By Fayette Arnold

“Paine Was The Voice Of The Revolution And Was An Independent Thinker On The Level Of Voltaire And Goethe”.

From Thomas Paine Apostle of Freedom By Jack Fruchman Jr. – Paine Scholar

Paine Is An Impressive Figure As He Took A Tax Rebellion And Transformed It Into A Revolution And Independence. This is What Neither Side Expected Or Wanted.

Fayette Arnold, Three St. Croix Lofts Drive, Unit 104, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 5402, CHANGING THE 18TH CENTURIES VIEW OF LIFE

“In My Judgment, Thomas Paine Was the Best Political Writer That Ever Lived. What He Wrote Was Pure Nature, And His Soul And His Pen Went Together. Ceremony, Pageantry, And All the Paraphernalia Of Power Had No Effect Upon Him. He Examined Into The Why And Wherefore Of Things. He Was Perfectly Radical In His Mode of Thought. Nothing Short Of Bedrock Satisfied Him”1.

Robert G. Ingersoll

Introduction

Despite Thomas Paine’s numerous contributions to America and the world, his most significant accomplishment has escaped the attention of scholars as well as students of history. There is an important and vital area of his thought and creativity, completely neglected, which illuminates Paine’s unique role in American and World History. One of many factors that make Thomas Paine a great historical figure and force is his transformation of Lockean Philosophy. In fact, he significantly changed the structure and meaning of Locke’s thought system. In modifying the public’s understanding of Locke, Paine altered the character and destiny of American and World History. This may be Paine’s greatest contribution to mankind as well as the seminal aspect of his intellectual activities that makes him one of the world’s most prominent and original thinkers.

Thomas Paine’s ideas and efforts inspired and consolidated the American Revolution. He provided the colonists with the fuel to fire their rebellion. His majestic phrases rang through the colonies and united Americans in a common cause. Paine’s eloquence in speech and the power of his pen imparted the ideals and courage needed for the founding of a new nation. In his efforts to unite and direct the colonists, Paine created what may have been one of his greatest phrases – The United State of America.

The American concepts of freedom, equality, and human rights, which came from the mind and pen of Thomas Paine, set the 18th century world ablaze. He gave Americans and Europeans the rational, inspiration, and confidence to reject outmoded social and political structures of the past and the courage to create new ones that would provide a better future for mankind. Men and women were longing for a social order where there was justice as well as the ability to achieve their human potential.

Democracy would provide the new vehicle for reaching age old aspirations. A modification of the philosophy of John Locke would be a stepping stone to that brighter future. Thomas Paine went far beyond Locke’s thinking and created a new intellectual architecture and world view. Paine broke the bonds of the 18th centuries’ intellectual framework, philosophical, social and political. He shattered the structure that John Locke’s thinking was contained within and which his ideas supported. America is not founded on the ideas of John Locke per se, but upon the transformation of his concepts by Thomas Paine. In altering Locke, Paine gave his ideas meanings that John Locke would not have recognized or accepted.

Paine’s ideas and concepts about freedom, equality and independence were new and unique. They went well beyond the opinions embraced by Europeans and colonial Americans. For example, according to John Locke man was free, equal an independent in the state of nature, but gave up that status when he accepted the “Social Compact” and joined society. In Locke’s own words, “But though men when they enter society give up the equality, liberty and executive power they had in the state of nature into the hands of society… yet it being only with the intention in everyone to preserve himself, his liberty and property”.2 Locke apparently sees no conflict between individuals giving up equality, liberty, and executive power over self and their likely status and treatment within an autocratic society. His “Social Compact” takes away from the individual the very ideals Locke appears to be espousing. In the mind of Thomas Paine, men were free, equal and independent within society. This was a radical notion and a threat to the political and social structure of the 18th century world. The consequences of this shift in thinking were enormous as it fundamentally changed a world view and value system that Europeans had revered for centuries.

According to Locke’s conception of man and society, human beings are not free, equal or independent because they have accepted a “Social Compact”. Locke finds a variety of reasons for condoning inequality and injustice as well as a lack of freedom and independence within the social and political orders. He claims that the invention of money created conditions whereby men give their “consent” and “agree” that the earth’s possessions should be “disproportionate” and “unequal”. Further, Locke proclaims that the unequal conditions of wealth created by money operate outside the “bounds of society” as well as the “Compact”. Although he gives many reasons for human inequality, Locke still states that, “All men by nature are equal. I cannot propose to understand all sorts of equality. Age or virtue may give men a just precedence. Excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level. Birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others…”3 It is obvious, except to Locke, that the ideals he professes do not apply in the social and political atmosphere existing in England. Locke is consistently inconsistent in his thinking and cannot logically reconcile his philosophy with the world of reality.

Locke fails to perceive the conflict between his abstract ideals and the reasons he give for their circumvention in the concrete world. In addition, he does not understand that most of the inequality and injustice existing in his day was due to the structure of society and government which favored the few and handicapped the many. His explanation of the reasons for differences in status and wealth within society ignores the impact of social and political arrangements that create inequity and limited opportunity for the majority of the population. Locke’s writings also lack political and social insights that could be utilized to create programs to alleviate injustice and inequity resulting from England’s feudal and autocratic traditions. Of course, his aims were not egalitarian but elitist.

John Locke does not utilize the term republic or republican in his writings, but frequently employs the word commonwealth which he defines as a civilized community. In fact, Locke in his “Essay Concerning Civil Government” uses the word commonwealth over 75 times. Further, the term democracy is only mentioned once and that is for the purpose of defining commonwealth as not meaning democracy. Locke’s philosophy is clearly concerned with the formation of a commonwealth rather than the creation of a republic. Locke affirms this by saying, “By commonwealth, I must be understood all along to mean, not a democracy, or form of government, but an independent community which the Latins signify by the word civitas, to which the word which best answers in our language is commonwealth, and most properly expresses such a society of men”4. Locke’s philosophy is focused on building a civilized society that would avoid the political and social strife that existed in his era. His goal was not to create a government based upon democratic values, but to establish a refined, rational, well mannered, and harmonious social order founded upon a traditional belief in limited monarchy.

Interpreters of Locke’s philosophy have extracted his belief in republican principles from his use of certain words, especially terms like “freedom”, “equality”, and “executive power over self”, and his emphasis on laws being created, not by the king but by the legislature. Locke indicates that the legislature in making laws not only checks the power of the sovereign, it also “puts men out of the state of nature into that of commonwealth”. He believes that the legislature is the means by which men achieve the purpose or end results of their entering into society. The reason human beings accept social institutions are the “enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety”. Further, the “instrument” and “means” of fulfilling this aim are the “laws established in society (by the legislature)”.5

Traditional expositions of John Locke’s philosophy credit him with creating democratic ideas that were responsible for inspiring the American and French Revolutions. In fact, customary explanations of his ideology express the belief that the structure of the American state is predicated upon Locke’s political and social ideals. Conventional proponents of Lockean thought also indicate he embraced the opinion that society and the state are independent of each other. This interpretation of Locke is founded on the conviction that the social order is based upon natural law and commonly shared moral rights. From his notion of natural law, exponents of Locke deduce that he supported the precept that the state and society are separate entities. To Lockes’ interpreters, this implies the formation of a social order that is democratic in nature and which requires very little in the way of government.

However, a close inspection of John Locke’s philosophy reveals that the above points of view are invalid. It is impossible to associate Locke’s beliefs concerning the reasons for as well as the role of government with the theory of natural law. The political and social functions of government devised and implemented by the English Aristocracy and Monarchy are in conflict with the doctrine of natural and moral law. In fact, Locke’s “Democratic Ideals” are abrogated by his “Social Compact” and his belief in Autocratic government. Again, according to Locke, it is government (Laws enacted by the legislature) that takes man out of the state of nature. Only by abandoning the freedom, equality and independence men possessed in the state of nature can mankind live in harmony within society. Locke’s fundamental precepts and the society he is attempting to create are diametrically opposed. It is quite apparent that his social and political orders are not separate entities. In fact, they are one and the same due to his replacing natural law with political laws that are derived from a government ruled by the Nobility and Sovereign. In John Locke’s thought system, God’s law has been replaced by man’s law. This results in the creation of a state and society that are neither separate from one another or republican in nature.

Thomas Paine offered mankind an alternative to John Locke’s conflicting and illogical thought system. Paine rejected any philosophy advancing the idea that social and political equality is best achieved in a society ruled by Patricians and Monarchs. In contrast to Locke, Paine created a democratic belief system based upon popular sovereignty. He replaced a medieval view of the social and political orders with an outlook that was both Modern and Egalitarian. By presenting an approach to society and government that was based upon an acceptance of natural law as well as upon his understanding of God’s will for mankind, Paine handed the world a new and different philosophy as well as an expanded world view in which men would be equal, free and independent within the social and political orders. He not only gave old words and ideas new meanings but also greater dimensions and depth. Thomas Paine’s beliefs and not John Locke’s “Social Compact” became the legal and social foundation of American society. Our nation’s intellectual and spiritual character came directly from the mind of Thomas Paine.

THOMAS PAINE AND JOHN LOCKE RE-EXAMINED

Thomas Paine’s fundamental belief system as well as his views on the origin and purpose of government are strikingly different than John Locke’s. His intrinsic principles were based upon a belief in freedom, equality, human rights and security for all of mankind. Paine’s opinions with respect to the reasons for and the objectives of government were, in fact, contrary to those of John Locke. To quote Thomas Paine, “Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here is the design and end of government, viz. “freedom and security”.6 His belief in human freedom rested upon the foundation of equal rights. In his own words, “Why then not trace the rights of man, to the creation of man. The illuminating and divine principle of equal rights of man (for it had its origin from the maker of man), relates not only to the living individuals; but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every history of creation… agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean that men are all of one degree and consequently that all men are born equal and with equal rights’.7 “His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights”.8

Thomas Paine summed up his political and social viewpoint by saying, “Men are born; an always continue, free and equal in respect to their rights. The end of all political association, is, the preservation of the natural an imprescriptible rights of man… political liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not injure another. The exercise of the natural rights of every man has no other limit than those that are necessary to secure to every other man the free exercise of the same rights and these limits are determined by law”.9

Because men are born having equal rights and retain these rights within the social and political order, government according to Paine must be based upon the will of the people. To ensure their rights, citizens must be allowed to direct their own affairs. This belief in the consent of the governed presents a sharp contrast to John Locke’s philosophy in which government and society are based upon rule by monarchs and patricians. The objective of Locke’s social and political thinking is to protect those who have property and social status. Locke’s thought system certainly was not predicated on power to the people. His was an elitist conception of society. Dominate power in the social and political orders was shared by the king and aristocracy. In fact, the purpose of Locke’s writings were to confirm and justify existing conditions in English society and government, conditions that were inherited from a medieval world order and world view.

