden. Clear and direct in
expression, he seasoned his writings with homely figures and a
frequent audacity of phrase that made wide appeal. He was probably the
greatest pamphleteer that the English race has produced. and one of
its great idealists.
During his residence abroad Paine habitually thought and spoke of
himself as an American. He conceived it to be his mission to
disseminate throughout Europe the beneficent principles of the
American Revolution; yet nowhere was he hated more virulently than in
America. To the animosity which his political principles excited among
Federalists was added the detestation of the orthodox for the deism of
the Age of Reason. The ministers outdid the politicians in
virulent attack upon his reputation, until the generous Quaker, the
friend of humanity and citizen of the world, was shrunk and distorted
into "the infidel Tom Paine." It was a strange reward for a
life spent in the service of mankind. Like all idealists he made the
mistake of underestimating the defensive strength of vested interests,
and their skill in arousing the mob prejudice. His thousands of
followers among the disfranchised poor could not protect his
reputation against the attacks of the rich and powerful. Although
reason may "make its own way, it makes its way with wearisome
slowness and at unreasonable cost. How tremendous were the obstacles
that liberalism confronted in post-revolutionary America is revealed
with sufficient clearness in the odium visited upon our great
republican pamphleteer.
|