Ebrahim Daryaee Motlagh: The Call to American Revolution: Insurgency and Kairos in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. In: Ostium, vol. 21, 2025, no. 3
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This article contributes to the reception theories related to the historical success of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” by discussing how the author balanced his use of rhetorical appeals (i.e. ethos, pathos, logos and kairos). In doing so, the article argued that “Common Sense” first addressed the colonists’ dilemmas and social challenges by anticipating their affective responses which can be regarded as an appeal to pathos. Then, the article considered the author’s government-versus-society distinction as an appeal to logos discussing the shared sense of logic between the author and his local audiences. Following these arguments, the article discussed how the author’s rhetoric could lend itself to the historical context by considering the link between the doctrine of the text, kairos (timeliness) and insurgency in the colonies. Towards the end, the study suggested that while a reader-response theory can explain the success of “Common Sense” in urging the audiences to participate in some text-related performance, the impact of the text was related to extra-textual circumstances such as the timeliness of its main thesis and the emergence of a space for rhetorical action.
Keywords: Thomas Paine; Common Sense; American Revolution; rhetoric; insurgency; kairos
1. Introduction
The general aim of this study is to show the extent to which rhetoric can lend itself to historical context by exploring how persuasively Thomas Paine crafted his call to American Revolution. More specifically, this study will attempt to show the traces of rhetorical appeals and discuss how they served the political objective of the text. To do this, however, it is necessary to present a concise historical background for this particular work.
Before arriving in Philadelphia on November 30, 1774, Paine had accumulated valuable experience in writing and refining his own political thought during his career in England. He had also learned about the divisions in the British American colonies, thanks to his close association with Benjamin Franklin and possibly Arthur Lee who was an American lawyer in London (see Wecter). Shortly after his arrival, he was employed as an editor for Pennsylvania Magazine because his writing skills had secured the favorable opinion of Robert Aitken, an ambitious printer and bookseller who owned the publication. The magazine engaged a broad audience and was one of the few that included non-political issues affecting the lives of the colonists. Paine’s work thus enabled him to extend his connections in the colonies and apply what he knew from England about the American affairs (Larkin 31–40). The timing of Paine’s arrival was also historically significant because he arrived shortly before the Battles of Lexington and Concord which took place on April 19, 1775. Often described as a point of no return, these battles were the first military engagement that ignited the American War of Independence. Attachment to Britain became the author’s main concern after observing the forceful course of events that caused uncertainty for many colonists. One can surmise the depth of these tensions in George Washington’s famous letter. On May 31, 1775, in a letter to George William Fairfax, Washington had this to say about the dramatic turn of events:
“Unhappy it is… to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast, and that the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?” (The Writings of George Washington, Vol II, edited by Jared Sparks, 1847).
In the years preceding the War of Independence, indeed as early as 1764, a considerable number of political pamphlets came out which supported the rights of the British colonies and called for more self-government and resistance against the British rule. One may indicate the writings of James Otis and especially the “Rights of British Colonies Asserted and Proved”, Richard Bland’s “Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies”, John Dickinson’s “Letters of a Farmer in Pennsylvania” and even Thomas Jefferson’s “A Summary View of the Rights of British Americans”. However, when considered realistically, the American Revolution did not unleash a social force without resistance. Historians have suggested that loyalty to Britain or simply deliberate pacifism had divided the colonists from the onset of political unrest. For instance, in reference to the proportion of these loyalists, Robert M. Calhoon has claimed that “approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle” (Greene and Pole 235). He has estimated that, at most, the patriots could expect active support from “no more than a bare majority” (235). The so-called King’s Men had various motives for turning away from the revolutionary process, many of which historians have discussed in detail. For instance, Leonard Woods Larabee has addressed a wide range of their moral and rational motives in his seminal work entitled “Conservatism in Early American History” (Larabee 164-165). Indeed, for many colonists, the wisest solution was still peaceful reconciliation. Therefore, with discord rising among the colonists, Thomas Paine considered writing to solidify the notion of independence. His work was finally printed on January 10, 1776 as a 47-page pamphlet entitled “Common Sense”. As the division over the question of independence was a serious obstacle to the revolutionary process, he approached this obstacle by advancing, in his own words, a Doctrine of Independence.
After his arrival, Paine had sufficient time to closely observe the socio-political developments before the publication of “Common Sense” that was his first serious entry into American developments. As this article will argue later, this intellectual effort involved an accurate and first-hand awareness of the growing sentiments among the loyalists and patriots. With respect to the textual structure of the work, “Common Sense” encapsulated some of the most widely debated matters in that period about the origin, design and general structure of the government. Key among these discussions were particularly the English Constitution and the hereditary nature of monarchy. Paine endeavored to make these subjects more appealing to the American colonists by writing about the current state of affairs. This suggests that a textual analysis of his prose may be defective without understanding the rhetorical situation out of which the pamphlet was created. The following is thus an attempt to approach Thomas Paine’s persuasive prose and his appeal to the American colonists in their unique historical context. In what follows, the article will discuss how the author appealed to his audiences’ emotions, how he defended his Doctrine of Independence, and how he employed the rhetorical modes of persuasion in doing so. To this end, the following discussions examine the author’s appeal to pathos (that is, emotions) which shows the rhetorical attempts to prod his audience into action. On the other hand, one can see his appeal to logos in the use of narratives and historical arguments to defend the Doctrine of independence. Along with these strategies, the appeal to ethos and kairos appears in the non-linguistic factors that show the author’s honest attitude towards the colonists and the general background of historical events. The article will argue that, at times, Paine’s discourse may seem radical and subversive which might exhibit the insurgent nature of the buildup to the War of Independence. However, the prediction that “the tumult soon subsides” and that “time makes more converts than reason” can also show Paine’s grasp of the present state of American affairs and the ultimate resolution in the context of American Revolution. Since the appeal to kairos involves extra-textual events, the study will set the following discussions within some historical context.
2. Textual Analysis
2.1. Patriots vs. loyalists: “The Cause of all Mankind”
Generally, pamphleteers tailor the pitch to the audiences and learn about their sentiments well before creating their materials. In what follows, this article will examine some of the key features in Thomas Paine’s persuasive prose by addressing the conflicting positions of patriots and loyalists. This part argues that “Common Sense” first addressed the colonists’ doubts and social challenges before turning to theoretical dilemmas. In this way, the appeal to pathos should focus on the affective response of the audiences and their experience of the work. As seen below, the opening sentences of the pamphlet show an effort in commanding attention from the readers.
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason” (Foner 3).
In anticipation of this “formidable outcry”, the anonymous author wrote with an expression of doubt, some skepticism that the general ideas or the “sentiments” contained in these pages may not meet general favor. Here, the question arises as to the audience of the text. In other words, the text’s special audience comes into sight. As some historians have discussed, the goal of Paine’s persuasive prose was not only to convince the ordinary loyalists, but also to address those of higher social status, many of whom had written detailed pamphlets to oppose colonial resistance. Prominent among these were Samuel Seabury’s “The Congress Canvassed”, Thomas B. Chandler’s “A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans” and Charles Inglis’ “The Deceiver Unmasked”. Thus, with these mighty opponents, Paine had a broad task ahead of him. Nevertheless, as his words reveal, he did not consider this lack of favor to be permanent; rather, he attributed it to the political customs that he thought would inevitably fade from popular memory. Therefore, he assured his readers that “time makes more converts than reason”. With this optimism, Paine conveyed to the reader the hope that time would eventually shape the sentiments in his prose. This provides an essential historical background for the work under study. Notables such as Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson and James Otis had written a number of fiery pamphlets previously. These pamphlets owed their immediate influence not only to the cogent arguments of their authors, but also to their timeliness. They were seasonable because the authors had crafted them in response to the growing insurgencies between the colonists and the British Parliament, mainly regarding taxation, representation and the call for increasing self-government throughout the colonies before 1775. Therefore, in addition to strong logic, political rhetoric needs an element of timeliness to be successful. In this way, “Common Sense” had a fundamental advantage over the earlier pamphlets; it came out shortly after a point of no return. It followed the failure of the petition to King George III and the incidents at Lexington and Concord. In retrospect, perhaps, the level of tension and discord had reached a historical epoch among the colonists.
In the above excerpt, the author pointed that fashion and custom shaped public opinion. He tried to prepare the audience for his next statements through reasoning and, in this way, he claimed in the beginning that he has “studiously avoided everything which is personal among ourselves” (3). Paine proposed a rational rather than personal basis for his text and brought his audience to a bold statement, which is perhaps the most central thesis that the author developed later. In a sentence that has appeared as the subject of many historical studies, Paine claimed firmly that “the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind” (3).
Literally, the meaning of this proposition is clear. It sets the tone and background for the author’s leading arguments in the pamphlet. Historically, however, it requires a context. Paine asserted that America has a cause which is the concern of all mankind. The author formulated this cause first as freedom from tyranny and then as republicanism and considered it as an ideal for all humanity in a world whose limits have not been clearly defined by the author. It would be possible to think, as some historians do, that the text imitates the spirit of the 18th century and therefore addresses a universal audience (see Nelson, Enlightenment). This universal understanding, which was a component of the American Enlightenment, found concrete expression in the beginning of the next century. To quote Leopold van Ranke, the famous German historian of that era, by “abandoning English constitutionalism and creating a new republic based on the rights of the individual, the North Americans introduced a new force in the world” (Adams 128–29). By the same token, Ranke noted that the ideas of the Enlightenment “spread most rapidly when they had found adequate concrete expression”. According to the historian, “thus republicanism entered our Romanic/Germanic world” (128–29). Indeed, the cause of America served as a concrete expression of enlightenment ideas. However, Paine’s travel to the British American colonies was the author’s first adventure abroad. Given the inclusive language of the text, one may wonder if the author had formulated this great cause for universal as well as British-American audiences. In theory, Paine’s emphasis on the natural rights of all mankind confirmed this point as many thinkers of the Enlightenment era, though to varying degrees, argued for the universal rights of Man. In explaining this tendency, Francis Canavan has dwelled on this aspect of Paine’s writing and noted that Paine like his contemporaries “viewed the past as an almost unbroken reign of ignorance, superstition and tyranny” but saw his own era as a “morning of reason”. For these characteristics, Canavan concluded that he was “a typical child of the Enlightenment” (Canavan 680). Likewise, by referring to this cause of all mankind, Paine stated that:
“Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections are interested” (3).