John Locke’s philosophy was founded upon exclusivity, selectivity as well as patrimony and not upon the universality and equality of mankind. Locke conceives of government as an institution that primarily serves and protects the noble and the few. Thus, government and the power structure that controls it are purposely designed to be undemocratic in nature. Paine believed that government should be constructed and operated so that it directed its efforts to serve the greater good of all citizens. Unlike John Locke, he did not feel that bloodline and property should determine one’s station and opportunities in life. Republican government is not based upon property and pedigree but on majority rule.

According to the philosopher Bertrand Russell, John Locke is “the most influential though by no means the most profound of philosophers”.10 Locke’s philosophy was “little more than a clarification and systematization of prevalent opinion in England”.11 “Even before the reformation theologians tended to believe in setting limits to kingly power”.12 “What Locke has to say about the state of nature and the law of nature, in the main, is not original, but a repetition of medieval scholastic doctrine”.13 Bertrand Russell states that his ideas can be traced back to the writings of “Saint Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius”.14 John Locke in dealing with the concepts of liberty, human rights, and equality was looking to the past at ideals that he felt were already established. Thomas Paine by contrast was looking to the future at ideals that needed to be actualized.

Although John Locke’s thinking was affected by the Renaissance and Reformation, his ideas on government and society find their roots in Medieval Europe. To be more specific, Locke’s philosophy is derived from the thought structure of the medieval Catholic Church which was based upon a combination of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian revelation. The Schoolmen of the middle ages, who were exponents of Scholasticism, propounded arguments to challenge the theory of the divine right of kings in order to justify the Popes position as being superior to that of monarchs. Despite the fact that Locke rejected Scholasticism, his political and social outlook was rooted in this system of thought. The Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation as well as the Enlightenment should not be viewed as sharply divided eras, but as a gradual transition occurring during a period of over 1300 years. The various ages did react against one another, sometimes with great passion. However, even with their predilection for zealotry, like children rebelling against their parents, much of the parent remained in the child.

Notwithstanding the impact of the past upon Thomas Paine, his philosophy and belief system was not acquired from Scholasticism. Paine’s ideas and ideals were inspired by the Enlightenment and his Deist theological beliefs. He felt that God revealed himself to man through nature. Thus, reason and science were the means of approaching both truth and one’s creator. In brief, Thomas Paine’s philosophy came from the Modern world and not the Middle Ages. America’s world view and value system is derived from Rationalism rather than Scholasticism.

There are additional reasons for concluding that Thomas Paine’s philosophy was not acquired from John Locke. Professor Jack Fruchtman, Jr. in the introduction to his book, Thomas Paine Apostle of Freedom, quotes Paine as saying, “I never read John Locke, nor ever had the work in my hand”.15 Thomas Paine’s philosophy was created from his belief in human reason and his vision of God’s ongoing plan for humanity. It was not acquired from reading John Locke or being influenced by the medieval power struggles of the Christian Church. Paine is clearly a product of the Enlightenment; Locke a reflection of the Reformation, Renaissance and Middle Ages. Unfortunately, we have attributed our modern view of freedom, equality and democracy to John Locke’s philosophical beliefs and have failed to perceive that our American thought and value system is unique and thus quite different than his.

Bertrand Russell also states that John Locke’s concepts with respect to the law of nature and the state of nature are not only unoriginal; they are in addition quite vague. Per Russell, “The nearest thing to a definition of the state of nature to be found in Locke is the following: Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth: with authority to judge between them; is properly called the state of nature”.16 Russell comments, “This is not a description of the life of savages, but of an imagined community of virtuous anarchists, who need no police or law courts because they always obey “Reason”, which is the same as “Natural Law”, which in turn, consists of those laws of conduct that are held to have divine origin”.17 Locke’s beliefs that human beings are equal, independent, and rational are naive and contradictory as well as disingenuous. The vague and contrary nature of Locke’s thinking has allowed us to read into his writings ideas and beliefs that he did not embrace. In fact, modern interpretations of his philosophy would have surprised him.

In Locke’s opinion the “State of Nature” was abrogated by a “Social Compact” which created government. The “State of Nature” is not dissolved by just any compact, but only one that can make a single body politic. In brief, Locke begins his thinking with a supposition that he refers to as a “State of Nature”. This state is antecedent to any and all human government. It is ruled by a “Law of Nature” which is based upon divine commands rather than being imposed by human legislation. Men finally emerged from this “State of Nature” by creating a “Social Compact” which became the means for inaugurating civil government. Of course in light of logic and man’s historical experience, the concept of the “Social Compact” seems absurd. However, it may have been the best and most practical explanation people could envisage to account for the creation of government and society.

According to John Locke, “The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government is to protect their property, to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting”.18 Property plays a prominent and in fact dominant role in his political and social philosophy. It is obvious from his writings that property is the main reason for creating the institution known as government. In fact, Bertrand Russell proclaims that “Locke is driven by his worship of property.”19 Again, it should be noted that the purpose of government for Paine is to ensure freedom, equality, human rights, and security for all human beings.

Locke’s obsession with property must be emphasized as it reflects a belief system as well as a social and political outlook that is fundamentally at odds with Thomas Paine’s thinking and the American conception of democracy. John Locke’s thought system reserved political influence for those who were eminent both socially and economically. John Locke believed that economic power in the form of money was the real derivation of political power. He felt that predominate political control should be vested within the aristocracy. Those individuals in society who have conspicuous monetary interests should manage government. Citizens lacking pronounced wealth in either property or money did not deserve a voice in the affairs of state. In fact, the aristocracy feared the lower classes because they were the majority within society. A government and society based upon majority rule would not bode well for the nobility. In contrast to Locke, Paine believed in rule by the majority as well as universal suffrage so that all citizens could have a voice in government. Locke’s philosophy was not designed to support democracy or the welfare of the common man. His social, political and economic beliefs were the antithesis of Thomas Paine’s egalitarian views regarding humanity, government and society.

John Locke actually believed that English society and government correspond to his expressed ideals. Thomas Paine rejected the assumption that the English people were free, independent and lived within an egalitarian society. He bluntly stated that their government was not republican in nature. In his words, “If we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First: The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the King.

Second: The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly: The new republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The first two being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say, “that the constitution of England is a union of three powers, reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.”20 Paine avows that the British government is based upon the principles of despotism. In fact, he feels that in England there are despotic rivalries between the King, Parliament and the Church. The conflicts amongst these three entities were exacerbated because they functioned within a society which evolved out of feudalism. According to Paine, the remaining elements of feudalism within British society were also a form of tyranny. He believed that the fundamental nature of English culture and its government precluded it from being a democracy.

To properly compare the difference between John Locke’s and Thomas Paine’s philosophy, it is necessary to further explore their conflicting viewpoints regarding the nature of society and government. First we will allow Paine to speak for himself and then compare his thought system to John Locke’s. Paine indicates that there are “several sources from which governments have arisen, and on which they have been founded. First, superstition. Secondly, power. Thirdly, the common interests of society and the rights of man. The first was government of priest craft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason”.21 Paine indicates that monarchy and aristocracy emerged from governments that were founded upon conquest. He is clearly annoyed with the idea of government and society being established on the basis of either superstition or conquest. Paine expresses his dissatisfaction withthese two kinds of government by saying, “I became irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by forceor fraud”.22

Paine indicates that in his day there were only two types of government. He states, “The two modes ofgovernment which prevail in the world are, first, government by election and representation: secondly, government by hereditary succession. The former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by that of monarchy and aristocracy. These two distinct and opposite forms, erect themselves on two distinct and opposite bases of reason and ignorance”.23 According to Paine, prior to the American experiment there were no revolutions worthy of the name. He sees the American enterprise as the source of modern democracy. In brief, the modern republican form of government began with the American Revolution. Thomas Paine asserts, “What were formerly called revolutions, were little more than a change of persons, or an alteration of local circumstances”.24 “One of the great advantages of the American Revolution has been, that it led to the discovery of the principles, and laid open the impositions, of governments. All revolutions till then had worked within the atmosphere of a court, and never the great floor of the nation. The parties were always of the class of courtiers; and whatever was the rage for reformation, they carefully preserved the fraud of the profession. It is impossible that such governments that have hither to existed in the world could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle, sacred and moral”.25

Paine in his analysis of the inadequacies of British government and society criticizes hereditary rule as irrational and in fact ludicrous. He points out that virtue, wisdom, intelligence and moral character are not evenly passed on from generation to generation. Their quality and variety vary through time to an extent that government is subject to being run by human passions and driven by accidents. Objections to hereditary rule could only be removed if virtue and wisdom as well as other attributes required by an overlord were, in fact, inherited. Paine declares that, “The representative system of government takes society and civilization for its basis; nature, reason, and experience for its guide. The hereditary system, therefore, is as repugnant to human wisdom, as to human rights, and is absurd, as it is unjust. A hereditary governor is an inconsistent as hereditary author”.26

In his writings Thomas Paine builds a strong case for the superiority of republican government due to its rationality and civility. He is also convinced that Britain fails to qualify as a republic, not only because of its governmental structure, but by reason of its lack of a constitution. Paine states that “Government without a constitution is power without a right. All delegated power is a trust, and all assumed power is usurpation”.27 He asserts that a constitution is not created by government, but by an act of the people. A constitution belongs to the nation and is not the property of those who rule. In fact, it is antecedent to and distinct from government. Paine cites America as being an example of a nation where constitutions are established by the authority of the citizenry. In contrasting England to America he declares that, “In the Magna Charta and Bill of Rights…we see nothing of a constitution, but only of restrictions on assumed power. From the time of William (the Conqueror) a species of government arose, issuing out of this coalition or rights…that can be described by no other name than despotic legislation…the only right it acknowledges out of itself, is the right of petitioning. Where is the constitution that either gives or restrains power”?28

Paine concludes his arguments against the British form of government by stating that it is a species of slavery, whereas representative rule establishes and secures freedom. He feels that because England lacks a true constitution there is nothing to regulate or restrain the abuse of power. As a result of the absence of a constitution, government is both irrational and tyrannical. Paine declares, “Government is but now beginning to be known. Hither to it has been the mere exercise of power, which forbade all effectual inquiry into rights, and grounded itself wholly on possessions. The rights of man are the rights of all generations of men, and cannot be monopolized by any”.29

According to modern interpretations of Lock’s philosophy, he believed that Britain was a “republic” because Parliament had the authority to make laws and check as well as control the executive branch of government (the King). Locke felt that power resided in the people or to be more precise in their chosen representatives. However, when referring to political power, the term people to Locke means men of property. In his political and social system, power is in the hands of the Aristocracy and Sovereign. Paine attacked the English government as it represented a combination of tyrannical Royalty and decadent Aristocracy. Because of its power structure and lack of a constitution, British style government placed severe limitations on the concept of democracy. There is a republican element in this system due to the fact that Parliament consisted of a House of Commons as well as a House of Lords. However, the House of Lords was the dominate power and the system of electing people to the House of Commons was far from democratic. The few rather than the many chose the nations representatives. It was not until the 20th century (Parliament Act of 1911) that legislative supremacy shifted to the House of Commons.

