나에 대한 비판이 다시 이어지고 있는 것 같다. 이 상황을, 슬프게 생각한다. 고발 이후 내가 집중적인 비난을 받은 것은 고발직후,가처분판결전후, 기소, 한일합의,민사패소때였다. 물론 그 대부분은 언론이 “자발적 매춘부” 라는 틀을 갖고 왔기 때문이다.
이번 비난은 정영환의 책이 계기가 된 것 같다. 아니 어쩌면 워커스의 기사 때문인지도 모르겠다. 아무튼, 외부요인이 계기가 된다는 점에서는 정영환의 책은 “박유하는 위안부할머니를 자발적매춘부라고 했다”는 언론보도와 똑같은 역할을 했다. 학문이라는 이름의 외설, 혹은 테러. 그 시도는 성공한 듯 하다.
언론이 출판사의 보도자료를 그대로 옮기지만 않았어도 기자간담회까지 하지는 않았을 것이다. 사실, 정말은 2년전에 했어야 할 일이었다. 나는 이 2년동안 나눔의집 소장과 고문변호사의 “외설”(대중의 관심을 모으려는 의도가 뚜렷하다는 점에서)과 테러(“박유하는 친일파”라는 틀을 씌워 대중의 손가락질과 짓밟기를 유도해 왔다는 점에서)에 대해 어떻게 대응해야 할지를 고민해 왔지만, 아직 직접적으로는 아무런 대응에 나서지 않았다. 내가 공식적으로 대응한 것은 언중위에 간 일과 검찰의 기소에 대한 항의기자회견 뿐이다. 그리고 페이스북을 통한 소극적인 변명 혹은 설명. 반론을 제대로 쓴 것은 작년 여름에 잡지에 난 두개의 비판/비난에 대한 글에 대한 반론 뿐이다.
이미 쓴 것처럼, 몇 달 전부터 이어진 비판서들을 사두기는 했지만 나는 아직 읽지 않았다. 반론이 없다고 해서 꼭 반론이 없다는 의미는 아니다. 의문들에 대해 이미 몇 개의 반론을 통해 대답해 두었으니 링크해둔다 . 비판자들은 물론, 제게 의구심을 갖게 된 분들도 읽어 주시면 좋겠다.
아래 글을 링크하면서 알게 된 건, 내가 길게 대답한 글들의 대상이 전부위안부문제 연구자가 아니라는 사실이다. 말하자면 이들은 나를 비판하기 위해 기존연구나 인식들—남의 말을 옮긴데 불과하다. 나는 이른바 전문가-- 위안부문제 연구자가 아니라고 해서 배제할 생각이 없었지만 연구자가 아닌 사람들까지 대상으로 하다보니 좀 소모적이다. 앞으로는 오랫동안 이 문제에 관한 연구를 해 왔거나 운동을 해 온 분들과 토론해야 할 것 같다.
학자의 소송가담이라는 사태를 맞아(월요일 재판에서는 검사가 <제국의 변호인>을 증거라면서 제출했다)포기한 국민재판도 다른형태로 이어질 수 있도록, 법원에 제출한 자료들을 홈페이지에 공개해 나갈 예정이다. 그리고 이제, 나의 책을 포르노로 만들려던 이들의 시도가 왜 외설이 되고 마는지, 왜 평화 대신 끊임없는 불화를 만드는 "폭력의 사고"일 수 밖에 없는 지에 대해 생각하면서 나머지 여름을 보내려 한다.
이재승, 윤해동교수에 대한 반론은 쓰다 말았었다 .정말은 젊은 역사학자들이 이 교수의 의견을 신봉하기에 이 반론에서 이재승 교수에 대한 비판도 썼었는데 반론의 직접 대상이 아니라면서 수정해 달라는 요청에 따라 뺏었다.
기자간담회는 어디까지나 언론을 대상으로 한 것이었다. 간담회 내용을 글로 정리할 시간이 있을지는 잘 모르겠다. 일본에서도 기존 연구자들과 운동가들이 오해마저 포함한 비난을 이어가고 있으니 몸이 열개라도 충분치 않다. 앞으로는 반론할 의미가 있는 글에 대해서만 반론해야 할 것 같다.
홈페이지에, 지난 3월말에 동경대에서 이루어진 옹호자와 비판자들의 연구모임에 관한 후기를 <연구모임후기>라는 항목에 몇 개 번역해 올려 두었다. 사실 나는 그 글들이, 당일 이루어진 정영환등의 발표를 내가 없었던 탓에 그대로 믿고(그 시점에서는 아직나의 반론의 일본어번역을 준비하지 못했었다) 나의 책에 문제가 있는 것처럼 쓰인 부분들이 있어서 자괴감이 크다. 중요한 일에도 때로 빠르지 못한 나의 불찰의 결과다. 그렇긴 하지만, 이 모임에 대한 한겨레, 시사인, 오마이뉴스등의 편향된 보도를 보셨던 분들은 참고해 주시면 좋겠다.
나는 정영환의 곡예적인 왜곡은 아프지 않다. 그저 그런 외설을 학자들마저 환영하는 이 사회가 슬플 뿐이다. 비판자들 대부분의 진정성을 믿기에 더욱 그렇다.
추신: 간담회에서 말했으나 보도 되지 않은 이야기를 덧붙여 둔다.
1)유희남할머니의 작고에 대한 애도와 그 분과의 관계에 대한 설명. 당일 아침에야 작고사실을 알았다. 연기할까 고민했으나 이미 시간을 한번 변경한 터여서 재변경을 감행해 기자분들에게 혼란을 주어서는 안된다고 생각했다. 여성신문은 그 자리에 있었다는데 그 말을 빼고 보도했다. 심지어 20억 얘기를 다시 재유포했다. 이에 대해서는 대응할 생각이다. (할머니들께 그런 거짓마저 말하도록 한 건 우리 모두다.)
Combining commercial success with philanthropy and social activism, ‘Quakernomics’ offers a compelling model for corporate social responsibility in the modern world. Mike King explores the ethical capitalism of Quaker enterprises from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries, testing this theory against those of prominent economists. With a foreword by Sir Adrian Cadbury, this book proves that the Quaker practice of ‘total capitalism’ is not a historically remote nicety but an immediately relevant guide for today’s global economy. --------------
Editorial Reviews
Review
‘Fascinating, highly relevant and opportune, this book is a powerful exploration of history showing how ethical behaviour has been – and can be – an effective route to wealth creation and growth.’ —Carlota Perez, author of ‘Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital’ and Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics
‘“Quakernomics” presents a refreshing new way of thinking about economic activity, one which links the pursuit of profit with social justice.’ —David Vogel, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
Book Description
Explores Quaker enterprises from 1700 to the twentieth century as examples of an ethical capitalism, and tests them against prominent economists and their concern for economic justice.
Showing 1-4 of 4 reviews Top Reviews Cheri Berens 5.0 out of 5 starsA fascinating and unique walk through historyMay 17, 2019 Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase Giving the historical background outlining Quaker contributions to the foundation of the Industrial Revolution, Mike King then moves to Quaker contributions made in investment banking, botany, pharmaceuticals, luxury items and various other industries. Through these examples, we are shown that Quakers were active participants in the history of capitalism. But King’s primary concern throughout Quakernomics is “ethical” capitalism. Using a wide variety of examples to make his point, King suggests a capitalism that serves the community, that involves morality, and that provides a “middle way.” This middle way is provided by the ethics of the Quakers. Using the socialist worker villages of Soviet Russia and Maoist China and other examples, such as the horrific conditions that existed during the Victorian Era and the extremes between the rich and poor, Quaker examples are used in contrast, such as the approach of a planned garden city, which was a workers village, but where amenities were planned to cater to the needs of the workers. As King notes, “…this was not socialism, neither was it ogre capitalism.” King gives us examples of Quaker industries in the early days of iron and we are shown that Quakers made fortunes, but also were devoted to philanthropy. We are led through a fascinating journey of history, with examples of Quakerism in the iron and steel industries of the Industrial Revolution, mining, railways, cotton, wool and the textile industry, but also the fields of science, pharmaceuticals, banking and finance. Thus we are shown ethical capitalism through examples of Quakerism. We are then given examples of capitalism through the eyes of writers who documented working-class poverty and the conditions of factory workers during the Industrial Revolution that point out the failures of capitalism, the side effects of the Industrial Revolution, and the exploitation of labor. We are offered a solution: “ethical” capitalism. Quakers created partnerships with workers rather than exploitation. King then gives a synopsis of various economists, again pointing out the outcome of “unethical” capitalism, and also examples of various works of fiction that point out the need for social justice. After this in-depth survey of the pitfalls of capitalism through various genres and thinkers of the past, none of whom give solutions, but highlighting unethical capitalism, it is concluded that the business practices of the Quakers are “largely comprised of ethical capitalism.” Not only is this book a fascinating and unique walk through history, we learn that Quakers follow the teachings of peace, equality, truth and simplicity. As King points out, “No other single identifiable religious groups in history has applied these so extensively to economic activity.”
HelpfulCommentReport abuse Kirby Urner 4.0 out of 5 starsDid Quakers practice "Total Capitalism"?October 9, 2014 Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase Very cool that the author focuses on The Iron Bridge as an entry point, a science fiction novel about a time traveler sent back from a future that's decided humans had industrialized too early, before their thinking had matured enough to handle it (witness the World Wars the followed). In this future, the planetary ecosystem is messed up beyond repair. Industrialization must be delayed. So she (the time traveler) is to sabotage the Iron Bridge, built by industrious Quakers who treated their workers fairly well. Hence the book's claim that Quakers not only practiced "total capitalism" (from foundry to factory to wholesale to retail) but did it in such away as to give "total socialism" a run for its money, i.e. they treated their workers relatively well. Quakers reach in apogee in power and influence around 1781 when the bridge opens. Given their socially unpopular positions in the US, anti Indian Wars and anti slavery, their Quaker utopia (Pennsylvania) is already on the wane, but that's another story. This book is more about the UK and the difference Quakers made there.
One person found this helpful
HelpfulCommentReport abuse Rusty G SATX 5.0 out of 5 starsQuakers did more than just hunt Moby DickJune 6, 2014 Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase I am not a Quaker but grew up around them and am an occasional "attender". Second, I have a graduate degree in economics. The author combines history, economics, and Quaker society into an excellent story. On rare occasions he is "cataloging" through notable Quaker businesses like the "begat" parts of The Bible, but just blow through those and you'll discover some new ideas.
3 people found this helpful
HelpfulCommentReport abuse J. Mann 5.0 out of 5 starsPaternalistic CapitalismAugust 10, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition This is a fascinating and informative review of the impact of Quakers in the industrial revolution, and a reflection on what this might mean in how we think politically and economically today.
The book is divided into two parts - the first is a historic review of the economic impact of Quakers from their rise in the seventeenth century revealing their economic and financial importance through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and then their decline as an economic force in the twentieth century. Mike seeks to draw out the principles that led Quakers to economic success, these principles are what he calls "Quakernomics".
The second part looks at theories of economics from the left and right of the political spectrum, and makes the argument that both are lacking in important respects, and that consideration of the principles of "Quakernomics" provides a way to create an "ethical capitalism".
What is Quakernomics? Mike looks at what characterises the Quaker enterprises in the eighteenth century - he argues they were innovative and hard working, they looked after their workers and paid good wages, they employed a model of what Mike calls "total capitalism", where a whole network of interrelated Quaker businesses worked together - industry, housing, farming, finance, communications, energy and so on, and they sought be trustworthy and reliable, to always be able to pay their bills. If they fell behind in any of these areas, the local Quaker meeting was on hand to challenge the member and ensure they quickly corrected their mistakes.
Mike argues that Quakers created a "cooperative" - in the sense of cooperating together - economy, with for example Quaker bankers able to offer other Quakers finance at lower than market rates to help innovate and develop their business.
There is an impressive list of Quaker enterprises in a wide variety of areas - for iron we have the Darbys of Coalbrookdale but also we are told "Quakers owned between half and three-quarters of the ironworks in operation in the early eighteenth century". There is the Quaker Lead Company who mined and smelted lead, copper and silver who supplied the Royal Mint with silver. Robert Ransome produced agricultural equipment, and Quakers were active in railways (the Stockton to Darlington Railway was Quaker owned and was also known as "The Quaker Line") and canals, cotton (John Bright was a cotton manufacturer as well as the fourth Quaker to sit in parliament), wool, textiles, shoes (Clarks), matches (Bryant and May), science (John Dalton, Thomas Young, Luke Howard, Elizabeth Brown, Arthur Stanley Eddington), chemicals, pharmaceuticals, chocolate (Fry, Cadbury and Rowntree) and biscuits (Huntley and Palmers, Carr's and Jacob's), also lawyers, stockbrokers, accountants, merchants and banking (Barclays and Lloyds).
This is a compelling story but there is a worrying lack of statistics, so that much of the argument runs on the basis of anecdote and example rather than firm facts and figures.
For example it is difficult to know what percentage of Quakers followed the examples of looking after their workers that are given in the book. Similarly there is an impressive list of companies run by Quakers but do we really know how many in these Quaker "family" firms were really practising Quakers? Without any figures it is difficult to make a judgement on the claims made.
After all there were other employers such as Robert Owen who looked after their workers - is it possible to say whether the percentage of Quaker employers who looked after their workers was significantly higher than the average?
These broad claims that Quakers were more "ethical" than non-Quakers is particularly difficult to sustain as there are counterexamples also available. Marx talks about Quakers using child labour, the Quaker firm Bryant and May were the firm involved in the famous Match Girls Strike of 1888, and the banking firm Overend and Gurney collapsed in 1866 due to what could be regarded as unethical risk taking. Mike tries hard to argue these were exceptions but it shows Quaker companies were not always as ethical as he claims, and it begs the question whether the idea they were substantially different to other companies is really just wishful thinking? Not everyone who looked after their workers were Quakers, and there don't seem to be any figures to show it was more widespread in Quakers firms.
Mike's description of the "total capitalism" of Quaker firms all working together might seem as if they are avoiding the dog eat dog ethos of competition and the market but an alternative explanation might be that they were operating as a cartel - hardly ethical?
In the second part Mike reviews economic theories to look at whether lessons learned from Quakers might take theoretical form.
There is an excellent description of the tragedy caused to economies through the influence of the ideas of right wing economists such a Milton Friedman and the ideas of Hayek and Ayn Rand particularly through their influence in the USA.
He makes an excellent point that economic freedom is not related to political freedom as these thinkers claim. For Friedman, Hayek and Rand, Economic freedom is the removal of regulation for companies so they are free to do as they wish - no protection for consumers or workers - all that matters is that companies can make as much money as possible, if that involves lying to consumers and oppressing workers so be it, maximum profit overrides all other considerations - certainly they believe as little tax as possible should be paid, even though they still expect an operating infrastructure.
As Mike points out, when the rich have large amounts of money they use it to corrupt the political system, though paying money to "think tanks" to support policies favourable to themselves, buying advertising, newspapers and media, giving money to political parties and even bribing politicians and the those in authority. Economic "freedom" is many cases can be shown to be the death of political freedom. Back in the 1970s when the UK had plenty of companies in public ownership and taxes were relatively high, there was still plenty of political freedom, people were free to go to protest and fight for causes, so the link to economic "freedom" and political freedom can easily be shown to be false.
Nevertheless his characterisation of certain economic views seems unfair - Marx in particular gets treated rather like God in a Dawkins book - there are numerous asides against Marx throughout the book on usually quite poor grounds. For example Marx is said to be against commodities because he uses the term "commodities" and rather than "goods", hence he doesn't think of them as being good. This seems a weak argument and Marx's theory of value shows he certainly regards commodities as being useful, so why would he think something useful wasn't good?
Marx wasn't against the creation of goods or commodities but argued their production and distribution was unjust because a small number of wealthy capitalists owned the means of economic production and hence made choices which ensured the economy worked for their benefit - for the few, rather than the benefit of the workers - the many. Marx's basic point against capitalism was that an economy that has great wealth and also great need yet is organised in such a way that the wealth cannot be used to meet the need is an economic system not fit for purpose.
Similarly the "environmental" view is characterised through a fictional character wanting to go back in time and destroy Abraham Darby's furnaces (Maggie Foster from David Morse's novel The Iron Bridge). This idea of environmentalists being essentially Luddites who want us to all live in mud huts is very unfair to the important contributions to economics provided by environmental economists. Mike doesn't make any any mention in the book of this group of economists and to make matters worse he complains economists don't pay enough attention to energy supply - environmental economists certainly do!
Mike identifies four "evils" of modern capitalism: unemployment, low wages, industrial hazards and environmental harm. These are certainly evils but why pick just these four? Many more could be added: discrimination, militarisation, sexism, nationalism and xenophobia, poor housing, poor diet, lack of access to education, lack of access to the law, media bias, massively unfair distribution of resources, extremes of wealth and poverty and so on.
The problem with the four chosen is that they are all framed in a paternalistic context - they are "evils" that might have been addressed by having more kindly, ethical - paternal - employers. Yet even the Quaker businesses described in the book could not claim to avoid them - Darby did not care about protecting the environment and Bryant and May did little for industrial hazards (workers suffered from "phossy jaw") and were paid low wages.
Mike is proposing an "ethical capitalism" which appears to simply be a form of paternalism - keep the existing system but treat people in a more ethical manner.
Such paternalism doesn't address the systemic problems within capitalism - for example the drive for growth - if we define capitalism as the investment of private capital in an enterprise in order to achieve a return on that investment there are all sorts of issues not only in the length of time a private capitalist is willing to invest for, but how much risk they are willing to take and the sort of enterprises they are willing to invest in. Capitalism is not an economic model that encourages innovation for socially and environmentally worthwhile discoveries, it is focussed on short term profit, and whether the enterprises are socially and environmentally useful is irrelevant.
Mike also doesn't address the militaristic implications of capitalism - having large defence industries seeking to maximise profits encourages the use of the military as a means of solving world problems. People laugh when the NRA says the solution to gun crime is more guns, but in effect that is western foreign policy since the birth of Imperialism.
In fact the source of the problem is not the lack of ethics of the powerful, but the imbalance of power itself. Capitalism has an inherent feudalism within many of its structures and organisations - businesses of course, but also hospitals, schools, universities, prisons, mental health care, social work, the media, charities, religious groups - there are very few organisational structures which are not hierarchical, and many which have no way for those at the bottom of the organisation to change those who are at the top.
A hierarchical system is inherently subject to exploitation of those without power by those with it. The answer to this structural problem is not a plea for those in power to behave in a more ethical manner, but a change to the structure itself.
The experience of "Quakernomics" doesn't seem to show an ethical capitalism can avoid the evils of capitalism - time and again we see how Quakers suffer from the inherent injustices built into capitalism the same as everyone else.
The attempt to put a human face on the machine of capitalism ultimately fails because capitalism is a system which seeks to perpetuate itself and a small number of the very rich, the Quaker family businesses were replaced by limited companies because they were larger and more ruthless, they understood the rules of the game better and so triumphed over those who didn't.
However Mike's interpretation of the experience of Quakers in business is open to an alternative explanation. Increasingly Quakers and others opposed to unfettered capitalism came to realise the limits of capitalism and the need for regulation - elimination of child labour, minimum wages, health and safety, government investment in infrastructure.
Society increasingly operates through institutions to train and conform people to work the economy - prisons, hospitals, mental health care, social care, schools and workplaces themselves operate under a hierarchical feudal system in which prisoners, patients, pupils and workers are powerless to innovate and change the system they are subject to.
Humanity needs innovation, but private capital is very limited in what innovation it will invest in - people probably have ideas for innovations every day that could improve the lives of ordinary people and look after our planet but unless they can be turned into a product that is low risk and returns high profits in the short term private capital isn't interested. As economist Mariana Mazzucato argues in her book "The Entrepreneurial State" private companies are very poor at investing in innovation.
Mike says Quakers are opposed to revolution but Quakerism was birthed in revolution and is itself a permanent revolution - challenging our understanding of how communities can function. Rather than see the parochial Quakers of the eighteenth century as somehow exemplifying Quaker ethics Quakerism has at its heart a profoundly revolutionary ethic of how societies should function as non-hierarchical organisations. If there is such a thing as Quakernomics it is the economic reorganisation of society as a cooperative community that comes together to meet needs and provide resources for people to flourish, for differences to be respected and for the planet to be loved and cared for.
It is said in our society we have a democratic deficit, yet Quakers take us beyond democracy. Even though democracy is preferable to the feudal hierarchies that dominate our present system, democracy itself has some failings and weaknesses - it can be the dictatorship of the majority, it can delight in populism and fail to listen to genuine concerns of minorities.
Quakers look to a community in which even the minorities are included and considered, in which a conversation goes on between all sectors of society, according everyone respect as Children of God, and working together to produce a society with space for all.
A review of "Quakernomics" Posted by Matt on 9th mo. 11, 2015 at 7:48am View Blog
Mike King’s 2014 book Quakernomics: An Ethical Capitalism should interest anyone who wants to learn more about the history of 19th century British Quakers in business. Beyond that, the claim that the book provides “an immediately relevant guide for today’s global economy” should be treated with skepticism.
The historical narrative that makes up the first half of the book is definitely interesting, but it is worth mentioning a couple of important concerns:
- First, as one reviewer on Amazon notesthere is little statistical evidence presented to back the author’s claim that Quakers were any more ethical than their counterparts. “it is difficult to know what percentage of Quakers followed the examples of looking after their workers that are given in the book. Similarly there is an impressive list of companies run by Quakers but do we really know how many in these Quaker ‘family’ firms were really practising Quakers? Without any figures it is difficult to make a judgement on the claims made… is it possible to say whether the percentage of Quaker employers who looked after their workers was significantly higher than the average?”
- Second, his historical argument is that “Quakernomics…is a philosophy of wealth creation which sought from the outset to put its wealth to social ends” (128). While he does provide some examples of Quakers seeking changes in public policy, the bulk of his examples to support the idea of the social concerns of Quaker business owners (above average wages, model villages, hot chocolate instead of beer, etc.) are rooted in voluntary action and moral persuasion rather than legislation. This historical evidence is at odds with the author’s personal conviction (which informs the economic analysis in the second half of the book) that “the state must inexorably play a key role in the construction of an ethics for reining in raw capitalism” (255).
The story these non-Quaker authors tell delightfully piggy-backs on science fiction already in the bag: The Iron Bridge. That helps keep the tone light and more literary.
Also apropos, George Bernard Shaw was looking to ridicule and/or satirize the socially responsible businessman but shied away from using Cadbury, not evil enough to make his point:
What I get from the book is how business-oriented Quakerism was and therefore still could be or even is in some respects.
One need not dig too deeply to impress a newcomer with this orientation, given the prominence of Meetings for [Worship for] Business Meeting and emphasis on check-and-balance workflows among committees (talking unprogrammed here, what they had in the 1790s, more than pastor-led).
A finely tuned Meeting could manage millions if not billions in assets, with processes already on the books or within reach of innovation, would be my contention. Ethically? That may be a function of Meeting depth, more than simply design i.e. that depends on the Meeting.
Vol. 1 of a 4 vol. collection of the works of Thomas Paine. Vol. 1 contains letters and newspaper articles, Common Sense, and The American Crisis. Copyright information:
The text is in the public domain. Fair use statement:
Left: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense title page. Right: Thomas Paine, copy by Auguste Millière, after an engraving by William Sharp, after George Romney. | Photo: Left: www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/history/common-sense-larger.html. Right: Via Wikimedia Commons.
Thomas Paine’s father was a Quaker and, as John Keane states in his acclaimed definitive biography, ‘Paine’s moral capacities ultimately had religious roots that were to have a lasting impact on his life and, eventually, the political shape of the modern world.’
In 1774 Paine left for America, where he played an instrumental part in the struggle for that country’s independence. He claimed liberty to be the ‘highest human good’. His pamphlet Common Sense electrified the entire United States and rescued George Washington’s flagging campaign.
As nobody before, Thomas Paine stirred ordinary people to defend their liberty. He wrote the three top-selling literary works of the eighteenth century, which inspired the American Revolution, issued a historic battle cry for individual rights, and challenged the corrupt power of government churches. His radical vision and dramatic, plainspoken style connected with artisans, servants, soldiers, merchants, farmers, and laborers alike. Paine’s work breathes fire to this day.
His devastating attacks on tyranny compare with the epic thrusts of Voltaire and Jonathan Swift, but unlike these authors, there wasn’t a drop of cynicism in Paine. He was always earnest in the pursuit of liberty. He was confident that free people would fulfill their destiny.
He provoked explosive controversy. The English monarchy hounded him into exile and decreed the death penalty if he ever returned. Egalitarian leaders of the French Revolution ordered him into a Paris prison—he narrowly escaped death by guillotine. Because of his critical writings on religion, he was shunned and ridiculed during his last years in America.
But fellow Founders recognized Paine’s rare talent. Benjamin Franklin helped him get started in Philadelphia and considered him an “adopted political son.” Paine served as an aide to George Washington. He was a compatriot of Samuel Adams. James Madison was a booster. James Monroe helped spring him from prison in France. His most steadfast friend was Thomas Jefferson.
Paine was a prickly pear—vain, tactless, untidy—but he continued to charm people. Pioneering individualist feminist Mary Wollstonecraft wrote: “He kept everyone in astonishment and admiration for his memory, his keen observation of men and manners, his numberless anecdotes of the American Indians, of the American war, of Franklin, Washington, and even of his Majesty, of whom he told several curious facts of humour and benevolence.”
Despite his blazing intelligence, Paine had some half-baked ideas. To remedy injustices of the English monarchy, he proposed representative government which would enact “progressive” taxation, “universal” education, “temporary” poor relief, and old-age pensions. He naively assumed such policies would do what they were supposed to, and it didn’t occur to him that political power corrupts representative government like every other government.
Yet in the same work containing these proposals—Rights of Man, Part II—Paine affirmed his libertarian principles again and again. For example: “Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.”
The “Muse of Fire”
Paine stood five feet, ten inches tall, with an athletic build. He dressed simply. He had a long nose and intense blue eyes. His friend Thomas Clio Rickman noted that “His eye, of which the painter could not convey the exquisite meaning, was full, brilliant, and singularly piercing. He had in it the `muse of fire.”’
Thomas Paine was born on January 29, 1737, in Thetford, England. His mother Francis Cocke came from a local Anglican family of some distinction. His father Joseph Paine was a Quaker farmer and shoemaker. Although Thomas Paine wasn’t a practicing Quaker, he endured some of the intolerance directed against Quakers.
Paine took a while to find his calling. He left school at age 12 and began apprenticeship as a Thetford corset-maker, but he didn’t like it. Twice he ran away from home. The second time, in April 1757, he joined the crew of the King of Prussia, a privateer that didn’t find much booty. He tried his hand as a corset-maker again, then as an English teacher and independent Methodist preacher. Public-speaking experience surely gave him insights about what it takes to stir large numbers of people.
Paine’s most puzzling decision was to become an excise tax collector. He got fired, landed another excise tax-collecting job, and got fired again after writing a pamphlet to promote pay raises. Paine witnessed the resourcefulness of smugglers, resentment against tax collectors, and the pervasiveness of government corruption.
Except for a couple of brief interludes, Paine was a loner. Believing that marriage should be based on love, not social status or fortune, he wed Mary Lambert, a household servant, in September 1759, but within a year she died during childbirth. In March 1771, he married again—Elizabeth Ollive, a 20-year-old teacher. While trying to earn a living as a grocer and tobacconist, he went bankrupt in early 1774. Most of his possessions were auctioned April 14th. Two months later, Paine and his wife went their separate ways.
Meanwhile, he thrived on discussions about philosophy and practical politics. In Lewes, Paine belonged to the Headstrong Club, a discussion group. It gathered weekly at the White Horse Tavern where Paine relished ale and oysters. One of the members was an ardent republican and defender of libertarian rebel John Wilkes. Paine’s radical libertarian views jelled.
Intellectually curious, Paine liked to browse in bookstores, attend lectures on scientific subjects, and meet thoughtful people. He befriended a London astronomer who introduced him to Benjamin Franklin, then working to expand business with England. Franklin seems to have convinced Paine that he could make a better life in America, and Franklin provided a letter of introduction to his son-in-law in Philadelphia.
Arrival in America
Paine arrived November 30, 1774. He rented a room at Market and Front streets, the southeast corner—from which he could see the Philadelphia Slave Market. He spent spare time in a bookstore operated by Robert Aiken. Paine must have impressed the bookseller as a lively and literate man, because he was offered the job of editing Aiken’s new publication, The Pennsylvania Magazine.
For Paine, this experience was a proving ground. He produced at least 17 articles, perhaps as many as 26, all signed with such pseudonyms as “Vox Populi,” “Justice, and Humanity.” He edged closer to the controversy of America’s future relationship with England. He vehemently attacked slavery and called for prompt emancipation.
Then came the Battle of Lexington, at dawn on April 19, 1775. British Major John Pitcairn ordered his troops to fire on American militiamen gathered in front of a meetinghouse, killing eight and wounding ten. The outraged Paine resolved to defend American liberty.
Common Sense
In early September, he began making notes for a pamphlet. He probably started writing around the first of November. He worked at a wobbly table, scratching out the words with a goose quill pen on rough buff paper. The manuscript proceeded slowly, because writing was always difficult for Paine. He discussed the evolving draft with Dr. Benjamin Rush whom he had met at Aiken’s bookstore. The draft was completed in early December. Paine got comments from astronomer David Rittenhouse, brewer Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Paine thought of calling his pamphlet Plain Truth, but Dr. Rush recommended the more earthy Common Sense.
Dr. Rush arranged for the pamphlet to be published by Robert Bell, a Scotsman who had become a noted Philadelphia publisher, colorful auctioneer, and underground supporter of American independence. Priced at 2 shillings, the 47-page Common Sense— written anonymously “by an Englishman”—was published on January 10, 1776. Paine signed over royalties to the Continental Congress.
With simple, bold, and inspiring prose, Paine launched a furious attack on tyranny. He denounced kings as inevitably corrupted by political power. He broke with previous political thinkers when he distinguished between government compulsion and civil society where individuals pursue private productive lives. Paine envisioned a “Continental union” based on individual rights. He answered objections from those who feared a break with England. He called for a declaration to stir people into action.
Common Sense crackled with unforgettable lines. For example: “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. . . . The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. . . . Now is the seed-time of Continental union. . . . We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. . . . O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!. . . . We have it in our power to begin the world over again. . . . The birthday of a new world is at hand.”
The first edition sold out quickly. Soon rival editions began appearing. Printers in Boston, Salem, Newburyport, Newport, Providence, Hartford, Norwich, Lancaster, Albany, and New York issued editions. Within three months, Paine estimated that over 120,000 copies had been printed. Dr. Rush recalled that “Its effects were sudden and extensive upon the American mind. It was read by public men, repeated in clubs, spouted in Schools, and in one instance, delivered from the pulpit instead of a sermon by a clergyman in Connecticut.” George Washington declared that Common Sense offered “sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning.”
Paine’s incendiary ideas leaped across borders. An edition appeared in French-speaking Quebec. John Adams reported that “Common Sense was received in France and in all Europe with Rapture.” There were editions in London, Newcastle, and Edinburgh. Common Sense was translated into German and Danish, and copies got into Russia. Altogether, some 500,000 copies were sold.
Common Sense changed the political climate in America. Before its publication, most colonists still hoped things could be worked out with England. Then suddenly, this pamphlet triggered debates where increasing numbers of people spoke openly for independence. The Second Continental Congress asked Thomas Jefferson to serve on a five-person committee that would draft the declaration Paine had suggested in Common Sense.
“Thomas Paine’s Common Sense,” reflected Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn, “is the most brilliant pamphlet written during the American Revolution, and one of the most brilliant pamphlets ever written in the English language. How it could have been produced by the bankrupt Quaker corset-maker, the sometime teacher, preacher, and grocer, and twice-dismissed excise officer who happened to catch Benjamin Franklin’s attention in England and who arrived in America only fourteen months before Common Sense was published is nothing one can explain without explaining genius itself.”
When Independence brought war, Paine enlisted as a military secretary for General Daniel Roberdeau, then for General Nathaniel Greene, and by year-end 1776 he was with General George Washington. The untrained, poorly paid Americans, typically serving for a year, were routed by well-trained British soldiers and ruthless Hessian mercenaries.
“The Harder the Conflict, the More Glorious the Triumph”
Paine wondered how he could boost morale. By evening campfire he began writing a new pamphlet. When he returned to Philadelphia, he took his manuscript to the Philadelphia Journal, which published it on December 19th as an eight-page essay, American Crisis. On Christmas Day 1776, George Washington read it to his soldiers. Paine’s immortal opening lines: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” Within hours, Washington’s fired-up soldiers launched a surprise attack on sleeping Hessians in Trenton, giving Americans a much-needed battle victory.
By the time the Revolutionary War ended, Paine had written a dozen more American Crisis essays. They dealt with military and diplomatic issues as Paine promoted better morale. In the second essay, published January 13, 1777, Paine coined the name “United States of America.”
After the British surrendered at Yorktown, Paine was broke, and he didn’t know how he would earn a living. He wanted a government stipend for what he had done to help achieve American Independence. New York State gave him a 300-acre farm in New Rochelle, about 30 miles from New York City, which had belonged to a British loyalist. Congress voted Paine $3,000 for war-related expenses he had paid out of pocket.
Then he came up with an idea for cashing in on the American bridge-building boom. He didn’t find American backers, so on Franklin’s recommendation, he sought support in France and England. While the project fizzled, it brought him into contact with leading classical liberals of the day. In France, he renewed his friendship with Marquis de Lafayette, who had served the American Revolution. Lafayette introduced Paine to the Marquis de Condorcet, a French mathematician and influential classical liberal. In England, Paine met Parliamentary radical Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke, a Parliamentary defender of the American Revolution and friend of radical John Wilkes.
The outbreak of the French Revolution, in July 1789, horrified Burke who began writing his counterrevolutionary manifesto, Reflections on the Revolution in France. It defended monarchy and aristocratic privilege. Burke’s book appeared November 1, 1790, and it reportedly sold almost 20,000 copies within a year. French, German, and Italian editions soon followed.
Rights of Man
Meanwhile, Paine, who had been working on a new book about general principles of liberty, learned the gist of Burke’s manifesto and decided to revise his book as a rebuttal. He moved into a room at the Angel Inn, Islington, where he could concentrate on the project. He started work November 4th. He worked steadily, often by candlelight, for some three months. He finished the first part of Rights of Man on January 29, 1791—his birthday. He was 54. He dedicated the work affectionately to George Washington, and it was published on Washington’s birthday, February 22nd.
While Burke had impressed many people with flowery prose, Paine replied with plain talk. He lashed out at tyranny. He denounced taxes. He specifically denied the moral legitimacy of the English monarchy and aristocracy. He declared that individuals have rights regardless what laws might say. For centuries, people had resigned themselves to tyranny and war, but Paine provided hope these evils could be curbed.
Paine defended the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, which included a commitment to private property. “The right to property being inviolable and sacred, no one ought to be deprived of it, except in cases of evident public necessity, legally ascertained, and on condition of just indemnity.”
The first printing sold out in three days. The second printing, within hours. There was a third printing in March 1791, a fourth printing in April. Some 200,000 copies sold in England, Wales, and Scotland. Another 100,000 copies were sold in America.
Rights of Man convinced many people to support the French Revolution and dramatic reform in England, and the government reacted with repression. Pro-government newspapers denounced Paine as “Mad Tom.” Churchmen delivered sermons attacking Paine. People hanged effigies of Paine across England. On May 17, 1792, the government charged him with seditious libel, which could be punished by hanging. Excise tax collectors ransacked Paine’s room. He hastened to Dover and boarded a boat for Calais, France, in September 1792. An arrest warrant reached Dover about 20 minutes later.
An enthusiastic crowd welcomed him. He was offered honorary citizenship of France and elected as Calais representative to the National Convention which would develop reforms. He didn’t speak French, and he often failed to realize how fast the political situation was changing. But he knew he was an ideological ally of the so-called Girondins who favored a republican government with limited powers.
His adversaries were the ruthless, xenophobic Jacobins. Incredibly, Paine was considered suspect because he was born in England—even though he could be hanged if he returned there. In the middle of the night before Christmas 1793, Jacobin police hauled him away to Luxembourg Prison. Paine was held without trial in a tiny, solitary cell. On July 24, 1794, the public prosecutor added Paine’s name to the list of prisoners who would be beheaded, but he got lucky. Prison guards mistakenly passed by his cell when they gathered the night’s victims. Three days later, July 27, 1794, people had had enough of the Terror, and they beheaded Robespierre, the most fanatical promoter of Jacobin violence, and the worst was over.
Age of Reason
Before Paine was imprisoned, he started his most controversial major work, Age of Reason, and he continued writing behind bars. While he commended Christian ethics, believed Jesus was a virtuous man, and opposed the Jacobin campaign to suppress religion, he attacked the violence and contradictions of many Bible stories. He denounced the incestuous links between church and state. He insisted that authentic religious revelation came to individuals rather than established churches. He defended the deist view of one God and a religion based on reason. He urged a policy of religious toleration.
Age of Reason had a big impact, in part, because Paine wrote it with his trademark dramatic, plainspoken style which stirred strong emotions. The book became a hot seller in England, and government efforts to suppress it further spurred demand. The book was much sought after in Germany, Hungary, and Portugal. There were four American printings in 1794, seven in 1795, and two more in 1796. People formed societies aimed at promoting Paine’s religious principles.
U.S. minister to France James Monroe demanded that government officials bring Paine to trial or release him. Monroe was eloquent: “the citizens of the United States cannot look back to the era of their revolution, without remembering, with those of other distinguished patriots, the name of Thomas Paine. The services which he rendered them in their struggle for liberty have made an impression of gratitude which will never be erased, whilst they continue to merit the character of a just and generous people.”
By November 6th, gray-bearded and frail, Paine was free at last. In 1801, First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte invited Paine to dinner, hoping for insights about conquering Britain. Paine recommended a policy of peace, the last thing Napoleon wanted to hear, and they never met again.
Paine returned to America on September 1, 1802. He was 65. A Massachusetts newspaper correspondent observed: “Years have made more impression on his body than his mind. He bends a little forward, carries one hand in the other behind, when be walks. He dresses plain like a farmer, and appears cleanly and comfortably in his person. . . . His conversation is uncommonly interesting; he is gay, humorous, and full of anecdote—his memory preserves its full capacity, and his mind is irresistible.”
Paine was subjected to personal attacks from the Federalist press, but he spoke out on controversial issues. For example, after Napoleon gained control of Louisiana in 1800, and the Mississippi was closed to American shipping, Federalists called for war against France. Paine encouraged President Jefferson to propose purchasing the Louisiana territory. While Federalist Alexander Hamilton thought Napoleon would never go for the idea, Paine drew from his firsthand knowledge: “The French treasury is not only empty, but the Government has consumed by anticipation a great part of next year’s revenue. A monied proposal will, I believe, be attended to. . . .” In May 1803, Napoleon sold the Louisiana territory to the United States for $15 million.
Although Federalist critics savaged President Thomas Jefferson for defending Paine, he courageously invited his friend to the White House. When Jefferson’s daughters Mary and Martha made clear they would rather not associate with Paine, Jefferson replied that Paine “is too well entitled to the hospitality of every American, not to cheerfully receive mine.”
During Paine’s last years, he was desperate for cash as his health deteriorated, and he lived in pitiful squalor. He asked to be moved into the home of his friend Marguerite de Bonneville at 59 Grove Street, New York City, and there he died on the morning of June 8, 1809. Mme. de Bonneville arranged for burial at his New Rochelle farm because no cemetery would take him.
Paine didn’t rest in peace. A decade later, English journalist William Cobbett, a foe of Paine’s who became a disciple, secretly dug up the casket and shipped it to England. According to some accounts, he thought that by making it part of a shrine, he could inspire large numbers of people to push for reform of the government and the Church of England. But people weren’t much interested in Paine’s bones. When Cobbett died in 1835, they were dispersed with his personal effects and lost.
Paine remained a forgotten Founder for decades. Theodore Roosevelt summed up the prevailing view when he referred to Paine as a “filthy little atheist.” The first really comprehensive biography didn’t appear until 1892. There still isn’t an authoritative edition of Paine’s complete work.
The American bicentennial helped revive interest in Paine. Paperback collections of his major writings became widely available for the first time, and at least eight biographies have appeared since then—two within the past year.
Perhaps a new generation is rediscovering this marvel of a man. He didn’t have much money. He never had political power. Yet he showed how a singleminded private individual could, by making a moral case for natural rights, arouse millions to throw off their oppressors—and how it could happen again.
Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is an expert in the history of liberty. He has lectured in England, Germany, Japan, Argentina and Brazil as well as at Harvard, Stanford and other universities across the United States. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Esquire, Audacity/American Heritage and other publications, and is author of six books.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was born of Quaker parents, which makes him a "birthright" Quaker. Children born into Quaker families are accustomed to the subtleties of speech and behavior of that religious sect, ultimately growing up to be the main nucleus of tradition. Knowing what they are getting into, however, they are more likely to rebel against it than others who, coming to the religion by choice rather than by birthright, are commonly described as "Convinced Friends."
These stereotypes may or may not explain some of Tom Paine's paradoxes. He certainly was not a pacifist, a quietest, or a plain person. He was an important historical figure; Walter A. McDougall, the famous University of Pennsylvania historian, feels the American colonists might have sputtered and complained about Royal rule for decades, except for Paine. The American Revolution happened when it happened because Tom Paine stirred up a storm. Common Sense
According to the traditional way of telling his story, Tom Paine was a ne'er do well failure in London. He ran into Benjamin Franklin, who advised him to emigrate to America in 1775, and within a year his pamphlet called ""Common Sense"" had sold 150,000 copies (some even claim 500,000), galvanizing the public and the Continental Congress into action on July 4, 1776. George Washington read Paine's writings to his troops on the eve of the Battle of Trenton. After that, Paine got mixed up with the French Revolution, and apparently became a severe alcoholic, proclaiming atheism all the way. Although Thomas Jefferson remained friendly to the end, Benjamin Franklin essentially told him to go leave him alone, and Washington would cross the street to avoid him. According to the usual line, Tom Paine was a big-mouthed rabble-rouser and a drunk, who traveled the world looking to stir up revolutions.
However, that cannot possibly be a fair recounting of the whole story. Thomas Alva Edison, whose opinion certainly counts for something, regarded Tom Paine as one of the greatest American inventors, creating the first steel bridge, the first hollow candle, and the principle of central drought in heating. Paine early became a close friend of the Hicks family, the central figures in modern Quakerism; it seems a little unclear how much Tom Paine was reflecting the views of Elias Hicks, and how much Hick site Quakerism can be said to have originated in the thinking of Thomas Paine. Paine was very far from being an atheist. In fact, both he and Hicks believed so fervently in the universality of God that both of them scorned the rituals, paraphernalia, and transparent superstitions of -- religion.
Furthermore, Paine was able to reach the rationalists of The Enlightenment with arguments which cut to the heart of Royalist loyalties. America was too big and too remote to be ruled by a king, particularly one who abused his privileges behind a claim of divine right. William the Conqueror, for example, never denied he was a usurper. One way or another, every king must earn his throne. So, as for feudalism and hereditary aristocracy, what was King George doing with all those German mercenaries? After two centuries of democracy, most Americans are too far from feudalism to appreciate the legitimacy of military meritocracy. Whatever King George was up to, he didn't stand for empowerment of the best and the brightest Englishmen, who in fact might well be opposed to him. If you wanted to get to Virginia aristocrats, Boston sea captains, and Kentucky backwoodsmen, that was exactly the line to take in Common Sense.
Unfortunately, Citizen Tom Paine was a freethinker and couldn't be quiet about it in his later books. He didn't like the way the Old Testament Hebrews hungered for a king. He didn't like the way the New Testament sprinkled miracles on top of unassailable moral principles, and he particularly didn't like the claim that God got an unmarried girl pregnant. He antagonized almost every established religion by proclaiming that no one should make a living from religion. He wrote a book called Age of Reason proclaiming all these freethinking ideas, which struck Ben Franklin as such a stupid thing to do that he would not discuss it, beyond saying that even if he should succeed in convincing people to abandon religion, just imagine how much worse they would probably behave without it. George Washington, who hadn't a trace of intellectualism about him, more accurately portrayed the typical American revulsion at anyone who was so unprincipled as to say such unorthodox things in public. Jefferson distanced himself for political reasons rather than intellectual ones. Franklin thought Paine was a fool. Washington and the rest of the country thought he was a viper.
It would have to be conceded -- by anyone -- that Tom Paine was self-destructive, even sassing Robespierre while in a French prison. How is it such a loose cannon could get the American public off dead center and make the Continental Congress grasp the nettle of revolution, in less than a year? Let's go back to how he came to America in the first place. Franklin sent him.
Then he promptly got a job as editor of the Pennsylvania Gazette, which Franklin had owned for thirty years. And then, in an era when the largest city in America had a population of twenty-five thousand, and the printing presses of the day were able to turn out three or four pages a minute, he sold 150,000 copies of the fifty-page "Common Sense." Who but Franklin, in private partnerships with sixty printers, could have possibly authorized, financed, and printed 150,000 copies of a colonial pamphlet? In order to find that much printing capacity in colonial America, a great deal of other printing had to lose its place in the queue.
Even today, a best-seller is defined as a book that sells 50,000 copies, and it generally takes three years to get it done. In the Eighteenth Century, for an unknown alcoholic to get off the boat and find a publisher for a best seller in a few weeks is hard even to imagine. Unless he had important help. Hello, I do not know if this will find its way to right person. My family has found a copy of " Common Sense" By Thomas Paine. It is a combination of pamphlets written by him. Ive been searching to sell, but cannot find proper place to do so. Even checking museums, to find a good resting place for this book. Please if you have any ideas of possibilitys....Thank YOU! Book shows dates of 1700's
Posted by: Rebecca | Sep 2, 2014 6:36 PM
He had an amazing impact on the world and has been downgraded in history largely because his unorthodox religious ideas were confused with atheism by his religious contemporaries. I don't think he was self-destructive. I think he was brave. He was 'educated' but he wasn't 'schooled'. He had rough edges that irritated the more polished plantation-owners of the time, but he wrote with unparalleled and persuasive vigour. An interesting aspect of his legacy is that he is claimed by both left and right. I blog using his name from a classical liberal perspective I believe he broadly shared, but he also wrote about funding basic welfare programmes from a land tax. I belong to the Thomas Paine Society in England and smile that it is chaired by a left-wing politician, given that he could not possibly agree with my favourite quotation from Old Tom (from Common Sense, perhaps the most influential pamphlet in history); “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” The only time I regret using his name (out of a vain hope that my blogging might be a thousandth as influential as his pamphleteering) is when I have to waste time responding to angry leftists objecting to it.
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled "The ANCIENT TESTIMONY AND PRINCIPLES of the people called QUAKERS renewed, with Respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and touching the COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL." ---------------------
THE Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with. 1 As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which, your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular situation, in order, that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you can have any claim or title to Political Representation. 2 When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust. 3 The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire for peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independant Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a connexion which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries. 4 We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter—Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made it's way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the Bigot in the place of the Christian. 5 O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to your enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of 1 Barclay ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers. 6 Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death. 7 The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him"; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace. 8 I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz. 9 "It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: That we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us." —If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's Work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it contains: And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what ye believe. 10 The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. OLIVER CROMWELL thanks you.
CHARLES, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersing of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can shew this, how can ye on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence of desire and design to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him." What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now, recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a dispairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof. 11 Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up and putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and for many other reasons had better been let alone than published. 12 First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes. 13 Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof. 14 Thirdly, Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all. 15 And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of AMERICA. 16
Note 1 "Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity: thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor is both to God and man: If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation.—Against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins." Barclay's Address to Charles II. [back]
Expert Answers info POHNPEI397 | CERTIFIED EDUCATOR
Paine’s criticism of the Quakers comes in an appendix to Common Sense. It is perhaps more appropriate to say that Paine is criticizing the leaders of the Quakers. He is criticizing them for their lack of support for the Revolutionary War.
To understand this, let us first think about what Paine’s goal in Common Sensewas and about who the Quakers were. Paine’s goal in this pamphlet was to whip up support for the...
| CERTIFIED EDUCATOR