American Revolution
Paine, though an English refugee who had come to America only as late as 1774, sided with the extremists and created the soundest and most powerful freedom tract, undoubtedly. He not only attacked Great Britain’s dependence, but he also pilloried its monarchical system of government and supported republican values. According to Thomas Paine’s views, a new area for diplomacy is being opened by moving the issue from argument to arms; a new way of thinking has emerged. Until the nineteenth of April, that is to say, before the beginning of the war, they are like last year’s manuals, which, though they were right then, are now replaced and worthless. Whatever the proponents then supported on either side of the issue, ended in one and then the same point, viz. A union with Great Britain; the only difference between the two was the means of checking it out; the one advocating force, the other friendship; but it has occurred so far that the former failed, and the latter withdrew its influence.
Much as has been said about the benefits of reconciliation that have passed away like a pleasant dream and forced to leave us as we were, it is only right that we must analyze the opposite side of the argument and investigate some of the many resource injury issues that these colonies survive, and will always sustain, by being linked to and reliant on Great Britain. To investigate the connection and dependency on the concepts of nature and common sense, to determine what we will trust, if isolated, if dependent, and what we are to anticipate[ CITATION Pai08 \l 1033 ].
It has been claimed recently in the legislature that the colonies have no connection with each other except through the parent country, i.e., that Jerseys and Pennsylvania, and so on it for the rest, are sister colonies via England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving connection, but it is the closest and only true way to prove the enemy ship if Paine can call it that
way. France and Spain have never been, nor will they ever be, the opponents as Americans, but as Great Britain’s subjects.
Thomas Paine’s thoughts are more persuasive than James Chalmers because Paine’s charge was then to try and convince Americans — all Americans — that rapprochement was not merely impassable, but burdensome. Paine would have to find ways to make Americans believe that they could not only sustain without Britain but that from the disconnection, they could happily live. He tried to convince Americans there was only one option —complete freedom. In other words, what Paine required was to create an experience of transformation for the populace. Much like Lexington and Concord had transformed Paine to the theology of freedom, he was now seeking to transform the American colonists. To achieve this, Paine launched the literary equivalent of a two-pronged assault. Paine described American freedom reason as nothing short of moral necessity. Paine described the Revolution in Common Sense as the manner of moral superiority and reconstruction as the road to eternal torture. The American struggle was a war between good versus bad, and Paine urged the American people and the Continental Congress to act courageously.
On the other hand, realizing the effect that the Common Sense of Thomas Paine had on the views of colonists more now than ever, preferring the war as a struggle for autonomy, American Loyalists have compiled their rebuttals. One such Tory was the Scottish immigrant James Chalmers who, in his inflammatory pamphlet, assaulted Paine’s ideas. The benefits of the connection with Britain are uncountable, and a just reliance on her is a certain that way of avoiding the harsh realities and catastrophes of war. Wars in Europe are likely to become less common than before; theological rancor, which formerly propelled princes to war, is accompanied by a spirit of a culture that is highly peace-friendly. By painful experience, the
rulers of Europe are or should be persuaded that the instruments of conquest are grossly inadequate to the enormous charge of their weapons.
Consequently, in the future, prudential intentions will always govern peace rather than war. Until this uncomfortable moment, Great Britain gave the ideal proof of her good, benevolent, and a good rule of the Colonies to all humanity — the proofs to which we have always referred. Supreme congratulations, and incredible increase. Then the affair of the invasion of Connecticut, Omnipotence, can only give us stronger justifications for praying a continuance of the former effectual government. Countries, like people, do not attend any mediation in the hour of passion. However, when healthily drubbed, and tired of war, are promptly accommodated, without the mediation of middle people; by whom, belligerents were rarely accommodated, until their inclinations or interests directed the pacification. It is unrealistic to proceed to assume that France and Spain will provide us with any aid if we only intend to make use of that aid for the reason of fixing the violation and bolstering the link between Britain and America; since these powers would be suffering from the action scenes[ CITATION Cha09 \l 1033 ].
It was then their intention to create a break that was too extreme in the sequel for the deluded revolutionaries in that kingdom. If they were involved in supporting us now, they would do it amid quibbles. In just such a case, e’er this time, their military forces and navies had uninterruptedly joined us: for we should confess that Britain’s initiatives would not have prevented Genoa’s republic from helping. Iceland. As well, the demand for the flour would be significantly reduced. The Europeans have no market for those articles and little or none of the French. Britain will be the main lumber mart, part of the grain, naval shops, tobacco, and many other items that may not be usually wanted in any European kingdom. It is more than possible to
conclude that the Governments of New England will have no opposition to an Agrarian law, nor is it unreasonable to assume that such separation of land would be very pleasing to the military. Even so, their general may not have been able to safely refute a gratification to his presence as a general, especially as he will have more than one opportunity for their facilities[ CITATION Loc19 \l 1033 ].
Order a well-written high-quality paper now!
References
Chalmers, J., Smith, W., Rationalis, Hamilton, A., & Chalmers, G. (2009). Plain Truth: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America. R. Bell. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Plain_Truth.html? id=knNbAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y
Locke, J. L., & Wright, B. (2019). The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History. Stanford University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books? id=Z5SFDwAAQBAJ&dq=editions:F6CkWAFFXF0C&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8 xYjd7JrqAhU_4jgGHdTKBBAQ6AEwAXoECAEQAg
Paine, T. (2008). Common Sense. John Campbell. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/147/147-h/147-h.htm#thoughts