It is interesting that Locke in his discourses relating to the structure and functions of government has absolutely nothing to say about the judiciary. This is astonishing as debates regarding the judiciaries role within the framework of government were common. In fact, the subject was a heated topic of discussion in Locke’s day. A strong judiciary would have the potential to alleviate the imbalances of power within the British system of government and cause it to evolve along a more democratic path. Locke overlooked the importance, in fact the necessity, of an independent judiciary as a prerequisite for ensuring that government would be just, impartial as well as truly republican in nature. Not only was Locke’s view of government lacking in balance and substance, he failed to perceive that the government and social system that he was advocating was actually non-existent. To quote Bertrand Russell, “Locke seemed blandly unaware that, in all the countries of Europe, the realization of his programs (philosophy) would hardly be possible without a bloody revolution. The odd thing is that he could announce doctrines requiring so much revolution before they could be put into effect, and yet show no sign that he thought the system existing in his day unjust, or that he was aware of it being different from the system he advocated”.30

Locke’s attitude isn’t surprising if one realizes that he wasn’t advocating modern democracy, but the status quo of British society and government. The purpose of his writings were to provide a Justification for the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and 1689. John Locke was attempting to defend the past and to do so within the framework of traditional British society. Unlike Thomas Paine, he was not acting to create the future order of mankind. Locke did not envisage our modern American concept of republican government. He had no clue with respect to the nature of our egalitarian world view and value system. In essence, Locke’s philosophy reflected convictions that were popular in his day. Thus, Paine’s and Locke’s thought systems are dissimilar in origin and content. Because they often used similar terminology does not mean their words are synonymous.

According to Bertrand Russell, “Locke is the most fortunate of all philosophers. He completed his work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when the government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his political opinions. Both in practice and in theory, the views which he advocated were held, for many years to come, by the most vigorous and influential politicians and philosophers”.31 This statement is true until Paine’s entry upon the world stage in the latter half of the 18th century. Then John Locke would be forever transformed.

The increase in democratization within Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries was due to a delayed and reluctant response to revolutions in American and France. The English government did not just wake up in the 20th century and shift controlling power to the House of Commons because it finally understood John Locke. What impacted and moved the people of England to accept democratic reforms were the ideas and ideals born out of the American Revolution. An extreme slowness to embrace change and a hidebound worship of tradition lies at the heart of British character. To this day, modern English Democracy is combined with an archaic and debilitated monarchy. Bertrand Russell in trying to explain the English temperament, as well as to account for John Locke’s paradoxical thinking states, “A conflict between King and Parliament in the civil war gave Englishmen, once for all, a love of compromise and moderation, and a fear of pushing any theory to its logical conclusion, which has dominated them down to the present time”.32 When dealing with Locke there is an obvious difference between appearance and reality. The simplest way of resolving the evident paradox that exists in Locke’s political and social ideas that sharply conflict with his actual beliefs and life style, is to realize that Locke’s world view and value system are a mirror image of his understanding of past and current British culture. In brief, his value system and world view were not contrary to, but embraced traditional British institutions and their underlying precepts. Again, Locke was attempting to conserve and modify rather than dismantle the structure of the old world order. In brief, he was not trying to create new political and social formations.

In order to more fully comprehend the dissimilarity between the political and social outlook of John Locke and Thomas Paine, it is necessary to understand that they were born over 100 years apart (1632-1704 versus 1737-1809). Both were affected by unique social, political and religious forces and as a result had distinctive concerns and goals. Not only did Locke and Paine live in separate eras, they were from different social classes and did not share the same cultural views. The era in which they lived and their social class status resulted in divergent and conflicting philosophies. Paine’s goal was to usher in a new world order based upon fresh and untried social and political ideals and structures. Locke’s aim was to justify the political and social arrangements already in existence. Locke grew up during a time of civil war and social disorder. He believed that the only foundation for eliminating violence and securing peace within society was through government by a protestant monarchy that was checked as well as controlled by Parliament. In addition to limited monarchy and rule by the aristocracy, he visualized a comprehensive and tolerant church establishment that would embrace the majority of discordant religious sects within society. Locke felt that the appropriate balances between the branches of government, as well as between government and church, would result in civility and harmony within the social order. He was convinced that the current structure of British government and society provided for a peaceful and civilized culture. In contrast, it was Paine’s opinion that “All European governments (France now excepted) are constructed not on the principles of universal civilization, but on the reverse of it…”33 Paine felt that European governments (excluding France)actually placed themselves above the law and ignored both the will of the people and the will of God.

Paine like Locke grew up in a time of social unrest. However, instead of attempting to justify the social and political world about him, he rebelled against its restrictive and oppressive nature. In contrast to Locke, Paine who was born into a lower social class was repulsed by the injustice and adverse social conditions that flourished around him in English society. He said, “When…we see age going to the workhouse and youth to the gallows in a civilized country, something must be wrong in the system of government. Why is it that scarcely any are executed but the poor? Young people should be educated and older people supported…The resources of a country are lavished upon kings, upon courts, upon hirelings. The poor are compelled to support the fraud that oppresses them”…34 Paine displays his anger towards inequitable social conditions by saying, “When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them, my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive…When these things can be said, then may that country boast about its constitution and government”.35

Thomas Paine believed that poverty, ignorance and injustice were a national disgrace. In order to eliminate injustice and resolve social problems, he advocated social and political reforms on a grand scale and in a manner that is original and modern. Not only did Paine extol modern republican government and the universal franchises, he recommended and pleaded for state sponsored programs such as medical care, guaranteed employment and compensation, maintenance and security for the elderly and indigent, as well as free universal education. No other person in the revolutionary period was pleading for social security, socialized medicine, free universal education and other forms of state welfare. Thomas Jefferson did suggest a state funded educational program. His plan was created years earlier by a curriculum committee [Jefferson’s educational program was devised by a committee of revisors at the College of William and Mary in 1779. It was presented by Jefferson to the Virginia legislature in 1817. 12.] Paine made it clear that his ideas and proposals were neither paternalistic or Christian philanthropy. According to Paine, these state supported social programs were not charity but a right.

In both social thought and humane policies, Paine stood alone and was ahead of his times. He advanced these and other ideas on government’s civic responsibilities almost 150 years before the rise of social democracy. No similar sweeping social reforms can be found in John Locke’s writings. In fact, they are conspicuous by their absence. Locke has been cited for representing liberal thought that grew out of the Renaissance and Reformation. It should be noted, his thinking is only liberal compared to that of the Middle Ages. It does not reflect modern liberalism which grew out of the Enlightenment. Thomas Paine is the father of modern liberalism. Our American view of the nature of government and society can be traced to his writings and not those of John Locke. The inspiration for radical change, within mankind’s social and political orders, came from the new and not the old world.

Another critical area of thought that distinguishes Thomas Paine’s Philosophy from John Locke’s relates to Paine’s seminal thinking regarding the nature of the relationship between society and government. One of the most original and creative aspects of Paine’s thought system, that made the modern world possible, is the discrimination he made between civil society and government. In brief, he changed mankind’s view concerning the relationship of society and government. “Common Sense” is the first modern political essay to make and defend a distinction (separation) between the concepts of state and civil society. Previous to the printing of this political tract the terms state and civil society were looked at as being the same. All American and European writers, including Locke, utilized the concept of civil society to portray political associations that bound people together. In European tradition the state and civil society are interchangeable terms. Elemental or conclusive power was originally vested in the king and over time increasingly shared with members of the aristocracy. Louis XIV summed up the old worlds political and social point of view (philosophy) when he said, “I am the state”. According to Thomas Paine the people are the state.

Paine turned the 18th century’s concept of government and society on its head. After and because of “Common Sense” people felt that they, rather than rulers and aristocrats, exercised ultimate control over both government and society. Past ways of looking at political and social relationships were inverted. Overlords would be viewed as subject of the citizenry. The divine right of king’s philosophy was challenged by a thought system that placed decisive authority and power in the hands of the populace. A shift in thinking took place in which government of, by and for the people became the new reality. The raison d’etre for government would be the rights and welfare of the people. America’s revolution was a struggle between two diametrically positioned philosophies, rule from the top or rule by the populace.

“Common Sense” treated previous political and social concepts and principles as obsolete and in fact irrelevant. In order to support a republican point of view, Paine had to disconnect the state/civil society couplet. He preferred to use the terms society and government. These words though related were conceived of as being separate entities. Paine believed that government is simply a delegation of power by the public to representatives who are to exercise its use for the common good. Power was to be utilized to provide universal benefits for the citizenry. Government exists to secure individual liberties and to protect the populace from harm whether caused by internal or external sources. In short, the role of government is to ensure the rights, well-being and advancement of its people.

“Common Sense” was brilliantly written and in fact a revolution in the use of language. It mesmerized the American public. Paine’s treatise boldly argued several critical social ideas from an American point of view. His essay did so with great power and enormous consequence. Its originality, creativity and uniqueness stimulated public discussions that forever changed America. After “Common Sense” American and World History would be profoundly altered and find new directions.

There are other factors in addition to those already presented that reveal a difference in the character of these two men. For example, Locke has stated, “Lastly those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God”.36 This statement displays a narrow minded and intolerant attitude that can be traced to his medieval world view and value system. Locke’s religious convictions certainly would not support republican government or a secular society. To further complicate the matter of understanding the disparity between Locke’s and Paine’s philosophies, history and reference books state that the enlightenment was an 18th century intellectual movement and John Locke was an exponent of its philosophy. However, Locke was born in 1632 and spent all but the last four years of his life in the 17thcentury. To designate a 17th century man as being the creation of the 18th century is, to say the least, a solecism. Either our dating schemes do not make sense or interpretations of Lockean thought are in error.

It is apparent that mankind’s intellectual activities cannot be neatly classified or demarcated by century boundary posts. Dating is a man made artificial construct. The fabric of history is a single piece. Change occurs continuously over long periods of time and at an accelerating pace as new ideas and inventions make further progress possible. In particular, the struggle between faith and reason has gone on for thousands of years and still persists in the 21st century. A shift in the balance with respect to these two entities has occurred since the Middle Ages. However, faith and reason are strong components of every period in history. It should be observed that no era has been noted for cornering the market on rationality. Thomas Paine, even thought he lived during the Enlightenment, was severely persecuted by the religious right of his day.

In spite of the fact that history is a continuum and boundary markers that differentiate eras are not easy to establish with great precision, each age does have characteristics that make it unique and distinguish it from other historical periods. For example, the Renaissance and Reformation produced ideas that undermined the Medieval world view. In the words of Dr. Crane Brinton, the intelligentsia of these overlapping eras were “Agents of Distinction” who set the stage for a new cosmology and worldview. Their intellectual achievements were impressive and had great impact upon world history by stimulating the development of Protestantism, humanism, rationalism and science. Even though the intelligentsia were progressive within certain fields of thought, in the social and political spheres, they embraced a traditional belief that society is based upon rule by Aristrocrats and Monarchs. Thus, they did not adopt a philosophy and value system that was democratic in nature.

It was not until the 18th century that our modern world view was created. To quote Professor Crane Brinton, “The democratic world-view was formulated in the eighteenth century at the end of three centuries of change”…37″Our central theme is how the Medieval view of life was altered into the eighteenth century view of life. This eighteenth century view of life, though modified in the last two centuries, is still at the bottom of our view of life, especially in the United States”.38 Thus, the Renaissance (14th into the 17th century) and Reformation (16thcentury) were a transition period between the Middle Ages (500 to approximately 1500 AD) and the Enlightenment (18th century) which gave birth to our modern democratic outlook on society and government. During the period of the Renaissance the forces of Feudalism and Scholasticism, which in the past had ordered human life, were visibly shattered. The time period between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment was significant because, it provided a view of life that was increasingly rational and scientific rather than mystical and theological.

On the important questions regarding the time span for and the interpretation of the Renaissance, the author is accepting Bertrand Russell’s viewpoint. “The Modern as opposed to the Medieval outlook began in Italy (14th century) with a movement called the Renaissance. At first, only a few individuals, notable Petrarch had this outlook, but in the 15th century it would spread to the great majority of cultivated Italians, both lay and clerical”.39 “The period of history which is commonly called `Modern’ has a mental outlook which differs from the Medieval period in many ways. Of these, two are most important: the diminishing authority of the church, and the increasing authority of science. With these two, others are connected. The culture of modern times is more lay than clerical. States increasingly replace the church as the governmental authority that controls culture”.40

In the world that was emerging, during the modern period of history, human reason and science rather than superstition and theology would become the major forces shaping our world. From the 14th to the 18th century mankind’s world was placed on foundations that were more materialistic and less theistic. During the 18th century men were willing to let go of the past and challenge the concept that people and their political and social orders were subservient to Kings, Clerics, and Aristocrats. From this point on the theory that power resided in the hands of Monarchs, Patricians, and the Church was supplanted by a belief in the rights of the common man. In brief, the 18th century contested the idea that the locus of power was in the Sovereign, Nobility and Religious Institutions. It was decided that the center of political authority was the will of the people.

The point of view expressed here regarding features of the various historical eras is critical not only for understanding the transition from the Medieval to the Modern World, it is crucial for comprehending the contributions of both Thomas Paine and John Locke to mankind as well as ascertaining their proper place in the United States and World History.

SUMMARY

In comparing and contrasting John Locke’s thought system with that of Thomas Paine’s, my main concerns are that Locke’s Philosophy, unlike Paine’s, is not modern, original, generative, or democratic. By embracing past and present social and political conditions in England as reflecting an existing egalitarian way of life, John Locke fails to comprehend and support the concepts and ideals of modern republican government. His system of thought differs from Paine’s because it is not based upon government of, by, and for the people. Democracy in our political tradition is predicated on the will of the majority rather than the desires of the few. In Locke’s thinking, the will of the people is precluded as the majority of individuals lack citizenship rights, including the right to vote. What Locke’s philosophy supports is a medieval faith in limited monarchy. It is incomprehensible that one could embrace a political and social system dominated by royalty and the nobility and claim to be an advocate of republicanism. As a corollary, it is also illogical to believe that Locke’s views on government and society are the source and model for American democracy. Paine’s and Locke’s social and political concepts lie at opposite ends of the speculative spectrum.

If we look at a variety of interrelated factors in John Locke’s thinking, such as, a medieval conception of the social and political orders, power in the hands of monarchs and aristorcrats, government not basedupon republican principles, absence of an independent an impartial court system, the majority being denied citizenship rights, preservation of property being the main motive that causes human beings to form governments, man’s position under the social compact, pedigree and property determining one’s opportunities and position in life, lack of a genuinely representative form of government, limited political and social freedoms, a society built upon an operated by despotic institutions, the state and civil society being coterminous; it becomes apparent that a wide intellectual and conceptual gulf exists between John Locke and Thomas Paine. If we add to the above components that represent Locke’s thinking the lack of a true British constitution, it also becomes evident that all of these items whencombined do not reflect the thinking of Thomas Paine or a democratic life style. Again, it is difficult to look at the array of principles, opinions and concepts that John Locke embraced and believe that his thought system is the foundation of American society.

Thomas Paine’s writings and speeches altered Lockean philosophy in particular and European thought in general. A shift in thinking, in which man was regarded as free, equal and independent within society, resulted in a new political and social architecture. Paine’s ideas and ideals not only transformed the philosophy of John Locke and the relationship between citizens and their government, they universalized the concept of revolution. Events in America might lead to the destruction and reordering of Europe’s political and social arrangements. This is one reason Paine was looked upon as a threat to the stability and structure of the 18th century world. America’s revolution would prove to be a harbinger of things to come.

Many people in colonial America and in Europe considered Paine’s agenda for government and society too liberal. Others felt his programs and proposals went beyond liberalism and were in essence anarchic. Thomas Paine did not view himself as being either liberal or radical. He simply believed that his ideas and efforts on behalf of freedom, equality and independence were a means of ushering in a new world order that would bring about the fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity. The values of democracy were in harmony with the universal mind and natural law. They were capable of properly linking human beings to one another as well as to creation and their creator. Thomas Paine persuaded and impelled men to abolish the political and social structures under which they existed. His essay “Common Sense” convinced the colonists that separation from Great Britain and the formation of a republic were a necessity. This composition transformed public opinion and created the American Revolution. In fact, this publication is the dividing line between British American and the United States History. Thomas Paine’s achievements are remarkable and transcend time and place. To give just one example, he wrote the three best-selling books of the 18th century (Common Sense, Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason). These works are the cornerstones of modern democracy as well as 21st century social and political thought.

Thomas Paine was the most prodigious political and social polemicist of the revolutionary era. His thinking is far more original and seminal than he has been given credit for by historians. Its scope is immense which is one of many reasons why he is something much more than a “Political Propagandist” and “Pamphleteer”. Such terms have been utilized in denigrating manner in order to limit Paine’s significance as a creative force in American and World History. His thinking encompassed the past, present and future of mankind. Few people in history have affected and changed the world as much as Thomas Paine. John Adams, our second president, said that “History will ascribe the (American) Revolution to Thomas Paine”.41 “Paine crystallized public opinion in favor of revolution and was the first factor in bringing about revolution”.42 John Adams also stated, “I know not whether any man in the world had had more influence on its in habitants or affairs for the last 30 years than Tom Paine. Call it the age of Paine”.43 It was apparent to many of Paine’s contemporaries that the cause of the American Revolution and the creator of the structure and values of Modern Democracy was Thomas Paine and not John Locke. In fact, many highly intelligent men in both America and Europe perceived Paine as being one of the world’s most creative and advanced minds. He was regarded by numerous prominent individuals as a man of genius who changed the nature and composition of government and society. Napoleon Bonaparte grasping Paine’s impact on his era asserted, “Paine deserved a statue in gold in every town”.44 Considering Paine’s contributions to the formation of the American State and the direction of modern World History, his life needs to be reexamined in the light of honesty in order that he may receive the long overdue recognition and respect that he justly deserves.

POSTSCRIPT

“Among enemies and friends alike, Paine earned a reputation as a citizen extraordinary — as the greatest political figure of his generation. He made more noise in the world and excited more attention than such well-known European contemporaries as Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Madame de Stael and Pietro Verri”.45

From TOM PAINE A POLITICAL LIFE

By John Keane (Prologue)

NOTE

John Adams detested Thomas Paine. They were at opposite ends of the republican spectrum. Adams was conservative and Paine even by today’s standards would be considered extremely liberal. However, one thing they did agree on was independence. Thomas Paine not only created modern liberalism, Eugene V. Debs in one of his speeches paid homage to the prophet of freedom by declaring that Paine isalso the father of the modern radical tradition in politics.

QUOTATIONS

1. Foot & Kramnic. The Thomas Paine Reader

New York: Penguin Books, 1989 Pages 32 & 33

2. Burtt, Edwin A. The English Philosophers From Bacon To Mill

New York: Random House, Inc. 1939 Page 455

(Locke – Essay Concerning Civil Government)

3. Ibid Page 424 (Essay Concerning Civil Government)
4. Ibid Page 456 (Essay Concerning Civil Government)
5. Ibid Page 457 (Essay Concerning Civil Government)
6. Foot & Kramnic. The Thomas Paine Reader

New York: Penguin Books, 1989 Page 68 (Common Sense)

7. Foner, Phillip S. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine

New York: The Citadel Press, 1969 Page 274 (Rights of Man)

8. Ibid Page 275 (Rights of Man)
9. Ibid Page 314 (Rights of Man)
10. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1945 Page 600

11. Ibid Page 601
12. Ibid Page 619
13. Ibid Page 623
14. Ibid Page 630
15. Fruchman, Jack Jr. Thomas Paine Apostle of Freedom

New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994 Page 6

16. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1945 Page 624 & 625

17. Ibid Page 625
18. Ibid Page 627 19
19. Ibid Page 632
20. Foner, Philip S. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine

New York: The Citadel Press, 1969 Page 7 (Common Sense)

21. Ibid Page 277 (Rights of Man)
22. Ibid Page 277 (Rights of Man)
23. Ibid Page 338 (Rights of Man)
24. Ibid Page 341 (Rights of Man)
25. Ibid Pages 360 & 361 (Rights of Man)
26. Ibid Pages 367 & 368 (Rights of Man)
27. Ibid Pages 375 & 376 (Rights of Man)
28. Ibid Page 383 (Rights of Man)
29. Ibid Page 396 (Rights of Man)
30. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1945 Pages 634 & 635

31. Ibid Page 605
32. Ibid Page 601
33. Foner, Philip S. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine

New York: The Citadel Press, 1969 Page 399 (Rights of Man)

34. Foot & Kramnic. The Thomas Paine Reader

New York: Penguin Books, 1989 Pages 20 & 21 (Rights of Man)

35. Ibid Page 21 (Rights of Man)
36. Seldes, George. The Great Thoughts

New York: Ballantine Books, 1996 Page 274

37. Brinton, Crane. The Shaping of Modern Thought

Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1963 Page 247

38. Ibid Page 24 20
39. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1945 Page 495

40. Ibid Page 491
41. Seldes, George. The Great Thoughts

New York: Ballantine Books, 1996 Page 353

42. Brooks, Van Wyck. The World of Washington Irving

New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1944 Page 57

43. Foot & Kramnic. The Thomas Paine Reader

New York: Penguin Books, 1989 Page 28 & 29

44. Ibid Page 34
45. Keane, John. Tom Paine A Political Life

London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1995 Page IX (Prologue) 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Foot & Kramnic. The Thomas Paine Reader

New York: Penguin books, 1989

2. Foner, Phillip S. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine

New York: The Citadel Press, 1969

3. Fruchtman, Jack Jr. Thomas Paine Aspostle of Freedom

New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994

4. Keane, John. Tom Paine A Political Life

London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1995

5. Paine, Thomas. Common Sense – Rights of Man

Delran New Jersey: The Classics of Liberty Library, 1992

6. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government

Delran New Jersey: The Classics of Liberty Library, 1992

7. Brooks, Van Wyck. The World of Washington Irving

New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1944

8. Seldes, George. The Great Thoughts

New York: Ballantine Books, 1996

9. Burtt, Edwin A. The English Philosophers From Bacon To Mill

New York: Random House, Inc., 1939

10. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1945

11. Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West

New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1959

12. Whittemore, Robert C. Makers of the American Mind

New York: William Morrow & Company, 1964

13. Brinton, Crane. The Shaping of Modern Thought

Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963

14. Bowersock, Brown & Graber. Late Antiquity

Cambridge Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1999.

15. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Renaissance of the 12th Century

New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1960 22

16. Lindsay, A.D. The Modern Democratic State

New York: Oxford University Press, 1962

17. Stenton, Doris May. English Society In the Early Middle Ages

London: The Whitefriars Press LTD, 1959

18. Dawson, Christopher. The Making of Europe

New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1960

19. McNeill, William H. The Rise of The West

Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963

20. Rowan, Herbert H. A History of Early Modern Europe

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1960

21. Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956

22. Degler, Carl N. Out Of Our Past

New York & Evanston: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962

23. Curti, Shryock, Cochran & Harrington. A History of American Civilization

New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. 1953

24. Taylor, Alan. American Colonies

New York: Viking Penguin, 2001

25. Barzun, Jacques. From Dawn to Decadence

New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000

26. Bowen, Catherine Drinker. John Adams And The American Revolution

New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1950

27. Boyer, Paul S. Editor. Oxford Companion to United States History

New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 23

The post How Paine Transformed Locke appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Part One of Two Parts

In the wake of the Civil War and the attempt at Reconstruction, the capitalist era entered the Gilded Age, where the wealthy monopolized most of the wealth as the working classes became more impoverished. The reactions to the situation resulted in the activist reform movement. At the same time the federal government took the anti-constitutional step of employing religion to repress that reform movement. 

Several groups were forming to oppose the nature of the Gilded Age on such issues as suffrage for women, health services for women, freedom of the press, freethinking, labor organizing, labor rights, race equality, and more. The basic concepts of modern democracy, built on equality, and natural and civil rights, were the foundation of the movement, as established by the life and legacy of Thomas Paine. 

Starting in 1872 and completed in 1873, the Comstock Act brought the weapon of religion against these groups. It was named for Anthony Comstock, a zealous Christian anti-“vice”fanatic who was put in charge of using the Act against the democratic forces emerging to challenge the monopoly of wealth, and the repressive nature of society unfolding. To a large extent, this struggle continues. 

Anthony Comstock was a leader of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, whose purpose was to uphold “Christian morality”, which opposed obscene literature, abortion, contraception, masturbation, gambling, prostitution, and patent medicine.

Comstock worked through the Postal Department, using local police, on his authority alone, to enforce “morality.” Anyone sending literature through the mails that Comstock disliked was subject to arrest. 

In the same year, and most probably in response, The Truth Seeker magazine was established by D. M. Bennett, with these principles: 

Devoted to: science, morals, free thought, free discussions, liberalism, sexual equality, labor reform, progression, free education and whatever tends to elevate and emancipate the human race. 

Opposed to: priestcraft, ecclesiasticism, dogmas, creeds, false theology, superstition, bigotry, ignorance, monopolies, aristocracies, privileged classes, tyranny, oppression, and everything that degrades or burdens mankind mentally or physically. 

Bennett turned into Comstock’s prime target. In 1878, when Bennett published a piece on free-love, he was imprisoned for nearly a year, destroying his health. Bennett died four years later. (The Truth Seeker today carries on efforts to obtain a posthumous pardon for Bennett.) 

In 1878, eventual TPNHA founders Dr. E.B. Foote, T.B. Wakeman, E.A. Chamberlain, and others founded the National Defense Association (NDA) to organize against the Comstock Law. Formation of the NDA, a forerunner of the American Civil Liberties Union, led to dissension in the movement. 

The National Liberal League had been a unifying force in the formative period of progressive thinking, advocating its “Nine Demands of Liberalism.” The demands centered around the separation of church and state, opposition to favoritism shown to religious creeds in government functions. 

The Liberal League in 1884 split into factions over whether social and political issues other than freethought should be included in their agenda. 

A year after Bennett’s death, the Thomas Paine National Historical Association (TPNHA) was formed on January 29, 1884, the anniversary of Paine’s birth. A majority of the Board consisted of people tied to The Truth Seeker. Representing activists who were leading the reform movements, they chose Thomas Paine as the symbol of the democratic struggle, and they created an organization that could coordinate and collaborate on political struggles through one body. 

The leading force in TPNHA’s formation was Thaddeus Wakeman, President of the Liberal University in Oregon and later in Missouri, a leading activist in New York politics, a political philosopher, freethinker, publisher of activist literature.

Liberal League leaders became key leaders in founding the TPNHA. Foote, Wakeman and Chamberlain continued to advocate freethinking in such social issues as free speech. women’s rights, labor struggles, and social justice. Integral to this faction was The Truth Seeker, based in Manhattan. 

TPNHA’s formation triggered a split with the group led by secularist Robert Ingersoll, who formed the American Secular Union. More conservative Ingersoll never joined TPNHA, yet he was a lifelong Paine advocate. 

Formation of TPNHA was part of the developing 19th century drive to inform people about the issues of free speech, labor rights, women’s rights, education, prison reform, and freethought. Thomas Paine was the uniting figure in American history these organizations had in common. The re-establishment of Thomas Paine as a preeminent founding father was part of this public education movement, and that continues today. 

Comstock’s law is still on the books as a relic from the period of repression in 19th century America. The old law is now being revived by the latest movement to abolish women’s reproductive rights along with access to reproductive health information and services.

The post The Comstock Act of 1873 and the Founding of the Thomas Paine National Historical Association appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

By Edmund Smith

A curious teenager sifting through my fathers small library, I opened up a cardboard-boxed book by Joseph Lewis, Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine, signed by the author. Contained within were numerous short and longer quotes of Paine’s writings, filled with such clarity, power and sense! I felt drawn back to that book numerous times.

I came to Paine not as an academic, but as a “common man.” My life’s bent was as a naturalist, eventually a science teacher. History was a hobby for light dabbling. Always pulled toward Paine, I once asked a high school social studies department chair what he thought of Paine. He grimaced and said he despised Paine for having sought the execution of King Louis XVI, who had supported the colonies against England. I believed him and assumed I had misread Paine. Soon after, I read the truth about him in France. I was shaken that a respected history teacher could err so badly.

In time, I learned that much of Paine’s “history” is false — he was a drunk, a filthy little atheist. “He had lived long, did some good and much harm.” The true history of Paine’s treatment was worse — spat on when he returned to America, denied service, denounced in newspapers and physically accosted in the streets. Even the Quakers refused him burial privileges. 

Why then did young Lincoln have a copy of Age of Reason and quote from it, causing his concerned friends to hide this fact from public view? Why was Jose Gervasio Artigas so inspired by Paine that he led the revolution that founded Uruguay? How could Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Edison come to write defenses of Paine with passion, eloquence and glowing praise?

I joined the TPNHA hoping to learn more of Paine, to discover if he wasn’t, in fact, optimis hominus. Here I learned of Paine’s anti-slave letter to Jefferson. I wondered, would there have been a Civil War if the founders listened? Would we have a prouder American history? No race massacres? No razing of Black Wall Streets? No Green Book? No impugned Black welfare mothers? No necessity for Black Lives Matter? 

Here in the TPNHA, I learned that wherever Paine went, he profoundly moved the needle of progressive history. His pamphlets and books helped form modern America, England and France, earning immediate translations into other languages. That’s known. Few know about his several weeks’ sojourn in Mystic, Connecticut, with Madame Bonneville’s family. Few know he dove into the creation of the Connecticut state constitution. For me, there is no greater catalytic enzyme to accelerate progressive movements everywhere he journeyed. 

I ponder what were Paine’s other achievements that we know nothing about, partly from many of his papers being lost in a fire, mostly from public rejection of him since Age of Reason was published in America. 

When he wrote, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again,” what if the world had listened to his views regarding religion? Would Europe’s Christians have engaged so deeply in the Jewish Holocaust? 

Would there have been the Irish “Troubles?” Would Christians, Muslims and Jews still be squabbling over shared holy acres, scattered throughout the Mideast? Would there be war in Gaza and Israel today? 

Why did the world miss its chance for the equitable, sustainable and happier world that Paine envisioned? Why did our ancestors not pay heed? 

Carl Sagan, a Paine admirer, wrote: 

What an astonishing thing a book is. Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you. Thus I hear Thomas Paine speaking to me. He still lives. He still wants the world to listen. 

To achieve the civilization we can still have, if only we listen and take action, have we fairly named ourselves homo sapiens, wise humans? Would a better fit be homo insipiens, senseless, or homo acedians, peevish?

I joined the TPNHA because Paine still lives among us, on bookshelves, yes, but moreso here in The Beacon. There are still statues to be cast, a national monument to be built, national school curriculums to be written, and biographical movies to be made with enough drama without the slightest exaggeration. 

“We — even we here — hold the power and bear the responsibility,” said Lincoln, channeling Paine when trying to save our nation. Do not both speak directly to us at this moment, as our modern American democratic government again teeters?

The post Discovering the Truth About Thomas Paine appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

The Beacon #1 September 1, 2021

By Gary Berton

In 1882, two years before the Thomas Paine National Historical Association was formed, a statuette was created by David Richards celebrating Thomas Paine. It is probably the first sculpture of Paine. The creation of the statuette shows the growing atmosphere in support of Paine which led to the formation of TPNHA soon after. 

One of the dozens of copies of the statuette was part of the TPNHA Collection, but it went missing in the 1980s. All attempts to retrieve it were unsuccessful. If anyone in the New Rochelle area has any knowledge of this statuette, please contact our Association. The present holder may have honestly purchased it, not knowing it was stolen. All information will remain confidential. 

Here is Robert Ingersoll’s letter to Richards at the time. Ingersoll was a great orator, lawyer, and freethinker of the time, and was Paine’s leading advocate: 

LAW OFFICE OF Robr. G. INGERSOLL, 

DAVID RICHARDS, Esq.: 

WASHINGTON, D. C., 

Dec. 30, 1882. 

MY DEAR FRIEND — 

Your Statuette is incomparably the best I have ever seen. It is in perfect taste. The position, the drapery, the surroundings, are all admirable. You have given to PAINE a noble, a reflective and kind face. The whole work’ shows MERIT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, and I am delighted with it. 

I thank you more than I can express—not only for presenting me with the statuette—but for having made it. 

I feel under a certain personal obligation to every man who in any way assists in rescuing the name of that great thinker – a disinterested patriot, and an intellectual hero – from the malice of superstition and from the calumnies of those who have enjoyed, and who are now enjoying, the fruits of his labors. Thanking you again and again, I remain, 

Yours always, 

R. G. INGERSOLL

The post The Paine Statuette: The First Sculpture of Thomas Paine appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Literary Walks In Bath, Eleven Excursions in the Company of Eminent Authors. Andrew Swift & Kirsten Elliott. Bath, Akeman Press, 2012. xii & 320pp. Illustrated. Paperback. ISBN 978-9560989-3-1. £15.00. 

