Common Sense In The Declaration Of Independence

1346 Words 6 Pages
In the 1776 revolution was a big topic swirling around the colonies. There were two different groups of people during this time, people who wanted to revolt and people who wanted to stay loyal to the King. In 1776 Thomas Paine wrote a brochure called Common Sense. This was a way for him to try and inspire the people of the colonies to join in the idea that revolution was the only way that the colonies could thrive in a society that wasn 't going to treat them unfairly. The ideas that Thomas Paine put into this brochure made the people of the colonies really think about how Britain treated them as people. In the intro to common sense Thomas Paine stated, "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being …show more content…
Authored mainly by Thomas Jefferson it makes a lot of arguments about the wrongs of Britain, and that the colonists had the right to rebel. Two of the main arguments made though are about the natural rights of man and self-evident truths. Natural rights of man are those given to humans by god and cannot be taken away. If someone were to lose their natural rights they would become less human. Why this doesn 't apply to slavery at the time I don 't know. “In Jefferson 's draft of the declaration of independence blithely absolved american colonist form complicity in the slave trade, he was equally dishonest in his blanket indictment of Native Americans.” Some of these rights were written in the Declaration of Independence, such as, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many people believed that the way in which the British government had treated the colonists that these natural rights were being taken away from them. Many of these violations were written about in the Declaration of Independence. Some examples of these would be; Making the military more powerful than the civil authority, not allowing trails with a jury, and cutting off trade with other nations other than …show more content…
He also stated that the longevity of abuses that Britain had caused to the colonies was enough for revolt to be justified. Then talk of consent of governing comes into play, this is when one 's natural rights or pursuit of happiness are violated in any way. If people feel that they are being abused or oppressed in any way than the government is questioned whether it is being fair or not. The way in which a government should get its power is by the people not by a dictator who chooses to oppress one 's rights. When a person is part of a government then that person must give to the government some of their rights and property in exchange for guaranteed protection, but what is the point of that if the thing that the people need protection from is their own government. Also if a person gives this stuff to a government and insufficient protection is given why would anyone want to be a part of that kind of treatment. If that is the case, then the government does not have the right to rule over those people anymore and should be expelled. “He demanded ‘eternal separation’ from the British Crown and the British people, branding them as enemies from the beginning of

Related Documents