What Is Paine's Argument Against Heredity?

1409 Words6 Pages
Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was an impressive critique of colonial fears of separation from parent country and on hereditary monarchy in British Government. Paine possessed a unique ability to reach out to his audience through a variety of different methods. By using ordinary language and religious scriptures Paine painted a vivid picture on the fallacy of hereditary monarchs and for the need for American independence. However, his work wavered some by way of ignoring some factual evidence and suffered heavily by way of its own hypocrisy. In the end though his literary piece provided a means for thorough and lengthy debates on the future of America. Paine stated that society was a blessing, but government was a necessary evil. Men, he believed, gave tribute (land/wealth) to their government in exchange for safety, security, and the wills of those in positions of power. However Paine noted that in Britain heredity in both the monarchy and the House of Lords acts as a barrier and created a sense of isolation for those who govern and those who are governed. This is an important step in Paine’s argument against heredity as he expressed dissatisfaction to…show more content…
Through the examination and propagation of William the Conqueror, Paine sought to remove the colonists’ cultural and historical perceptions of the monarchy. Paine explains that the English monarchy is one of both French origin and of French conquest. A fact that, he believes, the English monarchy refuses to acknowledge. He expresses his anger as the English monarchy was achieved by a French foreigner with armed banditti establishing a system without the consent of the people. The explanation of the English monarchy’s origins was an effective way to breed dissatisfaction in colonists. It showed to them that their trust in the English monarchy system, which was based on divinity, was a
Open Document