~He was one of the rabble rousers who incited the rebels into action by his rhetoric. He could write well and he pimped for the hotheads who wanted war. Other than that, he did nothing for the cause. I won't write such a short and simple essay for you, you'll have to read about him and draw your own conclusions. Better still, read what he wrote (particularly 'The Crisis' series) and decide what the response would have been. That is what your assignment is about.
A little about the man:
He was a failure at just about everything he got into. He was born in England and tried to make a go of it there. He flunked out of school at age 12 (probably tried to get others to do his homework for him, just as you are doing here). He tried to work as an apprentice to his father, but he couldn't cut the mustard there. Daddy sent him packing. He went to sea. He was a flop on deck. Back on shore, he went to work as a tax officer in England and got fired twice in four years.
He met Ben Franklin in 1774 and moved to America on November 30, 1775. The war was already 6 months old by the time he arrived. Then, in 1776, he wrote Common Sense, a pamphlet addressing grievances of the colonies against the crown. Of course, he had know idea as to the truthfulness of that which he wrote, he not having any first hand knowledge of the circumstances about which he wrote. He wasn't here when they took place.
He was writing on behalf his buddies, such as Franklin, and simply repeating - in his own prose - that which they fed him. There was little new in 'Common Sense' but the folks who wanted to hear their own ideas being related by others lapped it up. Such is the nature of propaganda. It's much like someone who has never tasted a drop of counseling an alcoholic. He could write about what others told him but he had no experience from which to gauge the accuracy of anything he said. For the most part, his readers were unaware of that little fact, not that many of them would have cared had they known.
Writing things like:
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God." (From 'The Crisis', December, 1776)
he tried to bolster flagging support for continuation of the rebellion and to stir undecided souls into enlisting the militias and the Continental Army. He, himself, joined the army but he failed as a soldier. In Paine's case, the pen was mightier than the sword. A pen he could wield.
After the war, he went back to Europe. Continuing his life's pattern, he didn't fare well once again. Although absolved of his treason to the British from '76 to '83 by the Treaty of Versailles, he wrote "The Rights of Man" in 1792 and was once again branded an outlaw by them. He fled to France and got himself arrested there for refusing to endorse some aspects of the French Revolution. While in prison, he began "The Age of Reason" while awaiting his date with the guillotine. The US minister to France, James Monroe, felt him important enough to save (or Monroe felt some debt of loyalty to him, perhaps) and won his release. Paine finished the book and published it in 1796. It became his most renowned work. In 1802 he returned to the United States and discovered that the ideas expressed in 'The Age of Reason' had made him more than a little unpopular there. Having written of the virtues of the revolution, one of the goals of which was freedom of religion, his anti-religious views as expressed in 'The Age of Reason' left in virtual isolation. He died and was buried in 1809. Hardly anyone went to the funeral.
Such was the life of one of the revered Founding Fathers.
2007-10-15 17:38:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yo, quette2:
Just how do you suppose that Tom Paine helped write the constitution? As soon as the war was over, he booked back to England and that's where he was during the Constitutional Convention. Unless I'm mistaken, they didn't have telephones or e-mail then and he really wasn't really in a position to add his two cents even if anybody was interested.
Oscar had it right.
Paine had nothing to do with anything in America after he split in 1783. Yes, the views expressed in "The Age of Reason" must be considered in the context of the times. Paine's contemporaries did. That's why he spent so much time running from the law, why he was almost executed in France, and why he died alone and friendless when he returned to the U.S.
I compare him to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in the sixties but at least they had first hand knowledge of the events about which they ranted.
2007-10-16 05:53:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by damonkey 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
Whatever the last writer thinks about Thomas Paine is correct in some respects, but he did help have a great input into the French and American republics. His Rights of Man has to be viewed in the context of the day not by present day standards.
Together with Ben Franklin he helped write your Constitution and the French Constitution.
Don't forget that at the time of his writing, the only peoplle that had a voice was the very rich, the poor had no voice and no vote. People were not allowed to gather in the streets to discuss anything - if they did they risked being throne in prison..
2007-10-16 03:47:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by quette2@btopenworld.com 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
One of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, was his pamphlet "Common Sense". It argued the need for the colonists to separate from Britain and declare independence. This publication was readily available, and helped to "spread the word", so to speak, and get the message across. It sort of worked like modern day campaigning, and was a very effective and important part of getting the colonists - urban and rural alike, to realize the need to take action against the injustices imposed by Britain.
2007-10-15 15:45:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by steddy voter 6
·
0⤊
1⤋