Last year I spent a week on holiday in Bath, a picturesque and historic Somerset city whose roots reach back to pre-Roman times, but achieved national, if not international, fame in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a spa town, the water of which was reputed to be particularly efficacious, a belief that attracted to the city the great and good, and the not so great and good, all anxious to partake of its water, or be seen in the company of the famous in British society. As well as this side of Bath’s story there is its rich literary heritage, and it is this side of the town’s story on which the authors concentrate. 

Both authors are well qualified to write on the town for they have long experience in conducting walking tours of the city, as well as authoring several other books on it, or aspects of it. Reading this book left me wishing that I had it when I stayed in Bath as it would have made my time there much more rewarding. However, this said, what has it to do with Thomas Paine, who, to my knowledge, never visited it? Well while there is nothing in the book that indicates he ever did, what it also brings to the fore in chapter seven, which is entitled, ‘The Rhythm of Tom Paine’s Bones’, are details of the interest in and reaction locally to Paine’s ideas, as is indicated in the chapter’s sub-heading, “Radicalism and Repression in Pitt’s ‘Reign of Terror'”. 

What the chapter relates offers is a tour of the places in the city associated with individuals known for their support either for Paine and/or his ideas. It commences with Henry Hunt, who in 1817 is said to have addressed between twelve and twenty thousand people at a gathering in Orange Grove, though the Bath Chronicle put the figure at five hundred, the purpose of the meeting being to agitate for universal suffrage. 

The military, so the authors note, kept a watchful eye on the crowd but did not, as they also point out, act as they did at St. Peter’s Field in Manchester two years later. Others who were to address meetings in the bath included Henry Vincent the Chartist, who also called for universal suffrage. The authors offer an account of the life of Paine that extends over two pages and includes a portrait of him. This leads to a discussion on Paine’s critic Hannah More, who has a commemorative plaque on a building in Great Pulteney Street, where she had lived. Her attacks on Paine’s ideas are covered in reasonable detail, in the course of which the author’s support for Paine becomes evident, although they make the mistake of calling his book Rights of Man, The Rights of Man. They go on to notice the city prison in Grove Street “where many of Paine’s supporters, and others fighting for their rights ended up”. Details are also given of the numerous occasions near Bath where locals hung or burned Paine in effigy, while membership of the Loyal Bath Association which had a membership of seven thousand, although, they note, that many of those who signed up had done so at the behest of their employers and for them not to have done so would have entailed their dismissal and denunciation to the authorities. 

John Thelwall, who had assisted in the formation of the London Corresponding Society is buried in Bath and details are given as to how to find his grave. The chapter, a truly fascinating and informative read, even if you do not visit the city, also offers an explanation for the chapter’s title, it comes from a song, described as “stirring”, by Graham Moore, “The Rhythm of Tom Paine’s Bones”, though they add the thinking behind the song’s title “is a convoluted and bizarre one. They will by citing a tribute by Robert Ingersoll to Paine and the words of Graham Moore that Paine can still provide inspiration for those fighting new threats to the Rights of Man. 

Those interested in radicals and radicalism will also find the previous chapter: ‘Rebels and Romantics, Catharine Macaulay, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Mary Shelley & Percy Bysshe Shelley’, a productive read. Of those in the title the least known is Catharine Macaulay, and the authors devote considerable coverage to this remarkable woman, a republican, supporter of the American colonists in their struggle for independence, who writing to Washington on events in France, in which she referred to “all friends of Liberty on this side of the Atlantic are now rejoicing for an event which in all probability had been accelerated by the American Revolution”. Mary Wollstonecroft wrote of Catharine Macaulay that she had been the woman of the greatest abilities undoubtedly this country had ever produced. 

Literary Walks in Bath is not a dull repetition of the common place, but a scintillating tour of the city’s literary heritage, and in many respects of Britain’s, doing so in eleven detailed chapters. The authors have as well as a detailed knowledge of their city but an in-depth literary knowledge. They write well and are not beyond humorous anecdotes. It’s a wonderful book from which I emerged with a greater increase in my knowledge on aspects of Britain’s literary heritage than I had before I read it. Do I have any criticism, strangely yes. I would have liked an index.

The post BOOK REVIEW: Literary Walks In Bath appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Text of a talk given at the Thomas Paine Society AGM, November 4, 2006 in Conway Hall. 

The advertised title of this talk/article is something of a misnomer. It will go well beyond South London and will include the 20th as well as the 19th century. 

Described by T. E. Uttley of the Daily Telegraph as “that evil man Tom Paine”, Thomas Paine was for generations of radicals, secularists and republicans an example and an inspiration. My first port of call was the Great Harry public house in Woolwich. On the walls there is a pictorial display about Paine and Cobbett, which rightly says that Cobbett married the daughter of a sergeant stationed in Woolwich. It also claims that Paine had a staymaker’s shop in Woolwich High Street, but I’ve been unable to find any evidence of this. What is certain is that from the 1830s the area became a centre of radicalism and secularism. 

The link between the Jacobin Corresponding Societies of the late 18th century and the Chartists of the mid 19th century was the tailor Francis Place. While awaiting the birth of his child, Place read Paine’s The Age of Reason. So impressed was he by the book that he sought out its owner who persuaded him to join the London Corresponding Society. Place remarked that Paine and Burke had made every Englishman a politician. In 1796 Place decided to produce a cheap edition of The Age of Reason, feeling sure he could sell 2,000 copies through the LCS. The printer Thomas Williams was sentenced to a year’s hard labour for producing a seditious and blasphemous libel. In 1819 Place offered to help Richard Carlile who had been imprisoned for publishing The Age of Reason. Place wrote for Carlile’s Republican, which he produced from behind bars. The Republican for February 22, 1822 reported a gathering in Stockport to celebrate the natal day of Mr Paine “whom Englishmen ought to consider the greatest man their island ever produced.”

By the mid 1830s Place was a member of the Chartist London Working Men’s Association which had been formed by Dr James Black. In the London Mercury of March 4 1837 Bronterre 0′ Brien reported a meeting of 4,000 democrats in the Crown and Anchor in The Strand. (The tavern had been the scene of a celebratory dinner for the radical Unitarian Jerimiah Joyce on his acquittal on a charge of treason. As a member of the Society for Constitutional Information he had been involved in the distribution of 200,000 copies of Paine’s Rights of Man at the low price of 6d. It was later a meeting place for supporters of the 1832 Reform Act): He wrote that Henry Vincent had given ” a capital spicy hash of Paine’s exposure of Blackstone’s old humbug about the checks of our nicely balanced Constitution.” One London Chartist group named itself for Paine, others took the names of Wat Tyler and William Wallace. 

O’Brien, editor of The Poor Man’s Guardian and biographer of Robespierre, had read and admired Paine’s Agrarian Justice in which “the contrast of affluence and wretchedness…like dead and living bodies chained together” is attributed to the landed monopoly. In a speech made in Glasgow he said “Read Paine…and a host of others and they will tell you labour is the only genuine property.” For making a similar speech in 1840 O’Brien was imprisoned for seditious conspiracy. In prison he was allowed to read only the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. 

A dose associate of O’Brien was George Julian Harney. Born in Deptford (the local Chartists met in the Earl Grey pub in Straightsmouth, Greenwich), he went to sea at 14 and on his return became printshop boy at the Poor Man’s Guardian. Harney organised the East London Democratic Association described by Dr David Goodway as a Painite Club. With a membership of 4,000 it had a strong base in the impoverished Spitefields silk weavers. Hamey edited several Chartist publications, the best known of which is the Red Republican in which appeared the first English translation of the Communist Manifesto. Whenever Hamey mentioned Paine’s name he printed it in capitals. The issue for October 5, 1850 carried an article on Paige’s trial in 1792 for publishing “his admirable and unanswerable attack on Kingcraft – Rights of Man.”

At numerous Chartist dinners and banquets (such events were less likely to attract the attention of the authorities than overtly political meetings) Paine’s name was toasted with great gusto. 

As Chartism declined as a national force many members joined secular societies. The Greenwich and Deptford Secular Society was formed by Victor Le Lubez, a freemason and member of the First International, in 1862. In 1865 secularists in nearby Woolwich and Plumstead held a tea party and soiree to celebrate Paine. Such events were quite common. Bradlaugh’s National Reformer for February 19, 1871 carried a report of a meeting in Liverpool ‘e had an address from Mr Watts on Paine” On January 31 there had been a ball and soiree in the New Hall of Science, Old Street, to celebrate Paine’s birthday. The proceeds went to the Secular Sunday School Fund. The Association of Eclectics in Glasgow had celebrated Paine’s birthday on February 2. The meeting was enlivened by songs and recitations. The National Reformer for February 4, 1872 reported an address on Paine’s birthday given to the South Staffordshire and East Worcester Secular Union. 

Some secularists named their children after Paine. The National Reformer of July 20, 1873 reported that a Mr and Mrs Coates of the Manchester Secular Institute had named their son Thomas Paine in a ceremony conducted by Harriet Law. The leading Hastings secularist and republican Alfred King also named his son Thomas Paine. Sadly the boy died as an infant. 

Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner’s The Reformer published in its issue for May 15, 1897 a previously unpublished letter from Paine to Thomas Jefferson with a commentary by Moncure Conway, Paine’s biographer. 

The Bradford secularist and socialist J. W. Gott published a monthly The Truthseeker to promote mental freedom and social progress. A special issue carried a cartoon of Paine surrounded by the symbols of his struggle for liberty. The August 1902 issue had a quotation from Paine on its front page and a “marvelously cheap” edition of The Age of Reason was advertised price 6d. Gott was the last Englishman to be imprisoned for blasphemy, his imprisonment led to his premature death. 

1909 was the centenary of Paine’s death. The National Secular Society held various events to mark the event. The Freethinker January 31, 1909 reprinted an article from the Toronto Secular Thought by Michael Monahan which pointed out that Paine was 5 inches taller than President Roosevelt who had called Paine ” a dirty little atheist”. The issue for February 7 carried an advertisement for an edition of The Age of Reason published by the Edinburgh Rationalist Club. The March 7 issue reprinted an article from the Brighton Herald which claimed that Paine’s jawbone had come into the hands of a Mrs Wilkinson of Liverpool. It was claimed a member of her family had buried it in an Anglican churchyard. Branches of the NSS held open air meetings on Paine. Bethnal Green branch held in Victoria Park addressed by F. A Davies. There were two lectures in Birmingham Bull Ring and one in Liverpool by H Percy Ward, a former Wesleyian preacher who had been secretary of the British Secular League. The main event was a meeting in St James Hall, Great Portland Street. Speakers included Herbert Burrows, Harry Snell, Chapman Cohen and G W. Foote. Watts reprinted Conway’s biography of Paine for the Rationalist Press Association. It sold for half a crown. The Times of June 8 published an article on Paine calling him the greatest of pamphleteers. 

1937 was the bicentenary of Paine’s birth, The Freethinker for January 31 was a special Paine issue with a portrait on the front page. At the time illustrations in the radical press were rare. Chapman Cohen spoke at NSS branch meetings in Liverpool on Paine The Pioneer. The’ Man That shook The World and on Clapham Common W Kent spoke. NSS members were urged to step up their sales of The Age of Reason. It sold for 4p, Ingersoll’s Oration On Paine cost 2d. The West London branch sold both at Hyde Park. The Freethinker for March 14 published an article on Paine and Bourgeois Myths by Jack Lindsay. Another article by H. Cutner was entitled The Apostle of Liberty. A bicentenary dinner at which 200 people were present was organised in the Holborn Restaurant, High Holborn. Tickets were 8 shillings and Cohen took the chair. Evening dress was optional. The BBC refused to make a broadcast about Paine but a meeting was held in Thetford with the Mayor in the chair. 

In 1965 F. A. Ridley, who had edited The Freethinker , was writing about Paine in the Independent Labour Party’s weekly, which he had also edited. On a different level Harvey’s brewery of Lewes makes an excellent Paine ale and in the original Star Trek series a star ship was named for Paine. Another was called Potemkin.

2009 will provide many opportunities to celebrate Paine but best of all would be the final victory of his struggle against kingcraft and priestcraft.

The post Paine’s Influence On 19th And 20th Century Radicals, Secularists And Republicans  appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Freethinkers, A History Of American Secularism. Susan Jacoby. New York, Metropolitan Books, 2004. 417pp. Illustrated. Hardback. ISBN 0 8050 7442 2. $27.50 (£17.50). 

Although it may seem something of an exaggeration I nevertheless feel that books devoted to the history of secularism are sadly as rare as hens teeth, so it was something of a surprise when I read a mention in an American publication about the forthcoming publication of the work under review. The author’s name was unfamiliar to me, something which made me wonder just what sort of book she had produced, would it turn out to be a poorly researched work that damned secularists and then went on to describe them as old fashioned and out of date because Christianity had changed so much, which it has not? Or would it be a melodramatic essay based around the activities of a few controversial figures such as Madelyn Murray O’Hair? 

Well, in the event the book turned out to be an extremely well written and very readable work, and, yes, it does mention Madalyn Murray O’Hair, albeit briefly, the author describing her as “almost alone in her willingness to call herself an atheist”, and who earned her place in the religious right’s pantheon of demons for her success in having prayers banned in American schools. However, although individual rooms are large in the pages of the book, by no means all having actually connected with organised secularism as such, the author’s overwhelming concern is with issues, and it is the secular response to these that is the main characteristic of the book. Nevertheless in the process the author, who does not lack a sense of humour, introduces her readers to characters such as Philo D. Beckworth, who built a “grand theatre” or “temple of the performing arts”, in Dowagiac. Beckworth was “a committed freethinker and the town’s main employer, his factory being one of the largest producers of stoves and furnaces in the United States. He had a strong philanthropic streak and not only paid his employees high wages but also gave them sick pay, which, Ms.Jacoby remarks, was in 1890s America almost unheard of. His theatre was, which was adorned with busts of famous freethinkers, including Ingersoll, Paine, Voltaire, Susan B. Anthony, George Elliot, Victor Hugo, George Sand and Walt Whitman, theatre was dedicated by Ingersoll, who, she writes, °seized the once-in-a- lifetime chance to dedicate a building prominently displaying his own graven image — a distinction customarily reserved for the honoured dead”. The theatre was demolished in 1968 and many of the busts were destroyed, however, local freethinkers rescued that of Ingersoll and it can now be seen in the Ingersoll Birthplace Museum in Dresden, New York. Another bit of odd information was that the notorious Roman Catholic bishop Fulton J. Sheen, went to considerable lengths to conceal the fact that he had a Protestant half-sister, and what was more, something he acknowledged with great reluctance, his great uncle Daniel Sheen had been a partner in Robert Ingersoll’s law practice in Peoria, but, claimed Sheen, he never embraced his partners agnosticism. 

American is a country in which state and church are legally separated, but as Ms. Jacoby notes, it is “one of the greatest unresolved paradoxes of American history that religion has come to occupy such an important place in the communal psyche and public life of a nation founder on the separation of church and state”. The early chapters of the book discuss the influence of Thomas Paine, to whom a whole chapter is devoted and attempts to impose religion on the new republic, one such attempt being made by Patrick Henry, who in 1784 introduced a bill into the Virginia General Assembly to assess all citizens for faxes to pay teachers of religion. The bill’s passage appeared to be a foregone conclusion but following a campaign against it led by James Madison, which even gained support from religious groups — one petition against it was signed by four thousand Quakers, it was, the author says, “relegated to the dustbin of history”, and instead the Assembly adopted Jefferson’s proposal for the complete separation of church and state, with some modifications. 

Essentially this book might be described in broad terms as being thematic, in that the author examines in subjects such as woman’s rights, slavery, evolution and anti-evolution, the rights of America’s coloured population, cultural activities, the ‘Unholy Trinity: Atheists, Reds, Darwinists’ (a chapter heading) which introduces readers to among others, the Scopes trial, which has popularly been represented as a defeat for obscurantist fundamentalism, but, as the author points out, this was not quite so, and literary censorship, discussing in detail the efforts to suppress Walt Whitman’s poem Leaves of Grass. In this issue, the author presents the attitudes and work of individual secularists, but also brings to the fore just how much support they received from religious individuals and groups. 

Freethought had little impact on one major group in American society, the coloureds. Ms.Jacoby discusses the reasons for this and in the process introduces us to the Negro secularist W. E. B. Du Bois, not that he appears to have had any formal connection with any freethought group. Brought up a Christian he increasingly came to regard “the church as an institution which defended such evils as slavery, colour caste, exploitation of labour and war”, although this clearly points to his freethought, or if you like, secularism, having been founded on and inspired by political considerations. In 1894 he had created a storm of controversy while employed as a lecturer at Wilberforce College, a college for Negroes run by the Ohio state government and the African Methodist Episcopal Church, when he flatly refused to lead students in public prayer. He was to write as a consequence of having studied in Europe that, ‘Religion helped and hindered my artistic sense. I knew the old English and German hymns by heart. I loved their music but ignored their silly words with studied inattention. Grand music came at last in the religious oratorios which we learned at Fisk University but it burst on me in Berlin with the Ninth Symphony and its Hymn of Joy. I worshiped at the Cathedral and ceremony which I saw in Europe but I knew what I was looking at when in New York a Cardinal became a strike-breaker and the Church of Christ fought the Communism of Christianity. The cardinal in question was Patrick Hayes. In old age Du Bois joined the Communist Party as a protest against McCarthyism. 

Secularists prominent in the fight for women’s rights include Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose, both of whom get good coverage in the book. The work of the anti-immorality campaigner Anthony Comstock in seeking to use the legislation he and his associates had inspired in an attempt to suppress the distribution of freethought and secularist works, targeting in particular the freethought publisher D. M. Bennett, whom he managed to have jailed having tricked him into selling him an immoral pamphlet and sending it through the post, this being the charge, however, Comstock’s real aim, as Ms. Jacobi notes, was to close down Bennett’s successful journal the Truth Seeker. In this he failed.

It may well be that in the coverage of individual Secularists one could wish for more detail, as in the case of Emanuel Haldeman- Julius. His success as a publisher is recounted, indeed his Little Blue Books sold in their hundreds of millions, but there is no mention of the attention FBI’s chief J. Edgar Hoover’s animosity and his attempts to have Haldiman-Julius indicted as a communist, however, unlike so many others Haleman-Julius’s great wealth made this difficult because he could afford to hire good lawyers. He was certainly a sort of ambivalent socialist but he never a member of the Communist Party, even if he did publish a gushingly uncritical biography of Stalin written by Joseph McCabe, although this was during the war when Stalin was very, much an `Uncle Joe’ figure. One might add that Ms. Jacoby says Haldeman-Julius also published an edition of the bible, though while I possess the Stalin biography I have. never. I saw a copy of this, though it would not surprise me if he did, it’s rather too long for the Little Blue Book format, or the other series, the Big Blue Books, in which the Stalin biography appeared. 

This is a truly fine book, even if it is not about organised, secularism as such, and here the title is a bit misleading, but secularism in broad terms, or secularisation if you prefer. Nevertheless it deserves a place on the shoes of anyone interested in freethought history. It is well indexed, and has a bibliography that has extended my books wanted list considerably. What is more, for a well-bound, illustrated hardback the price is reasonable, there are many paperbacks that nowhere approach its value priced far in excess of it. I do not often describe a work as being essential reading, but in this case I have not the slightest hesitation in doing so.

The post BOOK REVIEW: Freethinkers, A History Of American Secularism appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Blue-grass blade (Lexington, Ky.), May 9, 1909

When a Small Bore Preacher Wants to Make a Hit, He Always Lights on Thomas Paine.

Basalt, Colo

By Charles H. Schwartz

We hear so often of intellectual tom-tits, who must needs take a fall out of Thomas Paine, that I feel a few words on the subject of the twittering tom-tits will not come amiss. I have particularly in mind a little Methodist dominee over in Indiana who indulges in these twitterings, whenever two or three are gathered together, and he among them.

The Rev. Coeur de Asinus, which by the way is not his name, is one of the noisiest of these intellectual tom-tits, that feel it their duty to misrepresent real men. “Behold the live jackass that kicks the dead lion!” said the Rev. Minot J. Savage a few days after the death of Col. Ingersoll, in speaking of those who were befouling the atmosphere with their abuse of the great agnostic.

The Rev. Coeur “scorns to read the writings of Thomas Paine,” so he says. In that case, how in the name of the Christ he glorifies does he know anything about Paine? Isn’t it obvious to even a careless reader that such a man could kneel at the door of a ladies’ convention for hours, if not discovered, and look through the key-hole with both eyes at once?

“Narrow-minded,” did you say? Oh just a few.

I have so far tried to give the Rev. the benefit of the doubt, that is to say, to admit he had not read Paine, and therefore did not know any better. On the other hand, I am inclined to believe he has read the Age of Reason, and that he does not know it is irrefragable; that it has never been refuted, and that it is the most dangerous criticism ever written of the so-called holy bible. The Rev. Coeur de Asinus knows full well that should his congregation read the Age of Reason without fear or favor, that is to say, without prejudice, he would no longer be able to—

“Sail through the world on flowery beds of ease,
While others toil to bring to him his daily bread and cheese.”

In the very beginning of the Age of Reason, which was written during the stormy period of the beginning of the French Republic, Paine tells us he is writing the book to preserve religion, that “the total abolition of the whole national order of [the text here is fragmented and obscured] morals, is bad.”

[Text heavily fragmented] he adds, “accused… many… these, he must also mention a few [things] he does not believe: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish, Roman, Greek, Protestant, or any church I know of. My own mind is my own church. It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.”

