Similarities Between Mary Wollstonecraft And Thomas Paine

The identity of a society is verified through the rights which are given to the citizens. The rights of man have been at many different standards throughout time. Often being very one sided, and at times striving for a median between the two sides. In Edmund Burke's essay Reflections on the Revolution in France Burke states that a king is in one sense a servant but in everyday situations they are above every individual. All persons under him owe him a legal agreement to serve his hopes. This essay will demonstrate why Thomas Paine's essay The Rights of Man is more convincing than Edmund Burke's through examination of a heredity government, the nature of rights and the uselessness of the monarchy.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

Today we look back at the American Revolution and picture a united people fighting for inalienable rights, but to grasp the impact that Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” had upon his contemporaries we must understand the situation in the American colonies in 1776. When Paine wrote his pamphlet, the colonist and The Parliament in London, were almost 10 years into a debate over the rights of limited self-government by the colonies. In the months preceding the publication of Paine’s pamphlet the situation had steadily worsened until the April 19th, 1775 armed confrontation between Massachusetts colonists and British Army soldiers. By the end of that day, blood had been shed by both sides, and armed colonists placed the British garrison in Boston under siege. Despite this violence, most colonists viewed the events as a part of a struggle between Englishmen that would be resolved with the continued allegiance of the colonies to the Crown, but with more favorable treatment from London. It was with this popular mindset throughout the colonies, that Paine would deliver his “Common Sense” pamphlet arguing for complete independence from England. Paine understood that to make his argument resonate he needed to appeal to the public in a manner that had yet to be done.

England 's introduction of the intolerable acts upon American colonists created a ripple effect which they did not anticipate, which completely changed the views of many colonists. These colonists went on to become the voices that fueled the American Revolutionary War and spread the messages of liberty, freedom, and a new way of life. Some voices stood out more so than the rest, their names became etched in our history books their thoughts and beliefs paving the way for the Revolution. One such colonist is James Otis wrote a series of patriotic pamphlets outlining his views on the colonies state of affairs , one of those pamphlets is The Rights of British Colonies Asserted and Proved written in 1763. In The Rights of British Colonies Asserted and Proved James Otis outlines his perspectives on government 's rights and the rights of the people , these perspectives revolutionized colonial opinions and made famous the quote” no taxation without representation.”

Up until the 1700s, all Europeans had known was an absolute monarchy as a government. Monarchs often answered to no other government officials, and consequently, abused their power to oppress lower classes. Men began meeting in secret salons to discuss what needed to be changed in order to fix this, subsequently beginning enlightenment ideas. John Locke, a prominent English enlightenment thinker, believed that citizens had the right to rebel against an unfair government. As a result, America’s Revolution against Britain was sparked.

In a time of uncertainty and alliances Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense provided the American people an easy way to understand the breakdown of who they were going to go to war against and why they should. Paine offered opinions with intellectual backing, opinions that were soon backed or opposed by other colonists and debated from taverns to law offices all over the colonies. In this paper, I will be discussing Paine’s intended audience, his perspective, the major problems he sees between England and the American colonies, and why his writing was so persuasive to support the revolution and weaknesses in his argument.

The king’s attitude towards the rights of man and ultimate fate of the colonists is one of complete and utter disregard. He refers to the “many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and will always sustain” by remaining under the power of the king of England (336). The heavy imposition of taxes on the colonies and complete disregard of colonial feelings proves how Paine describes Britain’s view of America as a limited one, one that only considers how America can serve England’s “purposes” (342). Paine hopes to instill the same feeling in the colonists that the king of England can never compensate for “the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to” (341). By using rather derogatory terms to describe America, Paine hopes to give the reader the sense that Britain is far more concerned with money and resources rather than who the colonists are as human beings. His discourse portrays the king of England as an animal, and implied that he only exists to steal the resources that the colonies produce. “Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families” which is how Paine feels Britain had chosen to do in America (336). Paine continues to persuade the colonists that the only leader of America shall be God, who shines his light upon those seeking independence. Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, reduces England to beast, one of which shall be cut off from

Firstly, the King’s absolute power was a reasonable grievance of the colonists. King George prosecuted the making of laws that were to bind the colonists despite any circumstances. Although, the colonists believed that his power was too unlimited to apply defeat on. This meant that Americans would lose everything if they were to oppose him. Moreover, the Quartering Act portrayed how people’s own homes were resided by militants under the king’s orders. This was a violation to their rights of property. Similarly, the people demanding their laws of nature are in no way for the King’s personal benefit. As a matter of fact, the King should be considered the servant of the people, as his purpose is to serve their injustices. Moreover, the colonists’ rights by nature averse to King George’s beliefs. As expected, his beliefs only respond to the

Jefferson and Paine, both, had comparable concepts on the king’s act for law making. Paine elucidated the image of the king as a narcissistic person. Jefferson, on the other, listed twenty-seven grievances that were directed towards the king, although most attributed to the actions of the parliament. “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,” (Jefferson, 1776). His first two grievances clarified the negligence the king had over the laws that would pass through to him.

Many philosophers and theorists have spoken on the value, or lack thereof, of revolution. In Second Treatise of Government, John Locke builds the concept of a “social contract,” which outlines responsibilities of the government and what can be done if the state fails to uphold its duties.  Edmund Burke views political rebellion in a different light. He writes in Reflections on the Revolution in France that upheaval does excessive harm to the state, and, by extension, the people. While both Locke and Burke agree that rebellion is useful to the growth of a state, they differ on a few main points. First, they disagree in terms of what circumstances warrant revolution. Second, they each believe it should take different forms and work to different extents. Finally, Locke and Burke believe revolution tends to have positive or negative effects, respectively. Their views on each of these points will be discussed in turn.

It is easy to interpret the American Revolution simply as a struggle for freedom. The magnanimous phrases of the Declaration of Independence have embedded in our hearts and minds glorious images of the Founding Fathers fighting for the natural rights of man. The American Revolution, however, also had a darker side to it, the side of self-interest and profit. The signers of the Declaration represented various classes – the working class, the wealthy land owners and merchants, the intellectuals, and the social elite. Each of these strata had its own set of expectations and fears, which lent a new dimension to the cause of the Revolution. The pressure of these internal, and often overlapping groups, combined with the oppressive external

Burke also argued against natural rights and explained a custom and practice that develops relation between the government and people. Paine believed in equality and criticised the monarch being chosen by the hereditary succession and by the choice of the people. He wanted the British Constitution to be written because he saw it as not right, and it was brought in during the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Burke, the father of the modern conservatism, is well known for his criticism, or contempt of the French Revolution; assuming so, it is not hard to doubt that he in fact sympathized with the American cause. If he is the true father of the conservatism, then the reader may be surprised to hear that he sided with the colonists; however, his decision makes a sense if we acknowledge that Burke regarded the American Revolution as a revolution that is not too far apart from that of the Glorious Revolution, unlike the French Revolution. Paine would argue otherwise by using the Universalist language that the French would used; however, in the eyes of Burke, the colonists are the true Englishmen, who are asking for returns that are entirely rational, and perhaps historical to the English culture of pursuing liberty. French, in the other hand, did not have any concrete foundations for their pursuit of liberty. The rule by the mass under equal findings were never heard of nor realized, which makes Burke to beg the question of feasibility. In short, Burke, who finds the justifications from the traditions as a conservative, fully acknowledges that the American colonists are articulating their needs of self-governance and liberty within reason and within reach; in contrast, Burke despises the French Revolution, since it is to dispose the traditions and the societal mechanisms that France developed over time, through complete overturn of the society and denial of the past.

Locke’s ideas were ahead of his time period, particularly when he “debunked the claim of rule by divine right” and introduced the phrase, “consent of the people” (104). However, Locke was pleasantly surprised that his ideas were welcomed by James II’s successor, William of Orange, a sign that times were changing towards Locke’s ideal civil order. Glendon states, “Locke could hardly have expected that such a radical book, with its open endorsement of a right of resistance, would become the favorite reading of the new sovereign” (104). Locke anticipated the future of civil society in England and was able to usher in this new era of government by participating in the drafting of the English Bill of Rights. If it was not for Locke’s ability to anticipate Britain’s future, Britain might not have transitioned to his ideal style of government as quickly as they did. Unfortunately, Rousseau was not able to enjoy the fruits of his labor like Locke, but nonetheless he did anticipate the future of French Society, not with the structure of government like Locke, but with ideas and rhetoric that inspired the French Revolution and ushered in the era of Romanticism. Glendon writes, “when the Revolution entered its radical phase, it was the ideas and catchphrases of Rousseau, shorn of their ambiguity and subtlety,

The French Revolution of 1789 changed the meaning of the word “revolution.” Prior to this year, revolution meant restoring a previous form of government that had been taken away. Since then, revolution has meant creating a new institution of government that did not previously exist. This required that a constitution be drafted. After a series of four mini-revolutions from May to July, the “Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen” was released on the twenty-sixth of August, 1789. When the French revolutionaries drew up the Declaration, they wanted to end the traditions surrounding hereditary monarchy and establish new institutions based on the principles of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment