Log in

View Full Version : Thomas Paine, Propagandist of the American Revolution



Random Precision
13th June 2009, 20:15
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Thomas_Paine_(cropped).jpg

By Mike Marquese
Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/11/tom-paine-and-american-revolution)
June 11th, 2009

"This internment was a scene to affect and to wound any sensible heart. Contemplating who it was, what man it was, that we were committing to an obscure grave on an open and disregarded bit of land, I could not help but feel most acutely."

The occasion for this lament was the sparsely attended funeral of Thomas Paine, who died 200 years ago in June 1809, at the age of 72, and was buried in the small farm he owned in what was then the rural hamlet of New Rochelle, 20 miles north of New York City.

Not long before, New Rochelle's bigwigs had barred Paine from voting, claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. Paine, who had virtually invented the idea of U.S. citizenship, was furious.

But this was not the end of his indignities. When he sought a place to be buried, even the Quakers would not oblige him. Hence, the muted funeral of the man who had inspired and guided revolutions in North America and France--and equally important, the revolution that did not happen in Britain.

Despite his extraordinary career, Paine was a late starter. When he left England in 1774, at the age of 37, he could boast six years of formal education, teenage service in a seagoing privateer, and stints as a corset-maker, excise (tax) officer, tobacconist and school teacher. Having been sacked, for a second time, from a post in excise, Paine separated from his second wife, sold up and sailed for North America.

There, he found a cause and a constituency, and the talent to link one with the other. Fourteen months after his arrival in the New World, he published Common Sense, the pamphlet that galvanized opposition to British rule in North America.

Here, he called for immediate separation from Britain and, crucially, the establishment of a democratic republic in the former colonies. During the ensuing war, he shuffled between battlefields and committees of the Continental Congress, becoming the foremost propagandist of the colonial cause, both at home and abroad.

***

Paine had hoped, after the victory in America, to devote himself to his mechanical interests, notably the design of a single-arch bridge. But political controversy waylaid him.

When Edmund Burke published his conservative classic, Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which he upheld the divine right of kings and decried dangerous tampering with the established order, Paine responded with the First Part of Rights of Man, published in March 1791.

Declaring "my country is the world and my religion is to do good," he mounted a comprehensive defense of the French Revolution ("the tremendous breaking forth of a whole people") and its founding ideas: "The downfall of [the Bastille] included the idea of the downfall of despotism." Against Burke's devotion to precedent, Paine offered a central statement of purpose: "I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their being willed away, and controlled and contracted for, by the manuscript-assumed authority of the dead."

Paine was to commit even greater offense with the publication of Part Two of Rights of Man six months later. Arguing that "only partial advantages can flow from partial reforms," he laid out the case for dismantling the British state and replacing it with a democratic republic.

In the final chapter, he broached new and even more dangerous territory: the intrusion of democracy into the economic realm. He set forth proposals for what we would now call old-age pensions (or Social Security), child and maternity benefits, state-funded primary education, employment for the casual poor--all funded by redistributive, steeply progressive taxation.

Rights of Man was an immediate bestseller, reaching in its first two years perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the English reading public, and becoming the most widely and hotly debated text of the age.

Paine himself became the preeminent embodiment of radicalism in Britain. His bold championship of the rights of the excluded majority inspired the plebeian London Corresponding Society--whose story E.P. Thompson saw as central to The Making of the English Working Class--the non-sectarian republicans of the United Irishmen, and the pioneering feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft.

Conversely, for the British establishment, Paine became a prime menace and demon--the carrier of the dreaded French disease. His writings were banned; those who distributed them were prosecuted. A government-subsidized smear campaign branded him a drunkard and libertine. The burning of Paine's effigy became the central rite of the "Church and King" mobs that harassed dissidents.

Paine himself fled to France. In his absence, he was convicted of seditious libel, which barred his return to his native land for the rest of his life.

In France, Paine was hailed as a champion of the revolution and elected a deputy to the National Convention. His biographers tend to see his ensuing French decade as a tragic tale, but for me, Paine emerges from this maelstrom with astonishing credit.

Upon his arrival, and before it was popular, Paine advocated the prompt abolition of the monarchy, and its replacement by a constitutional republic based on representational democracy.