Beware, pro, asinus and others! I fear that ye are even as one of these Infidels. The contention of all pulpit donkeys and their followers is that Paine was an Atheist, and that atheism tended to lower, if not destroy, the moral status of mankind. This contention itself is hypocrisy, for all who read his works know full well that he was no Atheist.

Thomas Paine believed that all religion was the result of necessity, weakness and fear. That the “institution of churches appeared no other than human inventions set up to enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

The fact that the revenues of the Roman Catholic Church, in America alone, reach the enormous total of $60,000,000 a year, would seem to prove the truth of his belief.

Thomas Paine believed that no form of life could create itself; this implied belief in a creator, or as he says, a “first cause,” and this first cause man called God.

“Deism teaches us without the possibility of being deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be known. The Creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads in the hand-writing of the Creator himself, the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.”

“The notion of a Trinity of Gods has enfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of beliefs acts as a division of belief, and in proportion as anything is divided it is weakened.”

“It is the duty incumbent on every true Deist, that he vindicate the moral justice of God against the calumny of the Bible. The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom and benignity of the Deity in his works and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical and mechanical.”

“If ever a universal religion should prevail, it will not be by believing anything new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed at first. Adam, if ever there was such a man, was the first Deist; but in the meantime let every man follow as he has a right to do, the religion and the worship he prefers.”

“What is it we have learned from this pretended thing called revealed religion? Nothing that is useful to man, and everything that is dishonorable to his maker. What is it the Bible teaches us?—rapine, cruelty and murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?—to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”

“Yes, there is a Word of God; there is a revelation. THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: and it is this Word which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.”

Note the respect shown the Deity and all pertaining to him, in Paine’s fluent use of capital letters throughout the Age of Reason. Is this not proof of his reverence for Almighty God, as he understood him? And if there is one note of insincerity in the whole work, I have failed to find it. It seems useless to write more on this subject, as the quotations given should be sufficient for the purpose of this article.

The average Freethinker is familiar with the writings of Paine, but this paper may fall into the hands of some who do not know, for there are many who do not know. A neighbor, when told what the subject of the Crapsey-Mangasarian debate was, said: “Why, I didn’t know anyone ever doubted that Christ actually lived.”

If the class of people who listen to the brayings of the Rev. Coeur de Asinus, and the equally large class who absorb with avidity the hypocritical spoutings of Theodorus Bombasticus Rooseveltus could be induced to give the Age of Reason the time for a careful reading, thousands of these purveyors of cant and credulity might become desirable citizens, and engage in the manufacture of potatoes, pumpkins, cabbages and other condiments, instead of this dead sea food for the soul.

The post Twittering of Tom-tits appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

ANNIVERSARY SERVICES

Tributes to Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll and Herbert Spencer

A large audience attended the exercises held by the Secular League Sunday afternoon in tribute to the memory of Thomas Paine at Schmidt’s Hall, which was tastefully decorated for the occasion with the American flag, roses and palms. The exercises included eulogies on Robert G. Ingersoll and Herbert Spencer.

After a tenor solo by Dr. Kemball, Mrs. M. W. Lang read a paper in which she paid a glowing and poetic tribute to the life and character of Paine. She quoted his well-known statement of his belief in one God and his hope of happiness beyond the grave and his famous creed, “The world is my country; to do good my religion.” She pictured him as the moving spirit in the American Revolution, “the time that tried men’s souls.”

Mr. C. C. Carter told the story of the bust of Thomas Paine which occupied the place of honor on the speaker’s desk. The bust came into Mr. Carter’s possession as an heirloom from Mr. Samuel Baldwin, a former resident of this city.

Major Maurice Pechin compared the teachings of Paine, Spencer and Ingersoll. He referred to the constructive work of Ingersoll, showing that his real aim was to improve Christianity, and praised his attitude toward prison reform and the rights of woman.

Mr. Selah said that the lives of these three men should be an inspiration to humanity, pointing the way to “help for the living and hope for the dead.”

Mrs. Murilla Ricker of New Hampshire read a paper on Ingersoll, whom she had personally known. She spoke of him as “the man who came to champion the liberty of body, mind and soul.” She spoke of his great generosity and said he sacrificed political preferment to mental integrity.

Mr. David Eccles followed with a portrayal of the life and intellectual services of Herbert Spencer, showing how he had developed the theory of evolution as a universal principle, working through nature, life, mind and social institutions.

Dr. Herman E. Kittridge read a paper on Colonel Ingersoll as artist and idealist. Back of Ingersoll’s every expression, he said, was the ideal. His art was supreme. More than any other speaker or writer he put his personality into his work, and his style. In Ingersoll the orator were blended all of nature’s finest gifts. He voiced all human sentiments and passions and he left in his writings nothing that was commonplace.

Prof. Hyland C. Kirk closed the program with a short historical paper showing some of the reasons for the popular misconceptions concerning Paine’s character and beliefs.

The chairman of the meeting, Dr. J. J. Shirley, announced that Rev. S. S. Laws, D.D., would give an address next Sunday on “Ethics and Christianity.”

The post Secular League 1904 Tribute for Paine Anniversary appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

TOM PAINE IN BRONZE.

Large Paine Bust Portrait to Be Erected at Washington

Large Bust Portrait to Be Erected at Washington.

It Will Be Dynamite Proof and Patterned After the Bust Being Made for the Monument of Paine at New Rochelle.

Thomas Paine, the revolutionary statesman and the great agnostic of his time, is to be commemorated by the largest bronze portrait bust ever made, which is to be erected at the national capital by the Paine Historical society.

It will be patterned after an heroic bronze bust now being modeled by Wilson MacDonald, the oldest living American sculptor, and the president of the society.

The society intends to purchase a small piece of land in Washington and on it place the bust, which will be mounted on a heavy bronze pedestal, constructed without crack or opening, so as to be made as nearly dynamite proof as possible.

“We think this is necessary,” says Mr. MacDonald, whom a New York Herald man found in his Sixth avenue studio working on the first clay model of the bust which he is to make. “Not so necessary at once, yet best in view of the treatment that has been received by the Paine grave and monument at New Rochelle. The head and foot stones of the grave were broken many years ago, and all that is left of them is this little piece, no larger than your two hands, which an old lady living by the grave found and gave to Capt. George W. Loyd, who gave it to me. See the shot marks on it? Iconoclasts have used it for a target. Ten years ago I found the monument chipped, broken on the edges and corners, the inscriptions partially defaced and almost ruined. With the aid of a few friends I had the inscriptions recast and restored the monument as you see it to-day.

“There is a more liberal feeling to-day, but we propose to make the bust and pedestal of the monument so strong and to anchor them so securely that nothing short of a very large charge of dynamite can destroy them.”

The proposed colossal bust will be absolutely unique for a portrait and one of the most imposing works of the sort in existence. It will be of gigantic proportions. The head of the bust alone will measure six feet from the point of the chin to the top of the head, and the entire bust will be about 15 feet high. Then the pedestal will be in proportion.

The materials to be used by Mr. MacDonald in his work are an original portrait of Paine which he owns, two portraits that were painted from life and the standard engraving from the picture that was painted by Waldo and Jewett.

The work will be carried on by the Paine Historical society, and appeals will be made to kindred societies and to the public generally.

The clay model on which Mr. MacDonald is now working is the first visible stage of the work. When it is to the sculptor’s satisfaction, showing Paine in his prime, with his head held thoughtfully a little to one side—his favorite position—it will be copied in clay, heroic size. From this model the bronze will be made. It will cost $3,000. From the completed bronze will be modeled the colossal bust to be erected in Washington.

Mr. MacDonald says that the bust will be completed before next May.

The unveiling ceremonies will be held on next Decoration day, and Col. Robert G. Ingersoll will deliver the oration. All of the expenses will be paid by the Paine Historical society, the Philosophical society of Brooklyn and Manhattan Liberal club of New York. These societies for several years have met at Paine’s grave.

The post Large Paine Bust Portrait to Be Erected at Washington appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

IN MEMORY OF THOMAS PAINE

ADDRESSES BEFORE THE MANHATTAN LIBERAL CLUB AT CHICKERING HALL

The Manhattan Liberal Club celebrated the 155th birthday of Thomas Paine last night with addresses delivered by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll and Moncure D. Conway, Paine’s latest biographer, in Chickering Hall. A large crowd gathered to hear the addresses and pay their respects to the memory of Paine. The occasion was also the 100th anniversary of his entrance into the French Convention of 1792, when, with M. Condorcet, he drew up a “Bill of Rights.” A painting of Thomas Paine from life by the elder Jarvis, now the property of J. H. Johnston, was exhibited on the platform at the left of the speakers.

Thaddeus B. Wakeman made an introductory speech, explaining the history of the picture and the elements of Paine’s character which it illustrated.

Moncure D. Conway, who is now engaged in writing the life of Paine, was the first speaker on the advertised programme. He told of the work of Paine in his busy and interesting life.

Colonel Ingersoll said in part:

“Thomas Paine was the first to propose that the Government be of the people, by and for the people. He also advocated the divorce of Church and State. It is believed that unless we had received the Ten Commandments we never should have known right from wrong. 

(Applause.) 

But it seems to me that there would have been a law against murder, at any rate, in countries where a large part of the people object to being murdered. 

(Applause.) 

Religion comes not from the clouds or any other world, it comes from the heart of men; charity, love, kindness and a pure heart is pure religion. 

(Applause.) 

Thomas Paine was not what would be called much of an infidel to-day; he would, if he were alive, be off with the conservative wing of the Unitarian Church. He would cut me dead, I think.” 

(Laughter.)

The post Addresses Before The Manhattan Liberal Club At Chickering Hall appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.

The Beatrice daily express (Beatrice, Neb.), January 30, 1892

TOM PAINE’S BIRTHDAY 

Ingersoll and Conway Laud the Praises of the Dead Atheist.

New York, Jan. 30

The 186th anniversary of the birth of Tom Paine was celebrated at Chickering Hall, in this city, under the auspices of the Manhattan Liberal club. A large audience was assembled in the hall to hear Robert G. Ingersoll and Moncure D. Conway discourse on the virtues of the apostle of religious liberty. Colonel Ingersoll was liberally applauded when he rose to speak. He prefaced his remarks by saying that it was not simply a duty, but a privilege, to help rescue the reputation of a great and noble man from the slander and ignorance of hypocrisy.

We must remember that for many, many ages mankind was governed by two ideas—one that all power to govern came from the clouds, came from some king of kings, and that they occupied their thrones because it was the will of Him who sat in sovereignty above all. The man of whom you heard so much took other grounds and said that the power to govern does not come from God and must be retired from politics. This power to govern comes from the consent of the governed. It is due to the efforts of Thomas Paine more than through the efforts of any one man whoever tried the western world that the experiment was tried here on our land. I need not say that it was an amazing success. The church has been like a coiled viper on the grave of Thomas Paine since 1809, and whoever has attempted to defend him they have attacked. 

The post Tom Paine’s Birthday 1892: Ingersoll And Conway appeared first on Thomas Paine Historical Association.