Common Sense

Description

Prompt:

This Prompt has three parts:

1) Imagine you are an American patriot. In the tradition of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, argue why it has become necessary to part from the mother country of England.

2) Imagine you are a land owner in colonial America who is loyal to England. Offer reasons why you believe the patriot cause is treasonous.

3) In your opinion, was the American patriot cause truly “revolutionary”? Why or why not?

What to do:

After reading chapters 5 in Corbett and chapters 4 in Zinn, read through the primary and secondary source material and view the videos posted below, then post a response to the prompt indicated above.

Primary Source Readings:

Common Sense by Tom Paine (excerpts)Download Common Sense by Tom Paine (excerpts)Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader

A Loyalists Rebuttal to Common SenseDownload A Loyalists Rebuttal to Common SenseOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader

Praise for Common Sense in American Newspapers (Links to an external site.)Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader

Secondary Source Readings:

Corbett, chapter 5 – Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests

Zinn, chapter 4 – Tyranny is Tyranny (Links to an external site.)

Videos:

A Biography of America 4 – The coming of Independence (Links to an external site.)

Crash Course: The American Revolution (Links to an external site.)

How to Post your assignment:

Your response should be at least three paragraphs in length (the more substantive paragraphs you write, the better).
https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntyr4….

https://www.learner.org/series/a-biography-of-amer…

NEED REFERENCE !!!!!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Excerpts from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. . . .”
“Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England
and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different
motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period
of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal
was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.”
“The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ‘Tis not the affair of a city,
a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth
part of the habitable globe. ‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age;
posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected,
even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. . . .”
“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her
conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon
their families . . .”
“I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single advantage
that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the
challenge, not a single advantage is derived. . . .”
“Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain,
the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘TIS TIME TO PART. . . .”
“As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent
justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed
with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so
very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. . . .”
“I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the
doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly, positively, and
conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so . . .”
“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the
tyrant, stand forth!”
© 2007 †he çolonial  ƒoundation
MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791
PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION
“a crack-brained zealot for democracy”
New York Historical Society
A Loyalist Rebuttal to Common Sense, 1776
Rev. Charles Inglis
The Deceiver Unmasked; Or, Loyalty and Interest United:
In Answer to a Pamphlet Entitled Common Sense
_________________Preface; Answer to Section III__EXCERPTS
*
Horrified by Thomas Paine’s pro-revolution Common Sensewidely read and
reprinted after its initial appearance in January 1776several Loyalists published
immediate rebuttals. The most disturbing to the Patriots, perhaps, was that penned
a month later by Rev. Charles Inglis, a British-born Anglican clergyman whose
congregation at Trinity Church in New York City was largely Loyalist. Soon after
The Deceiver Unmask ed was advertised in a city newspaper, Sons of Liberty broke
into the printer’s office and destroyed all copies of the provocatively named
pamphlet. Inglis published new copies and later in the year released his work under
the title The True Interest of America Impartially Stated. Presented here are
excerpts from the Preface and his rebuttal to Part III of Common Sense (“Thoughts
on the Present State of American Affairs”).
P REFACE
The following pages contain an answer to one of the most artful,
National Portrait Gallery UK
insidious, and pernicious pamphlets I have ever met with. It is addressed
to the passions of the populace at a time when their passions are much
inflamed. At such junctures, cool reason and judgment are too apt to stop.
The mind is easily imposed on, and the most violent measures will,
therefore, be thought the most salutary [beneficial]. Positive assertions
will pass for demonstration [proof] with many, rage for sincerity, and the
most glaring absurdities and falsehoods will be swallowed.
The author of COMMON SENSE has availed himself of all those
advantages. Under the mask of friendship to America, in the present
calamitous situation of affairs, he gives vent to his own private
resentment and ambition, and recommends a scheme which must
infallibly prove ruinous. He proposes that we should renounce our