When the King was finally removed, Paine supported his public trial and subsequent conviction, but opposed the sentence of execution, for reasons both tactical (the alliance with the U.S.) and principled: his opposition to the death penalty, which he viewed as a legacy of "monarchical" cruelty. He wrote: "As France has been the first of European nations to abolish royalty, let her also be the first to abolish the punishment of death, and to find out a milder and more effectual substitute."

A few months later, he was writing to Danton, despairing of the revolution, the intimidation of legislators by the Paris crowd and the widespread "spirit of denunciation." Under the Jacobin "Terror," Paine was imprisoned for eight months. He narrowly escaped execution, but his health was permanently impaired.

On his release, he again bit the hand that fed him, opposing the Directory's restriction of the vote. Later, he was ambivalent toward Napoleon, but happy to give him advice on making war against the English enemy. Paine remained viscerally hostile to the British Empire, its institutions and agents, and consistent in his belief that the American and French Revolutions, whatever their disfigurements, had to be defended.

***

As if he hadn't already alienated enough people, in 1795, Paine published The Age of Reason, an assault on state religions ("set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit"), on the Bible ("a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind") and on Christianity. While praising Jesus as a "virtuous reformer and revolutionist," Paine damned the religion practiced in his name:

"A man is preached instead of God; an execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy it gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the execution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the Jews for doing it."

Paine's writings circulated to a large public, thanks not least to the energy and clarity of his prose. Accessible but never condescending, rigorous in argument but rooted in the spoken language, Paine's style was nearly as threatening as his ideas. It had immediacy, humor, compassion, sardonic irony and a dollop of ad hominem spice (despite the author's disavowals).

When Paine returned to the U.S. in 1802, he received a cool welcome. He was now the infamous author of The Age of Reason, an infidel with whom even old allies like his friend in the White House, Thomas Jefferson, were reluctant to associate.

Meddlesome Christians urged the sick and dying man to embrace their faith but were brusquely dismissed. One of his friends facetiously suggested that Paine could resolve his financial worries by publishing a "recantation." The author of The Age of Reason replied, "Tom Paine never told a lie."

In the two centuries since his obscure burial, Paine has been claimed by as many as once disclaimed him: liberals, Marxists, social democrats, anarchists, right-wing libertarians, American exceptionalists, neoliberals (a passage in Rights of Man reads like a hymn to globalization). Even New Rochelle finally got around to awarding Paine posthumous citizenship--in 1945.

Recently, "New Atheists" such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have staked a claim. Dawkins simply omits the fact that Paine was not an atheist, but a deist. Hitchens takes a different route, dismissing Paine's deism as a halfway house to atheism. What both miss is that Paine's deism was part and parcel of a sustained challenge to the hierarchies and powers of his day--which cannot be said of their atheism.

Paine's ideas were not static. He was, above all, a participant. His writings were interventions. He changed his mind. He contradicted himself.

Leninists and liberals alike have squeezed Paine into the dubious category of "bourgeois democrat." But the democratic thrust that he embodied, that drove him forward, that fueled his writing, cannot be so easily delimited.

Whatever else he may have been, Paine was and remained a committed "revolutionary," in theory and practice. He sought not just to ameliorate, but to overturn the existing order. His restless egalitarian spirit could not be contained. It flowed from the political into the religious and economic realms. Thus:

"Change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad."

Words to remember as we consider current upheavals in British parliamentary politics.

BobKKKindle$
13th June 2009, 21:33
Good article, but it's worth pointing out that Paine's politics as well as the politics of the radical movement in Britain were slightly more complex than this article might lead us to believe. In particular, many of those who were involved in radicalism did advocate major reforms to the political system such as a change in the distribution of parliamentary seats, and reducing the role of placemen within parliament (i.e. officials who were involved in the administration of government agencies, and appointed to their positions by the executive, as distinct from MPs who had been elected in county or borough seats) but these reforms were generally justified with references not to rational principles, along the lines of the American and French revolutionaries, but to the theme of an English constitution, which, according to radicals such as Paine and Cobett, had been violated by the government, in breach of its historic obligations. It was often the case that different groups of radicals would refer to different stages of British history depending on when they thought the British constitution had first come into being, or when the government had first neglected its obligations towards its citizens, with references that stretched further back in time, to the Saxon period and beyond, generally signifying a more radical agenda. Thus, even Paineite journals such as Cap of Liberty asserted that the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights had signified a return to the “first principles”, which, it was alleged, had been violated by “the tyrant John”, in reference to King John, who reigned during the 12th century. The persistent importance of the "constitutional idiom", as Epstein puts it, is evident even in later movements that have often been seen by historians such as Thompson as cases of the working class breaking away from established forms of political discourse and developing its own ideological agenda, such as Chartism - note that the leader of Chartism, Feargus O'Connor, argued that annual parliaments and universal male suffrage (two of the six points contained in the Charter) were “formerly a portion of the boasted constitution of our country”, when explaining the justification for the movement's demands. On these grounds I think that the author of this article is mistaken in assuming that Paine advocated "a democratic republic", even if we allow for changes in his ideas during the course of his political career.

