You know, usually when you think about the birth
of a nation, you just naturally picture these
grand, sweeping battlefields. Oh, totally. The
generals on horseback, the smoke from the musket.
Right. The sheer, like, physical force of an
army just clashing against an empire. It is a
deeply physical image, for sure. I mean, we tend
to visualize the kinetic energy of a revolution,
the actual pushing and shoving of history, if
you will. Yeah, it's all action. But then if
you look at the actual spark, the thing that
really ignited all that gunpowder in the first
place, suddenly you aren't looking at a battlefield
at all. No, not at all. You're looking at a stack
of paper. You're looking at words printed on
a page just circulating through freezing taverns
and cramped meeting houses in the dead of winter.
It's the absolute definition of the pen giving
the sword its target. Because, you know, before
you can convince people to pick up a weapon,
you really have to completely rewire how they
see the world. Absolutely. So welcome to today's
Deep Dive. For you listening, it is Friday, March
13th, 2026, and today we are embarking on a really
timeless exploration of a profoundly influential
text. A massively important one. Yeah, the stack
of sources we have in front of us today consists
entirely of excerpts from the February 14th,
1776 edition of Thomas Paine's pamphlet. common
sense. Right and specifically we're looking at
the main body of the work along with the appendix
that got added to later editions and his very
pointed address to the Quakers. It really is
a remarkable collection of source material. We
are looking at a document that didn't just suggest
a minor change in tax policy. Hardly. It demanded
a complete paradigm shift for an entire continent.
It did. And that is exactly our mission for this
deep dive. We are going to extract the raw, unfiltered
arguments of what became one of the most effective
pieces of political persuasion ever written.
We really are. We're going to uncover not just
what was argued to ignite a revolution, but how
this text systematically attempts to dismantle
a centuries -old superpower. all while laying
out the structural blueprints for an entirely
new nation, which is wild to think about. It
is. But before we unpack the mechanics of that
argument, we do need to establish a very strict
framework for our discussion today. Yes, that's
crucial. Because the text we are examining is
intensely charged. It is filled with revolutionary
fervor, sharp political critiques, and deeply
theological arguments that are rooted in like
18th century interpretations of scripture. Exactly.
So here is a crucial disclaimer for you listening.
Right. The political views. The revolutionary
sentiments and the religious arguments presented
in this text belong entirely to the author. 100%.
In this deep dive, we are just going to impartially
report on these intense viewpoints. Our goal
is strictly to understand the source material.
Right. We are not taking sides. And we are certainly
not endorsing the political, social, or religious
positions contained within the pamphlet. Not
at all. We are here to analyze the rhetoric and
the structure of a historical document, plain
and simple. Precisely. Think of it like we are
acting as architects. We're just examining the
blueprints of the argument to see how the building
was constructed. We are not moving into the building.
I love that analogy. And man, what a massive
structure it is. I am just immensely curious
about how a single pamphlet, I mean it's just
a few dozen pages, could generate such a seismic
reaction. It's really unprecedented. Yeah, the
sources include quotes from the era showing the
impact. You have George Washington's general
saying it convinced them of the necessity of
separation. John Adams dreaded its popular effect.
Exactly. Loyalists called it the vilest thing
ever published, full of treason. So how does
one writer construct an argument that just completely
shatters the status quo? Well, he does it through
a highly structured sequential rhetorical strategy.
The author doesn't just start screaming for a
revolt on page one. Right, that wouldn't work.
Exactly. He builds a staircase, he starts at
the absolute bedrock of human philosophy, and
step by step he walks the reader toward his intended
conclusion of independence. He neutralizes objections
before the reader even has a chance to articulate
them. He really does. Okay, let's take that first
step with him. Because before the author can
convince the reader to overthrow a king, He clearly
realizes... He first has to fundamentally redefine
what government actually is. From a purely philosophical
standpoint. Right. He has to wipe the slate clean
of centuries of tradition. He does. And the text
begins by making a very hard, stark distinction
between two concepts that people often just blur
together. Society and government. Exactly. The
author posits that they are not only different,
but they have completely opposing origins and
functions. Right. The text sets up this dichotomy
immediately. It frames society as being produced
by our wants and government by our wickedness.
Which is a heavy distinction. It is. Society
is presented as a positive force. It promotes
our happiness by uniting our affections. It encourages
interaction and mutual support. The text literally
characterizes society as a patron. And then comes
the pivot. Because government, on the other hand,
is produced by our wickedness, it operates negatively.
It restrains our vices. It creates distinctions
between people. If society is the patron, the
text explicitly labels government as the punisher.
It's a rather bleak view of human nature, honestly,
but incredibly compelling. Oh, absolutely. The
text asserts that society in every state is a
blessing, but government, even in its absolute
best state, is but a necessary evil. And in its
worst state, it's an intolerable one. Yeah. There's
this potent imagery where the author compares
government to clothing. He writes, government
like dress is the badge of lost innocence. The
palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the
bowers of paradise. That's the line. That imagery
does a lot of heavy lifting. He is arguing that
if human beings were perfectly moral, like if
the impulses of conscience were clear and uniform
and irresistibly obeyed. We just wouldn't need
law givers. We wouldn't need kings or parliaments
at all. Exactly. We only surrender a part of
our property, our taxes, to the government to
protect the rest of it because we're fundamentally
flawed. We choose government out of prudence,
basically choosing the lesser of two evils. Okay,
let's unpack this concept because the author
uses a thought experiment to illustrate this
progression. And it reminds me of something very
relatable. Oh, like what? Think about a group
of friends deciding to build a cabin. in the
deep woods, like completely cut off from civilization.
OK, I'm with you. At first, it's just pure society.
One person can't lift a heavy timber alone. One
person can't forage, build, and guard against
animals all at the same time. Right, they need
each other. Exactly. So necessity, which the
text calls a gravitating power, pulls them together.
They help each other out. The reciprocal blessings
of the group make formal laws Totally unnecessary.
Because the initial shared struggle binds them
together. Their survival really depends on mutual
cooperation. It is a state of natural liberty.
Exactly. But then what happens? The cabin gets
built. The immediate danger passes. People get
a little comfortable. When in nature kicks in.
Yep. Suddenly, someone starts taking more than
their fair share of the firewood. Someone else
refuses to help patch the roof. The text argues
that as they surmount the first difficulties,
they begin to relax in their duty and attachment
to each other. And that remissness, that loss
of moral virtue, forces them to create rules.
Right. It forces them to appoint someone to enforce
those rules. The friends have to invent government
because they couldn't stay perfectly good. It's
such a brilliant way to frame it. By using this
specific progression, the author is executing
a massive rhetorical demystification. How so?
Well, think about the centuries leading up to
this point. The British monarchy, and really
European monarchies in general, wrapped themselves
in the idea of divine right. Untouchable majesty,
right? Exactly. Kings were anointed by God. Governments
were sacred institutions. thought experiment
just trips all of that away. Completely. By reducing
the very concept of government to a mere pragmatic
tool, just a necessary evil invented to manage
human wickedness, he dramatically lowers the
stakes of altering or abolishing it. He removes
the sacred aura. Oh, I see. If government isn't
holy, if it's just a tool we invented because
we couldn't behave, then we can just swap out
the tool when it stops working. Exactly. It's
no longer a sin against God to change the government.
It's just basic maintenance. That is fascinating.
The text states clearly that the true design
and end of government is simply freedom and security.
Right. And therefore whatever form of government
appears most likely to ensure that security,
with the least expense and greatest benefit,
is preferable to all others. He is instructing
the reader. Don't be dazzled by the pageantry.
Don't be deceived by the titles. Look exclusively
at the utility. Which is a profound takeaway
for you listening right now. Think about the
systems in your own life. Yeah, that's a great
point. Maybe the structure of your workplace
or a large organization you interact with. Are
those structures functioning as a society that
unites affections and operates on mutual benefit?
Or have they become a government that merely
restrains vices? Right, a cumbersome apparatus
that you only tolerate because it's a necessary
evil. It's a lens that forces you to evaluate
institutions based on their actual utility rather
than just their tradition. And it's a lens that
clarifies everything that follows in the pamphlet.
Because once he establishes that the absolute
only purpose of government is simple security,
the next logical step in his argument is to examine
whether the current reigning system actually
provides it. And by current system, we mean the
incredibly complex British constitution. Exactly.
Does it actually provide that security? He asserts
that it absolutely does not. He moves from this
abstract philosophy of the origins of government
right into a brutal, highly detailed dissection
of the so much boasted constitution of England.
He really tears into it. He begins this critique
with a maxim drawn from nature and mechanics.
The text argues that the more simple anything
is, the less liable it is to be disordered and
the easier it is to repair when it does get disordered.
Which leads to this wildly counterintuitive point
that really caught my attention. The author actually
argues that absolute government's dictatorships,
essentially, even though they are the disgrace
of human nature, have one distinct advantage
over the English system. They are simple. Exactly.
He says if the people suffer under an absolute
monarch, they know exactly who is hurting them.
They know the cause, and they know the cure.
They aren't bewildered by a maze of bureaucracy.
Right. But the English Constitution, however,
is presented as exceedingly complex. The author
argues that this complexity hides the true source
of suffering. A nation could suffer for years
without being able to discover which part of
the government is actually at fault. One person
blames the king. Another blames Parliament. And
every political physician prescribes a different
medicine. The complexity itself is a danger to
the security of the people. He tears the English
Constitution into three component parts. He categorizes
two of them as the base remains of two ancient
tyrannies. Right, the monarchical and the aristocratical.
Yes, you have the remains of monarchical tyranny
in the Person of the King. You have the remains
of aristocratical tyranny in the Persons of the
Peers, meaning the House of Lords. And then compounded
with that, you have some new Republican materials
in the persons of the commons, the elected officials.
And he emphasizes a critical structural flaw
in this arrangement. The first two parts, the
king and the peers, they're hereditary. They're
entirely independent of the people. Exactly.
Therefore, the text argues in a constitutional
sense, they contribute absolutely nothing to
the freedom of the state. OK, but wait, I have
to push back here on behalf of the 18th century
reader. Oh, please do. Let's hear the counter
argument. The entire pride of the English system
at this time was its balance. Aren't checks and
balances supposed to be a good thing? That's
what we're taught, yeah. If the commons can withhold
supplies from the king, doesn't that prove the
people have the ultimate power? How does the
author get around that constitutional fail -safe?
Ah, well what's fascinating here is how he identifies
what he considers a fatal logical loop in that
exact argument. A logical loop? Yeah. He dissects
the idea of these three powers reciprocally checking
each other, and just dismisses it as versical.
He argues it is a flat contradiction in terms.
How does he break down that contradiction? Well,
the text points out that to say the commons is
a check upon the king presupposes two fundamental
things. First, it presupposes that the king cannot
be trusted without being looked after. Okay,
that implies that a thirst for absolute power
is the natural unavoidable disease of monarchy.
Right. And second, it presupposes that the commons,
by being appointed to watch the king, are either
wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown
itself. That makes logical sense. You don't hire
a babysitter unless you think the baby needs
watching. Exactly. And you assume the babysitter
is more responsible than the baby. Right. But
here is the fatal flaw that text exposes. That
very same constitution, which gives the cons
the power to check the king by withholding supplies,
also gives the king the power to check the common.
Oh, because the king can reject their bills.
Yes. So the Constitution supposes that the Commons
is wiser than the King to keep him in line. But
then it turns around and gives the King the power
to veto the Commons. Which supposes the King
is somehow wiser than the people who were just
appointed because they were wiser than him. Ah.
It's an endless loop. It's eating its own tail.
It is a paradox. The text synthesizes this by
calling the entire system a mere absurdity. It's
a house divided against itself. He points out
the inherent ridiculousness of a system that
shuts a king away from the world, excluding him
from the normal means of gathering information
like a common citizen. Right, they live in a
bubble. Exactly. But then empowers him to act
in cases where the highest judgment and worldliness
are required. He calls it a fellow de se, which
is a legal term for suicide, a system inherently
destroying itself. Wow. He argues that in any
machine, all the wheels are put in motion by
one primary wheel. So the central question is
which power in the Constitution has the most
weight? Because that one will eventually govern.
Yes. The others might clog it or check its speed,
but eventually the primary power will have its
way. And he asserts unequivocally that the crown
is the overbearing part. It derives its consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions.
Exactly. He notes that while the architects of
the Constitution were wise enough to lock the
door against absolute monarchy, they were foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the
key. Ah. By controlling the wealth and the appointments,
the king can easily buy the loyalty of the commons,
rendering the check completely void. And he actively
challenges the national pride of the English
reader. He says people think they are safe because
of the Constitution, but really, the will of
the King is just as much the law of the land
in Britain as it is in France. The only difference
is that in Britain, it's handed to the people
under the formidable shape of an act of Parliament
rather than directly from the King's mouth. It's
tyranny by committee. He brings up Charles I
to prove this point, which is a really fascinating
historical anchor. He says the fate of Charles
I only made kings more subtle, not more just.
Yeah, that requires a bit of context for the
listeners. Sure. Charles I was the English king
who was actually overthrown and executed during
the English Civil War in 1649. The monarchy was
temporarily abolished. Right. But the author's
point is that executing the king didn't fix the
underlying structural issue of the Constitution.
When the monarchy was restored, the kings just
learned to be quieter about their tyranny. They
learned to use parliament to do their dirty work.
Exactly. System itself was still broken. Which
sets up his next rhetorical move perfectly. because
he's proven that constitutional mechanics are
broken. But to truly sever the tie, he has to
go after the moral authority of the system itself.
He transitions from attacking the paper constitution
to attacking the bloodline of the king. The takedown
of monarchy and hereditary succession. This is
where the text moves from political theory into
historical and biblical critique. He starts by
establishing a baseline, which is that mankind
was originally equals in the order of creation.
You have rich and poor, certainly, but the distinction
of men into kings and subjects is entirely unnatural.
Right. He says male and female are distinctions
of nature. Good and bad are distinctions of heaven.
But how did a race of men get so exalted above
the rest like a new species? He turns to historical
and biblical arguments to answer that. And his
interpretation of scripture here is intensely
anti -monarchical. He argues that government
by kings was originally a heathen invention and
that the children of Israel essentially peer
-pressured themselves into copying the custom.
In his words, it was the most prosperous invention
the devil ever set on foot for the promotion
of idolatry. We really have to remember the audience
he is writing for here. This is 18th century
America. The Bible is the ultimate authority
in almost every household. By framing monarchy
not just as a bad political system, but as a
literal sin against God, he is utilizing the
most powerful persuasive tool available to him.
The language he uses is just incredibly sharp.
He points out how heathens paid divine honors
to deceased kings and the Christian world improved
on the idolatry by paying divine honors to living
ones. There is this one quote that is just blistering.
Oh, which one? He writes about the impious title
of sacred majesty being applied to quote, a worm
who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling
into dust. Wow. That is a total demystification
of royal authority. It really is. To prove that
the Almighty expressly disapproves of government
by kings, the text relies heavily on two major
narratives from the Old Testament, the stories
of Gideon and the prophet Samuel. Let's explore
those because the text dedicates a significant
amount of space to them. How does he leverage
the story of Gideon? The text details how the
Israelites, after a massive military victory
led by Gideon, wanted to make him king. They
offered him not just a crown, but a hereditary
one. They said, rule thou over us, thou and thy
son and thy son's son. Exactly. But Gideon refuses.
The text quotes his reply. I will not rule over
you. The Lord shall rule over you. The author's
interpretation is that Gideon isn't just humbly
declining in honor. He's explicitly denying their
right to give it. Right. Charging them with disaffection
to their proper sovereign, the King of Heaven.
And then he moves to the situation with Samuel,
which is even more dramatic and occupies a huge
chunk of this section. Much more. About 130 years
after Gideon, the people come to the prophet
Samuel demanding a king so they can be like all
other nations. Meaning the surrounding heathen
nation. Exactly. Samuel is displeased and prays
on it. According to the text, God tells Samuel
they haven't rejected Samuel, they have rejected
God. Right. But God tells Samuel to listen to
them. yet solemnly protest and show them the
manner of the king that will reign over them.
And the text meticulously lists out what that
manner is. It's basically a prophetic laundry
list of oppression. Oh yeah, it's bleak. The
king will take your sons for his chariots. He
will take your daughters to be cooks and bakers,
which the author notes describes the luxury and
expense of kings. He will take your fields and
your vineyards and give them to his servants.
Proving that bribery and favoritism are standing
vices of kings. He will take a tenth of your
sheep, you will be his servants and you will
cry out and the Lord will not hear you. That's
brutal. And despite this explicit, terrifying
warning, the people demand a king anyway. So
Samuel calls into the Lord and the Lord sends
thunder and rain during the wheat harvest as
a punishment. The people are terrified and admit
they have added to their sins this evil to ask
a king. The author uses this entire narrative
to conclude that the Almighty entered a formal
protest against monarchical government. He even
brings in the concept of popery, which was a
highly charged term for Catholicism at the time,
suggesting that keeping the anti -monarchical
scripture from the public was a tactic of kingcraft,
just as much as priestcraft. He's basically saying
the kings have been hiding the true meaning of
the Bible from the people to maintain power.
Having established that monarchy itself is a
degradation of human dignity, he argues that
society added something even worse to it. Hereditary
succession. Yes. If monarchy is a degradation,
hereditary succession is an insult and an imposition
on posterity. This is where he dissects the logic
of inheritance. He argues that even if a populist
chose their first leader, they have absolutely
no right to give away the rights of their children.
You might say, we choose you for our head. But
you cannot legally or morally say, your children
and your children's children shall reign over
ours forever. His reasoning is that such an unwise
compact might put the next generation under the
government. of a rogue or a fool. This is what
the text refers to as the ask for a lion argument.
Yes, exactly. One of the strongest natural proofs
of the folly of hereditary right is that nature
herself disapproves of it, frequently turning
it into ridicule by giving a remarkably wise
parent an incredibly foolish child. And he completely
dismantles the romanticized mythic history of
how kings came to be. He really does. He says,
if we could take off the dark covering of antiquity
and trace them to their first rise, we'd find
the first king was probably nothing better than
the principal ruffian of some restless gang.
Someone whose preeminence and subtlety or savagery
got him the title of chief plunderer. They weren't
anointed by God. They were just the best thugs.
He applies this directly and bluntly to the English
lineage. He points to William the Conqueror,
the first Norman King of England. The text doesn't
mince words. It labels him a French bastard landing
with an armed banditi. Establishing himself as
king against the consent of the natives, he calls
it a very paltry, rascally original with no divinity
in it whatsoever. He traps the reader with a
simple logical question regarding the origins
of kings. How did kings come at first? By lot,
by election, or by usurpation? Right. If by lot
or election, That establishes a precedent for
the next leader, which naturally excludes hereditary
succession. You can't elect the first one and
then say the bloodline takes over forever. And
if it was by usurpation, like William the Conqueror,
then the whole lineage is illegitimate. He draws
a fascinating theological parallel here, comparing
hereditary succession to the doctrine of original
sin. Oh, that's a clever move. Yeah, just as
all of mankind sinned in Adam, all men obeyed
in the first electors. In one, we were subjected
to Satan, in the other, to sovereignty. Both
disable us from re -assuming our former uncorrupted
state. Beyond the philosophical absurdity, he
focuses on the practical, everyday evil of it.
Men who are born to reign grow insolent. Their
minds are poisoned by importance from an early
age. They live in a bubble that differs so materially
from the real world that they have no opportunity
to know its true interests. Thus, when they succeed
to the government, they are frequently the most
ignorant and unfit people in the entire Dominion.
