Belongs here.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Showing posts with label Common Sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Sense. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Common Sense, IV - Of The Present Ability Of America, With Some Miscellaneous Reflections - Appendix
Separation between England and America was inevitably going to happen sometime. That time is now. We have enough of an army to fight off the enemy. Yet the different colonies are still dependent enough on each other to form a united front. We have a navy... well, we can build a navy, for we have the materials and know-how in abundance to do so. We'll have to take on debt for the project; all the more reason to win independence, for it is cowardly to burden our children with our debts without such a great result to show for it. [Yikes.]
[Lots more about a navy.]
The continent is now perfectly balanced between space and population to pull this off. We have the energy of youth. And we are just now forming a method of governing ourselves. If we don't commit fully to this, the opportunity will pass and we will fall to some other form of tyranny instead.
[More thoughts on specific form of government-- including a plug for religious liberty.]
Final points: 1) and 2) We can get no aid from friendly nations while under English rule. 3) Without independence, we'll be labelled rebels only. Not a good reputation. 4) A written document of grievances and our remedy sent to foreign powers will establish us as a serious body in the world.
The time is now. Let's roll.
Appendix: Scathing rebuke of "the King's speech", a speech to Parliament in October 1775. Rebuke also to those elements in society cautioning peace and reconciliation. Grow a spine, weenies!
The time is now. In a few decades time, we will have lost the military experience and expertise gained in the French and Indian War. Note also that our independent fate was sealed when mother England fired upon us. From that point, there was no turning back. So onward.
------------------------
Sold! Vive la revolution!
Funny line out of context: "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage."
Awesome passage: "Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means [by 'the legal voice of the people in Congress'], we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months." Damn straight.
I'm realizing that I don't have much of a concept of what life in a colonial system is actually like, and how it differs from-- I mean feels different than-- a self-governed system. What is day to day life actually like? How do citizens view their place in the world and the opportunities their lives present them? Stands to reason though-- I hadn't given much thought to what life in our modern political system is actually like until my 20s. Thanks again to the lack of civics classes in school! I gotta read more primary documents.
[Lots more about a navy.]
The continent is now perfectly balanced between space and population to pull this off. We have the energy of youth. And we are just now forming a method of governing ourselves. If we don't commit fully to this, the opportunity will pass and we will fall to some other form of tyranny instead.
[More thoughts on specific form of government-- including a plug for religious liberty.]
Final points: 1) and 2) We can get no aid from friendly nations while under English rule. 3) Without independence, we'll be labelled rebels only. Not a good reputation. 4) A written document of grievances and our remedy sent to foreign powers will establish us as a serious body in the world.
The time is now. Let's roll.
Appendix: Scathing rebuke of "the King's speech", a speech to Parliament in October 1775. Rebuke also to those elements in society cautioning peace and reconciliation. Grow a spine, weenies!
The time is now. In a few decades time, we will have lost the military experience and expertise gained in the French and Indian War. Note also that our independent fate was sealed when mother England fired upon us. From that point, there was no turning back. So onward.
------------------------
Sold! Vive la revolution!
Funny line out of context: "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage."
Awesome passage: "Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means [by 'the legal voice of the people in Congress'], we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months." Damn straight.
I'm realizing that I don't have much of a concept of what life in a colonial system is actually like, and how it differs from-- I mean feels different than-- a self-governed system. What is day to day life actually like? How do citizens view their place in the world and the opportunities their lives present them? Stands to reason though-- I hadn't given much thought to what life in our modern political system is actually like until my 20s. Thanks again to the lack of civics classes in school! I gotta read more primary documents.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Common Sense, III - Thoughts On The Present State Of American Affairs
To be clear, the choice facing America is already being made, armed hostilities having started. For those who still doubt the proper course, we must consider our current circumstances:
Some say we need always the guidance of Britain. But we have goods and ability enough ourselves to continue prosperous trade.
Some say we owe Britain for our continued protection. But all protection is given only for the benefit of their land, not for ourselves.
Some say our unity comes only from our status as British subjects. But our backgrounds are from all of Europe. And all of Europe will be happy to do commerce with us on our own-- probably even more so when we are independent of the British with whom they still quarrel.
We know our connection is on the brink. Uncertainty in our position can only harm our relations at this point.
To the timid, I point to the suffering in Boston. Consider yourselves lucky if you do not endure what they currently endure.
Even if our current aggravations were repealed, do you not expect more to be imposed in the near future?
Our being ruled from such a great distance is absurd. A full continent being ruled by a small island is more absurd still.
There must be a clean break, as well. It will not due to have some self-government if we are still subject to the ultimate whim of the king afar.
To those who fear independence leading to internal strife and civil war: thus far we behave better than that.
A proposal to those who are wary until a plan of self-government is in place: [Suggested form of government. Temporary Congresses. Presidency rotated among the colonies. 3/5 approval required for laws. Crowning of the Law as king. (Then destroying the crown.)]
The time to act is now-- we have a small opening to do this right, or fall by random chance into a new or bungled tyranny. And this opportunity is from Providence itself. Our continent was discovered when relief from religious oppression was needed most. Our opportunity now is mankind's opportunity for liberty.
-----------------------
Awesome closing paragraph:
Embarrassing history I had to be reminded of: The Battle of Lexington and Concord was April 19, 1775. Bunker Hill was two months later.
Irony alert! "Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
Some say we need always the guidance of Britain. But we have goods and ability enough ourselves to continue prosperous trade.
Some say we owe Britain for our continued protection. But all protection is given only for the benefit of their land, not for ourselves.
Some say our unity comes only from our status as British subjects. But our backgrounds are from all of Europe. And all of Europe will be happy to do commerce with us on our own-- probably even more so when we are independent of the British with whom they still quarrel.
We know our connection is on the brink. Uncertainty in our position can only harm our relations at this point.
To the timid, I point to the suffering in Boston. Consider yourselves lucky if you do not endure what they currently endure.
Even if our current aggravations were repealed, do you not expect more to be imposed in the near future?
Our being ruled from such a great distance is absurd. A full continent being ruled by a small island is more absurd still.
There must be a clean break, as well. It will not due to have some self-government if we are still subject to the ultimate whim of the king afar.
To those who fear independence leading to internal strife and civil war: thus far we behave better than that.
A proposal to those who are wary until a plan of self-government is in place: [Suggested form of government. Temporary Congresses. Presidency rotated among the colonies. 3/5 approval required for laws. Crowning of the Law as king. (Then destroying the crown.)]
The time to act is now-- we have a small opening to do this right, or fall by random chance into a new or bungled tyranny. And this opportunity is from Providence itself. Our continent was discovered when relief from religious oppression was needed most. Our opportunity now is mankind's opportunity for liberty.
-----------------------
Awesome closing paragraph:
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.Chills.
Embarrassing history I had to be reminded of: The Battle of Lexington and Concord was April 19, 1775. Bunker Hill was two months later.
Irony alert! "Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Common Sense, II - Of Monarchy And Hereditary Succession
The worst part of a monarchy is the unnatural division it places between the king and the people. Even the enormous split between rich and poor can be explained by the rich meriting their wealth-- but clearly no one has merited the power granted the king. Further evidence of the unnaturalness of monarchy comes from the Old Testament, where the Israelites were long warned against, and then punished for adopting a king.
Worse even than the institution of the king is hereditary succession-- a further perversion that binds the descendents forever to the mistakes of their elders. Perhaps hereditary succession began as a matter of convenience-- but then to claim it as a natural right is absurd. And look no further than William the Conquerer to see the dishonor in claiming such a right. Further, those who grow up in the knowledge they will be king naturally grow up unfit to lead the people. We also end up with kings too young or too old to actually lead, and are then at the mercy of scheming ministers. Hereditary succession does not even prevent internal strife-- look at the wars between York and Lancaster, where ultimately allegiance depended on a display of power, not a "natural" claim.
And once a real republic is set up by Parliament, there is less and less for the king even to do. He doesn't lead battle, he doesn't judge conflicts. All that's left is making war and dispersing patronage. Useless!
------------------
Good lines:
(On the Catholic hierarchy withholding the Bible from the commoners, so they don't see the folly of the Israelites): "For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." Tee-hee.
"One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion."
(On William the Conquerer): "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."
(On the diminished, and destructive, current role of the king): "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain!"
Embarrassing history I had to look up: William the Conquere led the Norman Conquest (from Normandy), winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He had a convoluted claim to the throne after the death of the childless Edward the Confessor. He submitted his claim and was granted legitimacy by Pope Alexander II. Defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, partly through the use of many archers. Ruled from Normandy for the most part, introducing a hybrid culture into England.
York and Lancaster: The War of the Roses, over the proper line of succession, from 1455-1485.
Worse even than the institution of the king is hereditary succession-- a further perversion that binds the descendents forever to the mistakes of their elders. Perhaps hereditary succession began as a matter of convenience-- but then to claim it as a natural right is absurd. And look no further than William the Conquerer to see the dishonor in claiming such a right. Further, those who grow up in the knowledge they will be king naturally grow up unfit to lead the people. We also end up with kings too young or too old to actually lead, and are then at the mercy of scheming ministers. Hereditary succession does not even prevent internal strife-- look at the wars between York and Lancaster, where ultimately allegiance depended on a display of power, not a "natural" claim.
And once a real republic is set up by Parliament, there is less and less for the king even to do. He doesn't lead battle, he doesn't judge conflicts. All that's left is making war and dispersing patronage. Useless!
------------------
Good lines:
(On the Catholic hierarchy withholding the Bible from the commoners, so they don't see the folly of the Israelites): "For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." Tee-hee.
"One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion."
(On William the Conquerer): "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."
(On the diminished, and destructive, current role of the king): "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain!"
Embarrassing history I had to look up: William the Conquere led the Norman Conquest (from Normandy), winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He had a convoluted claim to the throne after the death of the childless Edward the Confessor. He submitted his claim and was granted legitimacy by Pope Alexander II. Defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, partly through the use of many archers. Ruled from Normandy for the most part, introducing a hybrid culture into England.
York and Lancaster: The War of the Roses, over the proper line of succession, from 1455-1485.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Common Sense, I - Of The Origin And Design Of Government In General, With Concise Remarks On The English Constitution
Society is a natural developement necessary to the survival and prosperity of man. Government, on the other hand, is necessary only to counter the vices that arise in a natural society. As society grows, the most natural organization for a government is of representatives elected from the various regions or groups that make up society. Of utmost importance is that the Elected do not view themselves as a separate class from the Electors.
The only advantage of an absolute governmental authority is its simplicity of organization. The English system cannot even boast of that, given the complex system of checks between the monarch, the peers in the House of Lords, and the republicans in the House of Commons. The hereditary positions contribute nothing to legitimate government, because they necessarily separate the class of government apart from the governed.
An absurdity: The House of Commons has check on the monarch either because the monarch cannot be trusted, or the commons are wiser than the monarch. Yet somehow the monarch can reject the bills of the commons as well-- even though the monarch is shut off from knowledge of the world. Any investigation of this system leads to the question: Whence the power of the king?
Whatever improvements England has introduced beyond a traditional monarchy are for nought while that question remains unaddressed. IF England is a superior nation, it is due to the superior people, not the superior system. We must now look at the system objectively, so as not to prejudice ourselves against its failings.
------------------------
The American system has the same internal inconsistencies, with every house checking every office. The difference, of course, is the election of every office-- so no part of it is inherently the "first moving power". Likewise, the Presidency possesses the danger of devolving into a tyranny, but for periodic elections of a new President.
New vocabulary: "felo de se" -- a suicide, considered a crime against oneself. Used as a metaphor for the internal contradictions of the English system of checks against the monarch.
Embarrassing history I had to look up: Charles the First
Paine: "For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle-- not more just."
King at the start of the English Civil War in 1642, ultimately over the king's defiance of Parliament. Put on trial for high treason by the Rump Parliament in 1649; defiant, claiming the divine right to rule; beheaded.
In the aftermath, a new republic was declared: the Commonwealth of England. Shortly after, in 1653, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Died in 1658. Posthumously beheaded in 1661 after the restoration of the monarchy...
Which led me to this (note: this is ridiculous):
The only advantage of an absolute governmental authority is its simplicity of organization. The English system cannot even boast of that, given the complex system of checks between the monarch, the peers in the House of Lords, and the republicans in the House of Commons. The hereditary positions contribute nothing to legitimate government, because they necessarily separate the class of government apart from the governed.
An absurdity: The House of Commons has check on the monarch either because the monarch cannot be trusted, or the commons are wiser than the monarch. Yet somehow the monarch can reject the bills of the commons as well-- even though the monarch is shut off from knowledge of the world. Any investigation of this system leads to the question: Whence the power of the king?
Whatever improvements England has introduced beyond a traditional monarchy are for nought while that question remains unaddressed. IF England is a superior nation, it is due to the superior people, not the superior system. We must now look at the system objectively, so as not to prejudice ourselves against its failings.
------------------------
The American system has the same internal inconsistencies, with every house checking every office. The difference, of course, is the election of every office-- so no part of it is inherently the "first moving power". Likewise, the Presidency possesses the danger of devolving into a tyranny, but for periodic elections of a new President.
New vocabulary: "felo de se" -- a suicide, considered a crime against oneself. Used as a metaphor for the internal contradictions of the English system of checks against the monarch.
Embarrassing history I had to look up: Charles the First
Paine: "For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle-- not more just."
King at the start of the English Civil War in 1642, ultimately over the king's defiance of Parliament. Put on trial for high treason by the Rump Parliament in 1649; defiant, claiming the divine right to rule; beheaded.
In the aftermath, a new republic was declared: the Commonwealth of England. Shortly after, in 1653, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Died in 1658. Posthumously beheaded in 1661 after the restoration of the monarchy...
Which led me to this (note: this is ridiculous):
Monday, January 31, 2011
Common Sense (Thomas Paine)
This will be the first entry in my political book sequence. It will be followed by the Declaration of Independence and the rest of the founding documents, before moving onto the Federalist Papers. It seems like a good way to set the stage and get a feel for the popular feeling of the time before moving on to the formal philosophy and language.Thinking it over, I find it shocking that I never read Common Sense in a History course in high school. We learned about it, of course-- learned that it was written by Thomas Paine, and it laid out a case for the revolution. Apparently, that was enough for the state standards, and as students that sure seemed like enough for us. What the hell is wrong with our education system?
Originally I thought I'd read this online, but there was a free edition available for Kindle, so I'm reading it that way, on the computer. Perhaps a purchase for later, if I ever find a good edition with several founding documents at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)