Thomas Paine: The Responsibility Of The British Monarchy

Despite such claims to republicanized monarchy in Great Britain, certain colonists and thinkers were not convinced. Englishman, and later colonial resident, Thomas Paine, for example, called into question the integrity of such claims in his pamphlet Common Sense. Written in 1776 and dispensed throughout the colonies, this seminal pamphlet attacked the absoluteness of the British monarchy. Unlike Wood’s interpretation of British monarchy—which is, granted, aided by hundreds of years of reflection—Paine’s argument stated that the British system was victim to the “natural disease of monarchy,” which is a “thirst for absolute power.” Disdainful towards this abuse of power, Paine in turn lauded republicanism, which he admitted was present in the …show more content…
This version of republicanism is in fact subsistent on Wood’s concept of disinterestedness, but it rejects the British notion that republicanism and monarchy can coexist. The formation of the Continental Congress, which consisted of delegates from each colony, was thus distinctly of the people and for the collective good. American historian Ray Raphael discusses the particular role of the First Continental Congress in 1774 in his book A People’s History of the American Revolution. Raphael writes about the “Continental Association” created by the Continental Congress. This association, with the help of representatives from local committees across the colonies, passed quasi-legislation that banned the importation and consumption of British goods. In this sense, Raphael argues, the Continental Congress, and local governmental committees, acted as legitimate and all-inclusive governments. This governmental system, moreover, set standards for citizen behavior, divvied out punishments to violators, and handled issues of civic infrastructure and well-being. Even certain royal governors, such as Josiah Martin of North Carolina, felt as if they no longer had authority over their colonies, which went to show the totalizing effect of a government run by the people. Indeed, as Raphael explains it, “no village, no family, or individual” was excluded from the people-driven government of the Continental Congress. This disinterestedness was also prominent in the Continental Army, particularly in its leader George Washington. The Continental Army was of course a army of the people, composed of citizen volunteers and former local militiamen from across the colonies. And its leader, George Washington, continually sacrificed his safety, and the safety of his soldiers, for the colonist collective.