allegiance to our sovereign [king], break off all connection with Great
Britain, and set up an independent empire of the republican kind.
Sensible that such a proposal must, even at this time, be shocking to the
ears of Americas, he insinuates that the novelty of his sentiments is the
Rev. Charles Inglis, 1810
oil portrait by Robert Field
only obstacle to their successthat “perhaps they are not yet sufficiently
fashionable to procure them general favor . . .”
“I find no Common Sense in
I find no Common Sense in this pamphlet, but much uncommon
this pamphlet, but much
frenzy. It is an outrageous insult on the common sense of Americans, an
uncommon frenzy.”
insidious attempt to poison their minds and seduce them from their
loyalty and truest interest. The principles of government laid down in it
are not only false but such as scarcely ever entered the head of a crazy politician. Even Hobbes1 would blush to own
the author for a disciple. He unites the violence of a republican 2 with all the folly of a fanatic. . . . I think it a duty
which I owe to God, to my King and country, to counteract in this manner the poison it contains. . . .
*
Copyright © National Humanities Center, 2010/2013. AMERICA IN CLASS ®: americainclass.org/. Early American Imprints, Doc. #43050, courtesy of the
American Antiquarian Society with Readex/NewsBank. Spelling and punctuation modernized by NHC for clarity. Complete image credits at
americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/imagecredits.htm .
1
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English political philosopher who argued for strong central government against which rebellion was justifiable only in
response to grievous tyranny and abuse.
2
Republican, i.e., a proponent of a republic as a nation’s form of government.
ANSWER to SECTION III.
(“Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs”)
…
In the section before me [III], this Gentleman unfolds his grand scheme of a revolt from the crown of
England and setting up an independent republic in America. He leaves no method untried, which the most
experienced practitioner in the art of deceiving could invent to persuade any people to a measure which
was against their inclinations and interest, that was both disagreeable and destructive. He unsays in one
place what he had said in another if it happens to serve the present purpose. He cants and whines;, he tries
wit, raillery, and declamation by turns. But his main attack is upon the passions of his readers, especially
their pity and resentment — the latter of which is too apt to be predominant in mankind. As for himself,
he seems to be everywhere transported with rage — a rage that knows no limits and hurries him along
like an impetuous torrent. Everything that falls not in with his own scheme, or that he happens to dislike,
is represented in the most aggravated light and with the most distorted features. Such a malignant spirit I
have seldom met with in any composition. As often as I look into this section, I cannot forbear imaging to
myself a guilty culprit, fresh reeking from the lashes of indignant justice, and raging against the hand that
inflicted them. Yet I cannot persuade myself that such fire and fury are genuine marks of patriotism. On
the contrary, they rather indicate that some mortifying disappointment is rankling at heart, that some
tempting object of ambition is in view, or
probably both. I always adopt the
“I cannot persuade myself that such fire and
amiable Bishop Berkeley’s maxim in
fury are genuine marks of patriotism.”
such cases  “I see a man rage, rail and
rave, I suspect his patriotism.” . . .
. . . My most ardent wish  next to
future happiness  is to see tranquility restored to America  our liberties, property, and trade settled on
a firm, generous, and constitutional plan, so that neither the former should be invaded nor the latter
impoliticly or unjustly restrained; that in consequence of this a perfect reconciliation with Great Britain
were effected, a union formed by which both countries, supporting and supported by each other, might
rise to eminence and glory and be the admiration of mankind till time shall be no more. . . .
I think it no difficult matter to point out many advantages which will certainly attend our reconciliation
and connection with Great Britain on a firm constitutional plan. I shall select a few of these; and that their
importance may be more clearly discerned, I shall afterwards point out some of the evils which inevitably
must attend our separating from Britain and declaring for independency. On each article I shall study
brevity.
1. By a reconciliation with Britain, a period [end] would be put to the present calamitous war by
which so many lives have been lost, and so many more must be lost if it continues. This alone is an
advantage devoutly to he wished for. This author says  “The blood of the slain, the weeping voice
of nature cries, ‘’Tis time to part.’ ” I think they cry just the reverse. The blood of the slain, the
weeping voice of nature cries  It is time to be reconciled. It is time to lay aside those animosities
which have pushed on Britons to shed the blood of Britons. It is high time that those who are
connected by the endearing ties of religion, kindred and country should resume their former
friendship and be united in the bond of mutual affection, as their interests are inseparably united.
2. By a Reconciliation with Great Britain, peace  that fairest offspring and gift of Heaven  will be
restored. In one respect, peace is like health: we do not sufficiently know its value but by its
absence. What uneasiness and anxiety, what evils has this short interruption of peace with the
parent state brought on the whole British empire! Let every man only consult his feelings  I
except my antagonist3  and it will require no great force of rhetoric to convince him that a
removal of those evils and a restoration of peace would be a singular advantage and blessing.
3
I.e., every man but Paine.
National Humanities Center  “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmask ed, 1776, selections__
2
3. Agriculture, commerce, and industry would resume their wonted vigor. At present, they languish
and droop, both here and in Britain, and must continue to do so while this unhappy contest remains
unsettled.
4. By a connection with Great Britain, our trade would still have the protection of the greatest naval
power in the world. England has the advantage in this respect of every other state, whether of
ancient or modern times. Her insular situation, her nurseries [training] for seamen, the superiority of
those seamen above others  these circumstances, to mention no other, combine to make her the
first maritime power in the universe. Such exactly is the power whose protection we want for our
commerce. To suppose, with our author, that we should have no war were we to revolt from
England is too absurd to deserve a confutation. I could just as soon set about refuting the reveries of
some brain-sick enthusiast. Past experience shows that Britain is able to defend our commerce and
our coasts, and we have no reason to doubt of her being able to do so for the future.
5. The protection of our trade, while connected with Britain, will not cost a fiftieth part of what it must
cost were we ourselves to raise a naval force sufficient for the purpose.
6. Whilst connected with Great Britain, we have a bounty on almost every article of exportation, and
we may be better supplied with goods by her than we could elsewhere. What our author says is true
 “that our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will”  but we may buy them
dearer [at more cost] and of worse quality in one place than another. The manufactures of Great
Britain confessedly surpass any in the world  particularly those in every kind of metal which we
want [lack] most, and no country can afford linens and woolens of equal quality cheaper.
7. When a Reconciliation is effected, and things return into the old channel, a few years of peace will
restore everything to its pristine state. Emigrants will flow in as usual from the different parts of
Europe. Population will advance with the same rapid progress as formerly, and our lands will rise in
value.
These advantages are not
“Suppose we were to revolt from Great Britain,
imaginary but real. They are such as
declare ourselves independent, and set up a Republic
we have already experienced; and
of our own  what would the consequences be?
such as we may derive from a
connection with Great Britain for ages
I stand aghast at the prospect  my blood runs chill
to come. Each of these might easily be
when I think of the calamities, the complicated evils
enlarged on and others added to them;
that must ensue, and may be clearly foreseen.”
but I only mean to suggest a few hints
to the reader.
Let us now, if you please, take a view of the other side of the question. Suppose we were to revolt
from Great Britain, declare ourselves independent, and set up a Republic of our own  what would the
consequences be? I stand aghast at the prospect  my blood runs chill when I think of the calamities, the
complicated evils that must ensue, and may be clearly foreseen. It is impossible for any man to foresee
them all.
1. All our property throughout the continent would be unhinged. The greatest confusion and most
violent convulsions would take place. It would not be here as it was in England at the Revolution in
1688. That revolution was not brought about by a defeasance4 or disannulling the right of
succession. James II, by abdicating the throne, left it vacant for the next in succession; accordingly
his eldest daughter and her husband stepped in. Every other matter went on in the usual regular way,
and the constitution, 5 instead of being dissolved, was strengthened. But in case of our revolt, the old
constitution would be totally subverted. The common bond that tied us together, and by which our
property was secured, would be snapped asunder. It is not to be doubted but our Congress would
endeavor to apply some remedy for those evils; but with all deference to that respectable body, I do
4
5
Defeasance: annulment, forfeiture.
English constitution of 1688.
National Humanities Center  “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmask ed, 1776, selections__
3
not apprehend that any remedy in their power would be
American Antiquarian Society/NL
adequate, at least for some time. I do not choose to be
more explicit; but l am able to support my opinion.
2. What a horrid situation would thousands be reduced to
who have taken the oath of allegiance to the King: yet
contrary to their oath, as well as inclination, must be
compelled to renounce that allegiance or abandon all their
property in America! How many thousands more would
be reduced to a similar situation; who, although they took
not that oath, yet would think it inconsistent with their
duty and a good conscience to renounce their sovereign. I
dare say these will appear trifling difficulties to our
author; but whatever he may think, there are thousands
and thousands who would sooner lose all they had in the
world, nay life itself, than thus wound their conscience.
3. By a declaration for independency, every avenue to an
accommodation with Great Britain would be closed. The
sword only could then decide the quarrel, and the sword
would not be sheathed till one had conquered the other.
The importance of these colonies to Britain need not be
enlarged on; it is a thing so universally known. The greater
their importance is to her, so much the more obstinate will
her struggle be not to lose them. The independency of
America would, in the end, deprive her of the West Indies,
Plain Truth, another Loyalist rebuttal to Paine’s
shake her empire to the foundation, and reduce her to a
Common Sense, was published in 1776 by James
state of the most mortifying insignificance. Great Britain
Chalmers under the pseudonym Candidus.
therefore must, for her own preservation, risk every thing,
and exert her whole strength to prevent such an event from taking place. This being the case 
4. Devastation and ruin must mark the progress of this war along the sea coast of America. Hitherto,
Britain has not exerted her power. Her number of troops and ships of war here at present is very little
more than she judged expedient in time of peace  the former does not amount to 12,000 men 
nor the latter to 40 ships, including frigates. Both she, and the colonies, hoped for and expected an
accommodation. Neither of them has lost sight of that desirable object. The seas have been open to
our ships, and although some skirmishes have unfortunately happened, yet a ray of hope still cheered
both sides that peace was not distant. But as soon as we declare for independency, every prospect of
this kind must vanish. Ruthless war, with all its aggravated horrors, will ravage our once happy land
 our seacoasts and ports will be ruined, and our ships taken. Torrents of blood will be spilt, and
thousands reduced to beggary and wretchedness.
This melancholy contest would last till one side conquered. Supposing Britain to be victorious;
however high my opinion is of British generosity, I should be exceedingly sorry to receive terms
from her in the haughty tone of a conqueror. Or supposing such a failure of her manufactures,
commerce, and strength that victory should incline to the side of America; yet who can say in that
case what extremities her sense of resentment and self-preservation will drive Great Britain to? For
my part, I should not in the least be surprised if, on such a prospect as the independency of America,
she would parcel out this continent to the different European powers. Canada might be restored to
France, Florida to Spain, with additions to each. Other states also might come in for a portion. Let no
man think this chimerical or improbable. The independency of America would be so fatal to Britain
that she would leave nothing in her power undone to prevent it. I believe as firmly as I do my own
existence that, if every other method failed, she would try some such expedient as this to disconcert
National Humanities Center  “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmask ed, 1776, selections__
4
our scheme of independency; and let any man figure to himself the situation of these British colonies
if only Canada were restored to France!
5. But supposing once more that we were able to cut off every regiment that Britain can spare or hire,
and to destroy every ship she can send  that we could beat off any other European power that
would presume to intrude upon this continent: Yet, a republican form of government would neither
suit the genius of the people nor the extent of America.
In nothing is the wisdom of a legislator more conspicuous than in adapting his government to the
genius, manners, disposition and other circumstances of the people with whom he is concerned. If
this important point is overlooked, confusion will ensue. His system will sink into neglect and ruin.
Whatever check or barriers may be interposed, nature will always surmount them and finally prevail.
It was chiefly by attention to this circumstance that Lycurgus and Solon 6 were so much celebrated
and that their respective republics rose afterwards to such eminence and acquired such stability.
The Americans are properly Britons. They have the manners, habits, and ideas of Britons, and
have been accustomed to a similar form of government. But Britons never could bear the extremes
either of monarchy or republicanism. Some of their kings have aimed at despotism but always failed.
Repeated efforts have been made towards democracy, and they equally failed. Once indeed
republicanism triumphed over the constitution; the despotism of one person 7 ensued: both were
finally expelled. The inhabitants of Great Britain were quite anxious for the restoration of royalty in
1660, as they were for its expulsion in 1642 and for some succeeding years. If we may judge of
future events by past transactions in similar circumstances, this would most probably be the case if
America were a republican form of government adopted in our present ferment. After much blood
was shed, those confusions would terminate in the despotism of some one successful adventurer; and
should the Americans be so fortunate as to emancipate themselves from that thraldom, perhaps the
whole would end in a limited monarchy after shedding as much more blood. Limited monarchy is
the form of government which is most favorable to liberty  which is best adapted to the genius and
temper of Britons; although
“Limited monarchy is the form of government which is
here and there among us a
crack-brained zealot for
most favorable to liberty  which is best adapted to
democracy or absolute
the genius and temper of Britons; although here and
monarchy may be sometimes
there among us a crack-brained zealot for democracy
found.
Besides the unsuitableness
or absolute monarchy may be sometimes found.”
of the republican form to the
genius of the people, America is too extensive for it. That form may do well enough for a single city,
or small territory; but would be utterly improper for such a continent as this. America is too
unwieldy for the feeble, dilatory administration of democracy. Rome had the most extensive
dominions of any ancient republic. But it should be remembered that, very soon after the spirit of
conquest carried the Romans beyond the limits that were proportioned to their constitution, they fell
under a despotic yoke. A very few years had elapsed from the time of their conquering Greece and
first entering Asia, till the battle of Pharsalia where Julius Caesar put an end to the liberties of his
country. . . .
6. In fine [summary]. Let us for a moment imagine that an American republic is formed, every obstacle
having been surmounted, yet a very serious article still remains to be inquired into, viz. [namely], the
expense necessary to support it. It behooves those who have any property to think of this part of the
business. As for our author, it is more than probable he has nothing to lose and, like others in the
same predicament, is willing to trust to the chapter of accidents and chances for something in the
6
7
In ancient Greece, the creators of the Spartan and Athenian legal systems.
Oliver Cromwell, who established a brief republic in England in the mid 1650s, after the execution of King Charles I, but exercised tyrannical authority.
National Humanities Center  “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmask ed, 1776, selections__
5
scramble. He cannot lose, but may possible gain. His own maxim is certainly true  “The more men
have to lose, the less willing are they to venture,” and vice versa, say I. . . .
For my part, I look upon this pamphlet to be the most injurious in every respect to America of any that
has appeared since these troubles began. The Continental Congress, the several Provincial Congresses and
Assemblies, have all unanimously and in the strongest terms disclaimed every idea of independency.
They have repeatedly declared their abhorrence of such a step. They have as often declared their firm
attachment to our sovereign and the parent state. They have declared that placing them in the same
situation that they were at the close of the last war8 was their only object; that when this was done, by
repealing the obnoxious acts, our former harmony and friendship would be restored. I appeal to the reader
whether all this has not been done from one end of the continent to the other. . . .
. . . The welfare of America is what I wish for above any earthly thing. I am fully, firmly, and
conscientiously persuaded that in a reconciliation and union with Great Britain, on constitutional
principles, the welfare of America is only to be found. I am fully, firmly, and conscientiously persuaded
that our author’s scheme of independence and republicanism is big with ruin  with inevitable ruin to
America. Against this scheme, therefore, as an honest man, as a friend to human nature, I must and will
bear testimony. . . .
The author of Common Sense is a violent stickler for democracy or republicanism only  every other
species of government is reprobated [condemned] by him as tyrannical. I plead for that constitution which
has been formed by the wisdom of ages  is the admiration of mankind  is best adapted to the genius
of Britons, and is most friendly to liberty. . . .
America is far from being yet in a desperate situation. I am confident she may obtain honorable and
advantageous terms from Great Britain. A few years of peace will soon retrieve all her losses. She will
rapidly advance to a state of maturity whereby she may not only repay the parent state amply for all past
benefits; but also lay it under the greatest obligations. America, till very lately, has been the happiest
country in the universe. Blest with all that Nature could bestow with the profusest bounty, she enjoyed,
besides, more liberty, greater privileges than any other land. How painful is it to reflect on these things
and to look forward to the gloomy prospects now before us! But it is not too late to hope that matters may
mend. By prudent management, her former happiness may again return, and continue to increase for ages
to come, in a union with the parent state.
However distant humanity may wish the period, yet, in the rotation of human affairs, a period may
arrive, when (both countries being prepared for it) some terrible disaster, some dreadful convulsion in
Great Britain, may transfer the seat of empire to this western hemisphere where the British constitution,
like the Phoenix from its parent’s ashes, shall rise with youthful vigor and shine with redoubled splendor.
But if America should now mistake her real interest  if her sons, infatuated with romantic notions of
conquest and empire ere things are ripe, should adopt this republican’s scheme, they will infallibly
destroy this smiling prospect. They will dismember this happy country  make it a scene of blood and
slaughter, and entail wretchedness and misery on millions yet unborn.
I am fully, firmly, and conscientiously persuaded that our author’s scheme
of independence and republicanism is big with ruin  with inevitable ruin
to America. Against this scheme, therefore, as an honest man, as a friend
to human nature, I must and will bear testimony.
8
French and Indian War (1754-1763).
National Humanities Center  “A Loyal American” [Rev. Charles Inglis], The Deceiver Unmask ed, 1776, selections__
6
MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791
PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION
“He has made a great number of converts”
American Antiquarian Society
Praise for Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, 1776
*
as reported in American newspapers
 Extract of a letter from Maryland, February 6, 1776. “If you
know the author of COMMON SENSE, tell him he has done
wonders and worked miracles, made TORIES WHIGS, and
washed Blackamores white. He has made a great number of
converts here. His style is plain and nervous; his facts are true;
his reasoning just and conclusive. I hear of three only in my
county who disapprove of the piece, and two are the echo of
one. I inquired their reasons, “Because (said one of them) as
how D Dy said it might be easily answered.” I beg you
would procure and send me two dozen of the second edition.
Since the King’s speech and the addresses of both Houses of
Parliament, I look upon the separation as taken place. Sometime
past the idea would have struck me with horror. I now see no
alternative; it is SERVIRE AUT DISJUNGE. Can any virtuous
and brave American hesitate one moment in the choice?”
__The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 13 Feb. 1776
 In your famous pamphlet entitled Common Sense, by which I
am convinced of the necessity of Independence, to which I was
before averse, you have given liberty to every individual to
contribute materials for that great building, the grand charter of
American Liberty. I shall therefore venture to lay before you
and the public a few hints, as they may occur to my mind . . .
[The writer offers suggestions for the boundaries and delegate
allocation of the new states.]
__”ESSEX,” The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 17 March 1776
 To the Author of the Pamphlet entitled Common Sense.
Sir, In declaring your own, you have declared the sentiments
of Millions. Your production may justly be compared to a landflood that sweeps all before it. We were blind, but on reading
these enlightening works the scales have fallen from our eyes.
Even deep-rooted prejudices take to themselves wings and flee
away, tho’ not as an eagle towards heaven. The doctrine of
Common Sense, English and German
Independence hath been in times past greatly disgustful; we
editions, Philadelphia, January 1776
abhorred the principle. It is now become our delightful theme
and commands our purest affections. We revere the author and
highly prize and admire his works.  Indeed, sir, you stand high in the esteem of Americans, and
unborn Millions will rise up and call you blessed. America through your means will rise to Glory and
Independence, and become the envy as well as the admiration of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Your pamphlet, sir, speaks good things concerning America, and comes freighted with blessings to
a distressed and insulted country. Your works, above all other political writings, have this peculiar
*
Copyright © National Humanities Center, 2010/2013. AMERICA IN CLASS ®: americainclass.org/. America’s Historical Newspapers, courtesy of the
American Antiquarian Society with Readex/NewsBank. Complete image credits at americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/imagecredits.htm.
virtue they convert Tories and, like Noah’s ark,
prove a covert for different species of animals.
The clean and the unclean, those that divide the
hoof and those that do not  like the radii of a
circle, may meet in this common center and
become one in the great cause of liberty. Should
the Honorable the Continental Congress in their
great wisdom think as we do, the business would
be done  the free and independent states of
America fixed on an immovable foundation, and
the Congress be held in the highest veneration by
MILLIONS.
American Philosophical Society
___The New-London [Connecticut] Gazette, 22 March 1776
 A favorite toast in the best companies [in
Connecticut] in “May the INDEPENDENT
principles of COMMON SENSE be confirmed
throughout the United Colonies.”
Publisher’s advertisement for Common Sense,
The Pennsylvania Ledger, Philadelphia, 13 Jan. 1776
___Connecticut Courant, 8 April 1776
 To the Printer. Sir, Your inserting the following resolve may convince the public that Common Sense
is not altogether destitute of proselytes in Pennsylvania.
t a meeting of Captain James McCandless’s company and a number of other inhabitants of the
township of Faun in York County: Resolved unanimously, That the independent principles of
Common Sense are what we wish to see established as soon as the wisdom of the Hon. the Continental
Congress shall think proper, as we look upon it to be the only alternative now left us to secure our
liberties and screen us from the disgraceful epithet of rebels in the eyes of all the world.
A
___The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 4 May 1776
 Extract of a letter from Petersburg, Virginia, dated April 12. “In my way through Virginia, I found the
inhabitants warm for independence. I spent last evening with Mr.
, from South Carolina. He
tells me that the people there have no expectation of ever being reconciled with Britain again, but only
as a foreign state. They have formed a government for themselves. John Rutledge Esq. is appointed
President, with all the powers that are vested in the Governor. From several letters I have received
from North Carolina, since that Convention have met, I find they are for independence, as they either
have or intend to repeal the instructions that were given to their delegates [to the Continental
Congress] and to leave them at liberty to vote upon every occasion as they think best. Mr.
was
some little time at Halifax [site of North Carolina convention]. He says they are quite spirited and
unanimous. Indeed I hear nothing praised but COMMON SENSE and INDEPENDENCE. The people of
North Carolina are making great preparations and say that are determined to die hard. I assure you, my
good Sir, the vehemence of the southern colonies will require all the