I think a further problem with this article is its characterization of the LCS as a plebian movement. Calhoun has challenged this account by arguing that radicalism was actually a narrower movement that limited itself to a small section of the working-class in the form of artisan workers, who were closer in terms of living conditions and aspirations to the lower ranks of the professions, as well as individual intellectuals drawn from the middling classes, than they were to other workers, who were increasingly concentrated in large units of production, and lacked the same opportunities for social mobility as artisans. Calhoun contends that the “older working class communities” of which Thompson speaks when discussing the geographical distribution of the membership of the London-based radical societies were comprised mainly of journeymen and shopkeepers who had dense social relationships with each other, as demonstrated by the benefit societies and other communal self-help bodies, communicated amongst themselves, and were therefore able to engage in collective action to defend their sectional interests, with these communities including Wapping, Spitalfields, and Southwark. Calhoun then goes on to suggest that the artisan communities stood in contrast to the newer (and poorer) districts, of which the East End is the best example, which had experienced rapid population growth as a result of rural-urban immigration during the 18th century, and contained workers who showed little ability to organize themselves despite their conditions, and did not contribute in significant numbers towards the LCS. Calhoun does not offer much in the way of quantitative evidence to support these arguments but it is noteworthy that the papers of the LCS record that tailors and shoemakers were important groups within the organization, and were, along with other groups of artisans such as watchmakers and weavers, also most likely to remain members and continue to participate in political activities over a long period of time, whereas other workers, whose jobs were less secure, might withdraw from radicalism when faced with hardship. A closer look at the bases of working-class politics in the 1790s not only shows that radicalism was largely an artisan phenomenon - it also reveals that large sections of the urban and rural working classes chose instead to participate in loyalist associations that were established at a local level shortly after the French Revolution to protect Britain against the threat of a French invasion as well as internal challenges to the power of the establishment. There were, according to O'Gorman, 300,000 Volunteers (members of Volunteer regiments, established by Pitt in 1794 for the same purpose) by the end of the century, and as many as 450,000 during the invasion crisis of 1804, indicating a high level of working-class involvement in loyalist politics. The story becomes more complex when we acknowledge that the division between "radicalism" and "loyalism" is false insofar as people who might normally identify as radicals would never have been willing to support or fight alongside a French invasion, and, at the same time, loyalist associations frequently involved practices that we might see as being rather radical - for example, it was common for plebeian participants to call for the right to elect their own officers. For these reasons, I don't think general comments about the state of the working class during the 1790s are appropriate.

C. Calhoun, The question of class struggle: social foundations of popular radicalism, 1982
F. O'Gorman, The Long Eighteenth Century, 1997
J. Epstein, Radical Expression: Political Language, Ritual and Symbol in England, 1790–1850, 1994

Uppercut
18th June 2009, 00:33
I wrote a paper on Thomas Paine my junior year. I described how invoking his work was (The Crisis, Common Sense, etc.) It's a shame he isn't regarded nearly as highly as the other founding fathers. He single handedly got the states' into a frezy to fight off the British.

I called him the "Che Guevara" of his day. Lol

pastradamus
19th June 2009, 14:24
People oft times over look Paines Contributions to Modern Philosophical and Leftist thought. Its also worth Pointing out how Paines "rights of man" infulenced some of the largest uprisings at the time. Its true to say During the mid 1800's rebellions were more Paine than Marx for the most part.

Love this man. Good article RP and Good Contribution BK.

Old Man Diogenes
27th June 2009, 22:00
Thomas Paine, a true revolutionary. :thumbup1:

Nwoye
28th June 2009, 01:34
don't forget that he also opposed against private property in land, and called for a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens.