Kristen's comments (member since Jan 05, 2009)

Kristen's comments from the The History Book Club group.

Here is my final summary, if anyone is still following this topic:

Paine was given a spectacular welcome in France and offered citizenship and elected as a representative to the national convention. He certainly wasn't the only one to vote for imprisonment/banishment over death of the king and since he was well known for his hatred of monarchy and viewed as an objective outsider he he led the way for clemency. Paine's side only lost by a single vote. The next day he gave a speech to the convention again pleading for clemency on the basis that an execution would alienate France's only ally, the US. His Translator was shouted down by Jean-Paul Marat and others and many claimed that the translator was wrong and those couldn't possibly be the words of Paine.

At this point Paine seem to know what was coming and withdrew to the French countryside. I don't know why he didn't leave France since he certainly knew he was in danger. The only reason Keane gives is that his departure would have brought attention to himself and possibly he would be labeled a traitor to the revolution and killed. Also if he fell into the hands of the British he would be brought back to England and probably executed as well, so I suppose he was trapped (he did attempt to leave at least three times but turned back)

A few weeks later he put himself in further danger by testified against Marat at his trial(which of course he was acquitted.) Slowly all his friends were arrested. Paine figured he was protected by the fact he was still a delegate but soon he was denounced because he had not participated in the convention since the execution of the king. He released an early shorten version of 'Age of Reason' at this time which further drew attention to him and soon after he was arrested.

Paine himself believed he wasn't imprisoned for anything he had said or did but for what he might say if he was allowed that freedom. He thought many people in France and the US viewed him as a troublemaker and were glad to have him silenced. The American residents in Paris petitioned for his release but the view of Washington and others was that Paine was subject to the laws of France. His dedication of 'Age of Reason' to citizens of America was purposely made to remind everyone that he was not simply a Englishman but an American as well.

he narrowly avoided execution (due to his illness his cell door was left open and the mark made on the door of condemned men was made on the inside of his door so that when the door was closed later that night the mark was not visible.) Just a few days later Paine's enemy Robespierre fell and he was finally released 2 months after James Monroe replaced Morris (who didn't like Paine) as the American minister to France.

I never realized that he stayed in France for another fives years after he was released. He was restored to the national convention with back pay but with the takeover of Napoleon soon after he again withdrew from politics but not before proposing a plan to attack England which brought him in contact with Napoleon. It was during his time in France that he wrote that scathing letter to Washington calling him a traitor, amongst other things. Now Keane says that this letter did more to damage Paine's reputation than either the Silas Deane affair or his attack on Christianity, I disagree, people didn't throw stones at him when he returned to the US because of his attack on Washington and they didn't harass him on his deathbed to renounce his views on Washington. Certainly some places he did receive a warm welcome home and at other towns he was nearly chased out. What a sad end he had but I wouldn't blame it on his argumentative nature as Keane did rather I think it's simply that he didn't have any children or family to look after him in his old age. I also disagree with Keane on Paine's reason for continuing to support France after things turned ugly, Keane claims that Paine simply saw that revolution in the terms of the American revolution but I think it was his uncontrollable hatred for the English government that blinded him to anything else.

All in all it was a wonderful biography and I would highly recommend it.

Bentley wrote: "I am amazed at what the news media believes is important and why...."

I couldn't agree more!

You're far too hard on him. Yes, in many ways he was a fuck-up. He was always broke, he was argumentative with even his closest friends and he constantly swung back and forth from insecurity to arrogance. That aside I don't think he was simply a troublemaker as you imply but rather he had this unattainable vision of freedom that he refused to compromise. He didn't want to spread revolution through all of Europe because he simply wanted to stir up controversy but because he genuinely and wholeheartedly believed that all people had a right to live free.

He certainly had an exciting life. He had a few close calls during the revolutionary war. On his first trip to France (after successfully attacking a few British ships) his ship hit a patch of icebergs and was disabled for days. He was nearly hanged later in France when he forgot to wear his cockade hat (a crowd beat him up but a few friends were able to talk the mob out of hanging him by telling them 'he's an American".)

Bentley wrote: "I think France misunderstood Paine no matter what his intentions; because he did end up in their prison
..."

Yes I'm just getting to that part now, but off the top of of my head I believe he was imprisoned for attempting to defend the King from the death penalty (I think).

Just finished up the section on Paine's return to England. I hadn't realized just how popular The 'Rights of Man" was in Europe but he sold an unprecedented amount of copies. Again Paine sacrificed any profit he could have made by offering the book at a low cost so the common people could afford it. Not wanting to give Paine any extra publicity the English government ignored the first part, but after Paine released part two they decided to act. They commissioned a very hostile biography to be written about Paine and payed others to write rebuttals to the 'Rights of Man'. Paine was constantly tailed by spies and any gatherings of pro-revolution / Paine-supporters were outlawed. They eventually made a law against "wicked and seditious writing" and charged Paine with seditious libel in order to force him to leave England (which he did.) Certainly the British government's propaganda campaign against Paine had some effect as he was burned in effigy across the country but it was mostly the rich that attacked him and when he was tried in absentia (and convicted) the crowd gathering outside cheered his lawyer, unhitched his carriage and pulled him all the way home themselves as a show of support for Paine.

To clarify: He really wasn't criticizing France at all, he was criticizing war profiteering by French and American citizens (The French government had given a gift of ammunition and equipment for the war but didn't want to antagonize England by doing it openly, Unfortunately the men they channeled the arms through, Deane and Pierre Beaumarchais billed the US a huge amount for these 'gifts'. It's unclear whether Deane was crocked or simply incompetent.) Some thought his criticism reflected badly on France, which it really didn't. Paine was vindicated in the end but this episode marks his first taste of public scorn.

And to be fair to Paine he wholeheartedly supported a strong federal government which he felt was absolutely necessary for security and foreign affairs and he realized a federal tax was necessary to accomplish that. He certainly didn't write anything he didn't believe.

Yes, his money problems were rather sad but clearly of his own making. I think he really tried to stick to his ideals but some were just not sensible. He donated all his profits from 'Common Sense' but later was reduced to petitioning Congress for a pension or some sort of payment for his services to the revolution. He often said that for everything he did for the revolution, he cost the country less than an ordinary solider. They did eventually give him a farm and some cash but I don't think he was very pleased and shortly after he left the country. He also left because he had designed a bridge and was unable to sell the design in the US and he thought he would have better luck in Europe (which he did not.)

Your probably right about his 'citizen of the world' comment. While In the US he often was threatening to leave because he wasn't appreciated, but once back in Europe he wrote to his American friends of how much he missed the US. I wonder if he really ever felt at home anywhere?

Paine's relationship with Washington seemed strained from early on, but he argued with all of his friends. I very funny anecdote Keane relates is of Paine almost lecturing Washington on military strategy after a retreat by the Americans. After the winter at Valley Forge when many where calling for the resignation of Washington, Paine was noticeably silent because it thought it would hurt the public and army moral although he later described to Washington as having "a want of military judgment." Still they remained friends. Keane says their friendship really deteriorated when Paine dedicated the first part of Rights Of Man to Washington. This was a deliberate political move designed to embarrass any attempt by the British to silence his writing and Washington realized this and was rather angry since he was working at the time to smooth out the relationship with England.

Bentley wrote: "Kristen, what can you share with us about Keane's book; anything additional?..."

I'm just on the part now where he leaves the US.

After Common Sense, Adams proposed Paine for the position of Foreign Affairs Secretary (not only for his "great importance in the revolution" but because he knew how broke Paine was.) Paine was later forced to resign from this post over his sharp criticism of war profiteering (aka the Silas Deane Affair) which some thought was overly critical of their French allies and had violated the confidentiality clause of his post. Paine criticized congress for not giving him a fair hearing and for their general secrecy, amongst other things. Congress in turn portrayed him as a traitor to the revolution and at this point Paine's popularity began to decline, more than once he was physical attacked in Philadelphia. He hid out for months leaving his friends to defend him, which also ended in violence when a mob attacked the publisher of one of Paine's critics demanding to know that critic's name and then showing up at his home. Paine was eventually persuaded to return to public life but at this point I believe he was already thinking of leaving the US.

He traveled to France on a government sponsored mission to secure funds, where he was ironically given a warm welcome by the government there and he had to be persuaded to return to the US. He was a somewhat bitter because he felt he wasn't given the recognition he deserved in the US. In England he may have been lower middle class but in America he was almost destitute, he remarked that while he could barely afford to feed his horse in England, he couldn't even afford to rent a horse in America. In desperation he wrote to Washington and other associates of his situation and was eventually given a job as a paid writer for the government to drum up support for federal taxes. He was actually employed by some of his biggest critics during the Silas Deane affair (who had later came around in his side.) Some thought this was hypocritical since he had previously refused to make money off of his political writings. Mostly he was ready to leave the US because the war had come to an end and he had the grand hope of spreading revolution to Europe. Paine referred to himself not as an American or a Englishman but a 'citizen of the world.' He certainly recognized that his strength lies in the drumming up public support with his writing rather than working out the details afterwords.

This section is certainly the heart of 'Common Sense'.

A few good points Paine makes:

Being under British control the colonies are obliged to war with whomever England happens to be at war with, even to America's own economic disadvantage.

The King would never allow America have a strong defense and England would always pursue her own interests above that of her colonies.

Since most thought that separation was inevitable (eventually) why draw it out and leave the war for the next generation to fight when the time was ripe now. Blood had already been spilled and if they stop now those lives would have been lost in vain.

Paine explains his urgency by pointing out that reconciliation may leave America open for "some Massanello" to take advantage of the dissent and assume power for himself. He also makes a point that to delay could mean the break up of the unity of the states.

Bentley wrote: "It is unbelievable that the Iranians chose to go with their religious clerics truly wanting somebody and or something that they could trust and who would respect their values; and then this is what they have actually accomplished with their 1979 revolution.
..."]

At the time there was more than one faction involved in the revolution, including some very liberal secular groups, unfortunately it was the religious fundamentalist that won the fight for control afterward. I don't think many Iranian knew what was to come later.

I meant to reply earlier but forgot, when I mentioned western intervention I was thinking of Britain but it is a proven fact that the CIA did stage the coup to overthrow democratically elected Mosaddeq in the 50's and I often hear this named as the cause of tension between the US and Iran and the root cause of the Iranian revolution.

Here's a book I read last year on the subject:
All the Shah's Men An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror

k wrote: "The only book that I've read about Iran is the graphic novel The Complete Persepolis, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There isn't very much about politics that Satrapi addresses, but it ..."

I loved Persepolis as well. It is a 'graphic novel' so it's not like you'll learn much from it but it did paint a picture of what it was like to be a women in Iran during the Islamic revolution. My favorite part was Marjane buying American music on the streets of Tehran, as if it were illicit drugs! It's hard to imagine what the young people there must put up with.

I would also highly recommend the movie by the same name.

Bentley wrote: "WAS PAINE AN ATHEIST?

According to Remsburg; NO...."

People have a tendency to label anyone who doesn't believe exactly as themselves an atheist, including Paine as he wrote in 'Age of Reason':

"As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism-a sort of religious denial of god. It professes to believe in a man rather than in god. It is a compound made up chiefly of manism, with but little deism and is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness."

I think his distaste for organized religion in general may stem from discrimination he observed as a child against the Quakers who where considered a dissident religious sect. Of course he also worked as a Methodist minister for a time in England. I think his views on religion were all over the place.

Bentley wrote: The Keane insights are quite helpful; thank you for adding these. . .Do you find that Keane was an admirer of Paine?
..."

Thanks for putting up with me, I know my friends are sure glad to have one less book to hear me talk about.

Keane was certainly a admirer and defender of Paine. Also he says that the Paine never recanted on his deathbed and dismisses those accounts as pure rumors.

Laljit wrote: "Kristen

I was wondering, based on Keane, what was Paine's take on the other founding..."

I'm just in the middle of the section on his time in America now, so I'll get back to you, but it seems that even with those he considered his close friends he was always very argumentative.

I'm not sure about that, Paine was just as critical of atheism as he (later) was of Christianity. I know Hitchens is a HUGE fan of Paine. I did read that Hitchens' book last year but I really don't remember much about it, beside that it was very short and of course Hitchens is always very entertaining.


Of the many responses to Paine's 'Common Sense', the most influential (according to Keane) was John Adam's 'Thoughts on Government.' It appears the biggest difference the two men had was that Adams believed government required a series of complex checks and balances because power, no matter who controlled it, was certain to corrupt and he felt Paine was substituting 'The People' for the 'Monarchy.' Paine seemed to think if the people were in control themselves there was no need for dividing government powers.

I think it's hard to get a handle on Paine because he was rather complex. He was ALWAYS broke but rarely kept the profits from his writing for himself. The money made from 'Common Sense' for instance was donated to buy mittens for soldiers.

Keane describes him as sexist (in those times who wasn't) but Paine was a big proponent of education for women.

He deeply respected Native Americans calling them exemplars of the "natural state of man," but he never publicly denounced prejudice against them.

He deeply abhorred slavery (when he first arrived in Philadelphia he lived directly across from the slave market) but he didn't seem to say much about it either.

When Paine volunteered for military service he bragged how his experience as a privateer left him unafraid of battle yet a soldier accompanying him remarked that Paine was "always kept out of danger."

He certainly was a very interesting figure.

Bentley wrote: "I think it is easier for us on the outside to be cynical and feel that things will never change in Iran; I honestly felt we misjudged a large segment of the Iranian population in terms of what their hopes and dreams were and I think I totally misjudged their bravery. ..."

I'm just being realistic but I have always thought their Iranian people would 'eventually' overthrow their Islamic government. Twice before the Iranians have overthrown tyrannical governments in order to establish a democracy and both times it was the west that robbed them of that right for our own purposes. Something to keep in mind.

Bentley wrote: didn't Paine think that his pamphlet would just add more fuel to the fire? ..."

I'm sure that was his intention. He thought that independence was inevitable and if he didn't take advantage of the opportunity now, it would only be more difficult later.

Not to be TOO cynical but I can't help wondering if it really matters who's president when the Ayatollah will still be the one in control either way?

Bentley wrote: "Thomas Paine appears to be now taking on the catholics and the popes in a back-handed way. ...To incite an uprising against the government is always considered treason in my view"

As far as anti-catholic statements, I think Paine was using language common for the time among the protestant majority but also trying to link the British monarchy with Rome (in that they are both overbearing and obsolete.)

I wonder if his use of a religious argument is a bit disingenuous. But in a general sense I think monarchy is indeed routed in conquest and I find the idea that some people are have a divine right to reign over others for no reason other than heredity rather disturbing.



Certainly Paine believed that liberty was a cause worthy of violence but he also seemed to be very aware that violence could get out of control. Very interesting considering what would later happen to him in France. Keane claims he was greatly motivated by the battle at Lexington and other events. Considering 'Common Sense' was published after that (and the siege of Boston, the King proclamation that the colonies were in a state of rebellion, etc.) in that context I don't think Common Sense was so controversial.



In 1776 alone more than 400 similar pamphlets were published and yet it was Paine's that quickly spread around the globe, I wonder why his was so successful.

Bentley wrote: "what bothers me about Paine is that I feel that he goes overboard in his zealousness to persuade the colonists...."

I think considering they type of pamphlet 'Common Sense' was, it is to be expected that he would be 'zealous.' I don't think he himself was so black and white but he knew that the audience he was trying to reach (the common folk) wouldn't respond to a more nuanced argument. You call him a rabble rouser and I think that it was indeed his intentions was to rouse the masses and such strong rhetoric was the best way to get through to the everyday people.

You know, I wasn't aware that Paine even had a second wife. When the landlord in Lewes died, Paine took over running his business (at the widow's request.) He married her daughter Elizabeth in 1771. Soon afterward there were numerous rumors that they fought often and didn't sleep together. He left for a few months to petition Parliament the next year (and was fired again) and his wife may have blamed his absence for the subsequent failure of the family business. By the spring of 1774 they had separated and Paine was bankrupt, all of his belongs were sold at auction. By fall of that same year he left for America.