Not to mention the vulnerability of the throne
falling to a minor, like a child king or an aged
king entering his dotage. In both cases, the
public becomes prey to miscreants and advisors
who tamper with the regent or the king. The power
is wielded by unaccountable shadows behind the
throne. The author also tackles the absolute
primary defense of hereditary succession used
at the time. Which was what? The claim that it
prevents civil wars. The argument was that if
you know exactly who is next in line, people
won't fight over the throne. And how does he
respond to that? He calls this the most barefaced
falsity ever imposed upon mankind. Wow. And he
brings receipts. He definitely does. He cites
the history of England since the Norman conquest.
30 kings and two miners, during which time there
were eight civil wars and 19 rebellions. He specifically
details the contest between the houses of York
and Lancaster. Yes, the Wars of the Roses. Exactly.
A multi -generational conflict over the hereditary
right to the throne that laid England in a scene
of blood for 67 years. Twelve pitched battles.
Instead of making for peace, hereditary succession
destroys the very foundation seems to stand on.
It guarantees conflict every time there is a
weak air or a disputed lineage. He sums up the
business of a king in England with just dripping
contempt. He writes that a king has little more
to do than make war and give away places which
impoverishes the nation and sets it together
by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man
to be allowed 800 ,000 sterling a year for and
worshipped into the bargain. He concludes that
one honest man is worth more to society than
all the crown ruffians that ever lived. So if
we trace the architecture of the argument thus
far. The ideological foundation of government
is stripped to mere utility. The constitutional
mechanisms are exposed as broken. The monarchy
itself is delegitimized morally, historically,
and biblically. And the text must now pivot again.
It has to anticipate the emotional and economic
pounder arguments. Right. Because the reader's
probably thinking, okay, the system is flawed,
but why leave the country that birthed and protected
us? Hasn't America flourished under the British
connection? The text calls that argument completely
fallacious. The author uses a great analogy.
He asserts we might as well say that because
a child has thrived upon milk, it is never to
have meat. Or that the first 20 years of our
lives is a precedent for the next 20. He states
roundly that America would have flourished as
much, and probably more, had no European power
had anything to do with her. He argues that the
commerce by which America enriched herself are
the absolute necessaries of life. As long as
eating is the custom of Europe, American provisions
will always have a market. They aren't buying
American goods because they are British subjects.
They are buying them because they are hungry.
But what about the protection argument? Britain
defended the colonies during the French and Indian
War, right? Doesn't America owe Britain for that
protection? The text concedes that Britain defended
the continent, but it viciously attacks the motive
behind that defense. How so? The author asserts
that Britain's motive was interest, not attachment.
She didn't protect America from American enemies
on America's account. She protected America from
British enemies on Britain's account. Ah, here's
where it gets really interesting. This is where
the geopolitical mechanics of mercantilism come
into play. It's like a toxic friendship, or maybe
like a mob boss offering protection to a local
business. I like that analogy. Right. The mob
boss says, look. I kept those other gangs from
burning down your shop. You owe me. But the only
reason those other gangs wanted to burn down
the shop in the first place is because the mob
boss is using the back room to run his operations.
That is a perfect encapsulation of the text's
argument. The text points out that France and
Spain never were and never will be America's
enemies as Americans. They are only enemies because
America is subject to Great Britain. Exactly.
If America threw off the dependence, they would
be at peace with France and Spain. Spain. The
author is completely reframing America's place
in the world. He attacks the phrase parent country
or mother country as a low, pepistical design
meant to gain an unfair bias over credulous minds.
He declares that Europe, not England, is the
true parent country of America. Because the New
World had been the asylum for the persecuted
lovers of civil and religious liberty from every
part of Europe. They fled not from the tender
embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty
of the monster. He points out that not Even one
-third of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania were
of English descent at that time. So calling England
the mother country is demonstrably false, selfish,
narrow, and ungenerous. And he emphasizes that
staying connected to Britain forces America into
endless European wars. It is the true interest
of America to steer clear of European contentions,
which she can never do while she has made the
make -weight in the scale of British politics.
The text argues that America's true protection
is its commerce. A free port will secure the
peace and friendship of all Europe because it's
in Europe's economic interest to trade there,
unhindered by British monopolies. He even points
to geography as divine evidence. The distance.
Yeah, he says the physical distance at which
the Almighty place England and America is a strong
and natural proof that the The authority of one
over the other was never the design of heaven.
And the time of its discovery preceding the Reformation
was as if the Almighty meant to open a sanctuary
for the persecuted in future years when home
should afford neither friendship nor safety.
Having addressed the economic ties, he then targets
the emotional ties. He paints a grim, terrifying
picture of what reconciliation would actually
look like. The inhabitants, once affluent, were
now starving or begging. endangered by the fire
of their friends and plundered by the soldiery.
He actively challenges the passive tempers who
still hope for a peaceful reconciliation. The
emotional appeal here is intense. He doesn't
just make a logical point. He asks the reader
directly. What does he ask? He says, have your
house been burned? Has your property been destroyed
before your face? Are your wife and children
destitute of a bed to lie on or dread to live
on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their
hands? That is powerful. If you have and can
still shake hands with the murders, you are unworthy
of the name of husband, father, friend or lover.
You have the heart of a coward and the spirit
of a sycophant. It's a forceful push to sever
the emotional ties of loyalty. He argues that
reconciliation is a fallacious dream. As John
Milton wisely expressed, never can true reconcilement
grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced
so deep. Any future connection would be forced,
unnatural and end in a relapse worse than the
first. He argues that the business of governing
a continent is simply too weighty and intricate
to be managed by an island 3000 miles away. In
no instance have nature made the satellite larger
than its primary planet. I love that line. It's
a great one. America and England belong to different
systems. England to Europe. America to itself.
So the ideological scaffolding is dismantled.
The constitutional flaws are exposed. The monarchy
is delegitimized. The emotional and economic
ties are severed. But a crucial, highly pragmatic
question remains for the reader, and the author
knows it. Can this seemingly ragtag continent
actually win a war of independence right now
against the greatest military power on earth?
This is a vital pivot. Because it's one thing
to want independence. It's another entirely to
actually afford it and survive the conflict.
Right. The reader might be convinced of the philosophy,
but terrified of the reality. And the author
addresses this fear head on with an argument
about the urgency of the present moment. He doesn't
want people waiting for some perfect future moment.
He says, He also makes this really fascinating,
counter -intuitive argument about debt. Oh, the
national debt argument? Yeah. We usually think
of national debt as a terrible burden, something
to avoid before starting a new country. But the
text says, debts we have none, and whatever we
may contract on this account will serve as a
glorious memento of our virtue. He argues that
a national debt is actually a national bond.
If it achieves a settled form of government and
an independent constitution, the purchase at
any price will be cheap. He goes further than
just abstract economics. He gets incredibly empirical
here to prove his point. He addresses the primary
terror of the colonists, the British Navy. Right.
To prove that America can afford to rival it,
he actually calculates the total cost of the
British Navy line by line. He uses calculations
from Mr. Burchett. secretary to the Navy, detailing
the exact cost of building ships of various gun
rates. He lists the cost of a hundred -gun ship
at about 35 ,000 pounds sterling, a 20 -gun ship
at 3 ,700 pounds. He totals up the entire British
fleet from its greatest glory in 1757, factoring
in guns, rigging in stores, and concludes the
whole thing is worth about three and a half million
pounds sterling. And he immediately contrasts
that 3 .5 million with Britain's national debt
of over 140 million pounds, for which they pay
4 million just in annual interest. He argues
that for a mere 20th part of the English national
debt, America could have a navy twice as large.
Furthermore, no country on the globe is so internally
capable of raising a fleet. Right, because America
natively produces tar, timber, iron, and cordage.
We don't need to go abroad for anything. We are
standing on the raw materials. He compares this
to the Dutch, who make large profits hiring out
ships, but have to import most of their materials.
He frames building a fleet not just as a war
expense, but as an article of commerce, the natural
manufactory of the country. If we don't need
the ships after the war, we can sell them and
replace paper currency with gold and silver.
He also dispels the myth about manning a fleet.
People thought you needed a massive population
of lifelong trained sailors to operate in Navy.
He uses the example of the terrible privateer
commanded by Captain Death, which stood the hottest
engagement of the last war, despite having fewer
than 20 seasoned sailors among a complement of
over 200 men. A few able sailors can instruct
a sufficient number of active landmen on the
job. But wait, let me step in as the skeptical
18th century reader again. Go for it. Isn't being
a young developing nation, an infant state, a
massive disadvantage in a war against a global
empire? Wouldn't it be safer to wait 20 or 50
years until the population is larger and the
economy is more established? The author anticipates
exactly that objection. And his response is another
brilliant reframing of reality. He asserts that
youth is actually a massive advantage. How so?
He argues that a larger, more crowded population
might actually be less united and less willing
to fight. He observes historically that the more
a country is peopleed, the smaller their armies
tend to be. He argues that trade and commerce
absorb men's attention. Commerce diminishes the
spirit of both patriotism and military defense.
Exactly. With the vast increase of commerce,
he argues, England lost its spirit. He cites
the rich of London submitting to continued insults
with the patience of a coward. Because the more
men have to lose, the less willing they are to
venture into conflict. The rich are generally
slaves to fear. By contrast, the colonies are
young, less crowded, and currently possess nothing
but liberty. They are uniquely united by misfortune.
And he puts a very specific ticking clock on
it. He warns that if they wait 50 years, it might
be impossible to form the continent into one
government. The vast variety of interests caused
by increased trade and population would create
confusion. Colony would be pitted against colony.
Furthermore, the military experience they gained
in the French and Indian War would be totally
extinct. They wouldn't have a single general
or military officer left with combat experience.
So the present time is the perfect intersection.
They have the military experience from the last
war, a growing but still culturally united population,
and the raw materials to build a defense. The
imperative to act now is logically established.
But tearing down a system leaves a dangerous
vacuum. People fear anarchy more than tyranny.
That's very true. The text must transition from
the rhetoric of rebellion to the architecture
of a new society. It has to outline what must
replace the crown to prevent chaos. Which is
exactly what he does. He doesn't just say, let's
rebel and figure it out later. He offers concrete
hints on how to structure the future, starting
with a proposal for a continental conference
to frame a continental charter. Yes, a new Magna
Charter for America. He outlines a detailed,
highly structured representative system. He suggests
assemblies be annual, with a president only.
He emphasizes the critical need for large and
equal representation. dividing colonies into
convenient districts. He proposes sending at
least 390 delegates to Congress to ensure a broad
base of voices. And to ensure absolute fairness
and prevent any one populous colony from dominating
the others, he proposes this intricate rotating
lottery system for choosing the president. Walk
us through that. How does the lottery work? When
Congress meets, one of the 13 colonies is chosen
by lot. Then the whole Congress votes by ballot
for president from that specific colony's delegates.
The next Congress, the lottery excludes that
first colony, picking from the remaining 12 and
so on until everyone has had a turn. That's incredibly
methodical. It's designed so that he that will
promote discord under a government so equally
formed as this would have joined Lucifer in his
revolt. But the text doesn't just offer bureaucratic
mechanics. It addresses the symbolic and psychological
void left by the absence of a king, he asks rhetorically.
But where, says some, is the king of America?
I'll tell you, friend, he reigns above. But to
satisfy the human need for earthly honors and
solemnity, he proposes a dramatic crowning ceremony.
It is a highly theatrical proposition. I love
this imagery. He suggests a day be solemnly set
apart for proclaiming the new charter. It should
be brought forth, placed on the divine law, the
word of God. A crown is placed on the law, declaring
to the world that in America the law is king.
Because in absolute governments, the king is
law. In free countries, the law ought to be king.
And then, at the conclusion of the ceremony,
lest any ill use arise, the crown is physically
demolished and scattered among people whose right
it is. It's theatrical, but it serves a profound
political purpose. This raises an important question.
Why is a formal declaration in a written charter
so critical structurally at this exact moment?
Well, the text warns that without a legally occupied
seat of government, the tottering situation of
things will tempt a desperate adventurer to seize
power. He references Massanello to illustrate
this danger. Yes. Masonello was a fisherman in
Naples who in 1647 stirred up a massive popular
revolt against the oppressive taxes of the ruling
Spaniards. In the space of just a few days, this
charismatic fisherman essentially became the
absolute ruler, the king of Naples. He wielded
terrifying unchecked power before being assassinated.
The author uses this specific 130 -year -old
Italian reference. for a very deliberate reason.
He warns the people opposing independence that
they are opening a door to eternal tyranny by
keeping the seat of government vacant. They think
they're preserving peace by waiting, but he says,
you know not what you do. A Massanello could
lay hold of popular disquietudes, rally the desperate
and sweep away the liberties of the continent
like a deluge before a proper government is formed.
Alongside this political framework to prevent
a dictator, the text takes a remarkably strong
stance on religious freedom. He states it is
the indispensable duty of all government to protect
all conscientious professors of religion. And
he frames religious diversity not as a problem
to be solved or managed, but as a divine feature
of a free society. He says he fully and conscientiously
belives it is the will of the Almighty that there
should be a diversity of religious opinions among
us. It affords a larger field for Christian kindness.
He compares the various denominations to children
of the same family, differing only in their Christian
names. It is a surprisingly liberal principle
for the era, but that principle of religious
tolerance is severely tested in the final sections
of our text. Because despite the thorough logical
breakdown of why independence is necessary, the
text still has to contend with active domestic
dissent. Specifically, pacifist religious groups,
primarily the Quakers in Pennsylvania, were publishing
testaments against the rebellion. Right. The
address to the Quakers. This is where the author
really turns the rhetorical swooze. The Quakers
had recently published a piece renewing their
ancient testimony with respect to the king, essentially
urging the people to submit to the British government
and stay out of the revolutionary commotions.
The author begins this address by stating, he
isn't attacking their religion. He is addressing
them as a political body that is dabbling in
matters which the professed quietude of your
principles instruct you not to meddle with. He
scolds them for mingling religion with politics.
And he constructs a highly effective trap using
their own doctrine against them. He quotes their
testimony, which explicitly says that the setting
up and putting down kings and governments is
God's peculiar prerogative. And that it is not
their business to have any hand or contrivance
in it. So the author says, okay, if you really
believe that, why aren't you abiding by it? Why
don't you leave God's work to be managed by himself?
Exactly. If it is truly God's prerogative to
set up and put down governments, the author argues
that the Quakers should wait with patience and
humility for the event of all public measures.
By publishing a political testimony, actively
supporting the king, and condemning the revolution,
they are interfering. It proves that either they
don't believe what they profess, or they lack
the virtue to actually practice it. He points
out the historical absurdity of their position.
If God is making a change in government and you
believe it's God's work, you shouldn't be trying
to stop it. He brings up Charles I and Oliver
Cromwell again. He says, Oliver Cromwell thanks
you. Because if setting up and putting down kings
is God's work, then Charles I died not by the
hands of man, but by the will of God, according
to Quaker logic. He says, what a slap of the
face is here. The men who claim to passively
resign the disposal of kings to God are suddenly
recalling their principles to put in for a share
of the political business. He also attacks the
hypocrisy of their stance on violence. If bearing
arms is a sin, he argues, then the first going
to war, the unprovoked invasion by the British
Army, must be infinitely worse than the unavoidable
defense by the colonists. Yes, he challenges
their moral courage. If you preach from conscience,
go prove your sincerity by publishing your doctrine
at St. James's right in the King's face. Preach
to the commanders in Boston. Preach to the admirals
piratically ravaging our coasts. He quotes a
historical Quaker, Robert Barclay, who famously
spoke hard truths directly to Charles II. He
tells the current Quakers to have the honest
soul of Barclay and preach repentance to the
royal wretch instead of spending their partial
invectives against the injured and insulted victims.
Call not coldness of soul, religion, nor put
the big O in the place of the Christian. It is
a masterful rhetorical neutralization. By turning
the Quakers' own passive theology into an argument
for why they must stay out of the revolutionary's
way, he removes a major political obstacle in
Pennsylvania. If they won't help. Their own religion
dictates they shouldn't hinder. Which leaves
the text free to conclude with an appendix that
outlines four final purely pragmatic reasons
for an immediate declaration of independence.
These aren't philosophical points. These are
the final geopolitical steps required to move
from a state of rebellion to a recognized nation.
This appendix is essentially a master class in
international relations. The author recognizes
that the colonies cannot win this war in a vacuum.
They need international help. But the current
legal status of the colonies prevents any help
from arriving. He breaks this down into four
points. Let's walk through the strategy here.
Point number one is about mediation. Yes. He
argues that while America calls itself the subject
of Great Britain, no foreign power can step in
to mediate the peace. It is an internal British
dispute. International law prevents France or
Spain from interfering in the domestic affairs
of another sovereign nation. Which leads directly
to point number two. securing alliances. It's
unreasonable to suppose that France and Spain
would give military assistance or supplies if
America only meant to use that help to repair
the breach and eventually strengthen their connection
with Britain. Because France and Spain would
suffer from that outcome, why would they spend
their treasure to help Britain resolve its domestic
dispute and emerge stronger? They will only help
if the end goal is a permanent separation, which
weakens their rival, Britain, and opens up American
ports to French and Spanish trade. Point number
three is about international optics. He argues
they must stop being viewed globally as mere
rebels. While they profess to be subjects in
arms, it creates a dangerous precedent for foreign
nations. Kings do not like helping rebels because
it encourages rebellion in their own territories.
To unite resistance and subjection requires an
idea much too refined for common understanding.
They have to declare themselves a sovereign state
defending itself, not subjects throwing a tantrum.
And finally, point number four, to formally publish
a manifesto to the world detailing their grievances,
the peaceful methods they ineffectually use to
resolve them, and their necessity of breaking
off connections while assuring all foreign courts
of a desire to trade peacefully. This is the
ultimate synthesis of the entire pamphlet. Under
the denomination of British subjects, the colonies
cannot be received or heard abroad. The custom
of all international courts is against them.
Independence isn't just a philosophical preference
for liberty. It is the absolute necessary legal
key to unlock international diplomacy, foreign
aid and global trade. He argues that sending
such a memorial to foreign courts would produce
more good effects than if a ship were freighted
with petitions to Britain. The author acknowledges
that these proceedings may at first appear strange
and difficult to a populace used to thinking
of themselves as British. But he assures them
that like all other steps they have passed over,
it will in a little time become familiar and
agreeable. The legal fiction of being British
subjects must end for the reality of American
survival to begin. I want to ask you listening
to reflect on the architecture of what we've
just journeyed through in this deep dive. That's
a lot to take in. It is. We didn't just review
a pamphlet screaming for a revolution. We watched
a writer sequentially dismantle the very philosophy
of government. We watched him expose the structural
flaws of a boasted constitutional system. We
saw him shatter the mythology of hereditary leadership.
using the audience's own sacred texts. We watched
him carefully untangle the emotional and economic
ties of a populace through the mechanics of mercantilism.
He neutralized religious dissent using its own
doctrine, and then he didn't just walk away,
he provided a practical naval budget, a geopolitical
strategy for securing French alliances, and a
structural blueprint for a new republic to prevent
a dictator from taking over. It is a complete
ideological ecosystem. It leaves the reader with
no logical retreat back to the safety of the
status quo. To leave you with a final thought,
I want to draw on a specific haunting metaphor
the author uses right at the end of the text.
Oh, which one? He compares the delay of independence
to a man who continues putting off some deeply
unpleasant business from day to day. This man
knows it must be done, he hates to set about
it, he wishes it over, and yet he is continually
haunted with the thoughts of its necessity. Wow,
it's the ultimate articulation of political procrastination.
It is. The text actually begins with the famous
line, time makes more converts than reason. The
author spent dozens of pages providing the absolute
maximum amount of reason possible. He laid out
the path forward with a highly structured argument.
I want you to ponder that in the context of your
own life and the systems you exist within. If
reason has clearly laid out the path forward
for you, how much of your own hesitation in making
massive necessary structural changes is simply
you waiting for time to do the heavy lifting
that reason has already justified? That's a powerful
question to sit with. Time makes more converts
than reason. Thank you for joining us on this
deep dive.