Arguably, the idea of Universal Man or indeed universal human rights may have been straightforward or rather popular among the Enlightenment thinkers. This being said, his declaration cannot be dismissed as a simple exaggeration of colonial developments in the British America. In describing the cause of America, Paine’s statements allow some inferences. First, the author was under the influence of the philosophy of his time, a philosophy that pursued universal truths and generalizations to the whole humanity. What’s more, the author assumed this universality in the text by asserting that the American cause is shared by all mankind. While the author’s anonymity can be justified considering the treasonous contents of his writing, the sense of doubt expressed in the opening sentence can be attributed to the expectation that the sentiments contained in these pages might incur some resistance. In other words, the doctrine could bring about an intellectual challenge. To overcome this challenge, as discussed in the following pages, the author suggested that the colonists should apply their common sense. He also gave a reason for his anonymity:
“Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man” (4).
In the next proposition, Paine declared that he was “under no sort of influence, public or private” (4). These propositions have led some to the conclusion that Paine is an ideologue and his main concern is to promote the doctrine. Later, this study will argue that the author’s rhetorical appeals may weaken such a claim. In other words, they may show that the author was indeed bound to the political environment. Although some scholars have been keen to regard Paine as a transatlantic republican (Vincent 2004; Cotlar 2011), others have claimed that America was indeed a special place for the author. For instance, Craig Nelson has noted the particularly American features of the text and considered it “the first American self-help book” (Nelson, Enlightenment 84). But in hindsight, the American cause served as a point of departure and a precursor to what was inevitable on the European continent. Here, one may return to Ranke’s claim that, by establishing a republic, the North Americans introduced a new force in the world. Indeed, Paine’s later actions, commitments, philosophical contributions and his successive struggles during the American War of Independence and the French Revolution lend support to this view.
However, one may also note a contradiction after considering the relation of Paine’s claims and how he has connected them in the first paragraphs. He formulated the opening sentence rather cautiously in anticipation of how differently the colonists could perceive his words. In order to propose the so-called sentiments as matters of common sense, a possible strategy, at least rhetorically, was to present them as a universal cause. It remained to be seen how these sentiments could form such a cause that was desired by almost all mankind while, in the author’s words, they were not yet sufficiently fashionable. What was unfolding in the British American colonies was, as the author claimed, unprecedented to the colonists. Yet, it followed an eventful chapter of intellectual debate called the American enlightenment during which the colonists grew intellectually and politically (see Ferguson). One may thus assume that the author considered the colonies as a natural environment to test the seemingly universal ideas of the Age of Reason. However, despite his efforts to prove the truth-value of these ideas, the opening sentence suggests that the outcomes of this historic test were not clear to the author and, based on the following statements, one may take this as a reason for the author’s cautious approach. The pamphlet is generally regarded as the most popular speech of revolutionary America, a work that the patriots welcomed wholeheartedly. This being said, the author considered his main audience to be undecided colonists. As far as the discussion on loyalists and patriots is concerned, the initial propositions of the text do not simply provide the content of beliefs; rather, they also highlight intentional attitudes such as the author’s doubts or desires. In this way, the pamphlet’s opening paragraphs have addressed the ongoing social challenges before turning to the theoretical dilemma that concerned the nature of government and society. The following arguments will discuss the manner in which Thomas Paine has expressed some of these dilemmas.
2.2. Government vs. society: “Mere Absurdity”
A major part of “Common Sense” emphasizes the convergence between democracy and republicanism. Following the introductory remarks, the author presented a defense of this congruence but first attempted to reject monarchy. He furnished his own facts to appeal to the colonists’ sense of logic. This section discusses the strategies which the author employed to highlight the government–society distinction and portray the English monarchical government as an absurdity. Historically, one should note that republicanism had not flourished in a vast and newly established territory even though several small republics existed across Europe. A case in point was the Dutch republic that the author has admired briefly in his pamphlet (Foner 10) and one may also recall the short-lived Commonwealth of England, which was created following the second English Civil War. Nevertheless, Paine recognized that his arguments could not simply end by rejecting monarchy; rather, they had to support an alternative model of governance.
To this end, Paine developed a simple classification based on which he advanced his later arguments. Following a discussion of the tensions between the patriots and loyalists, he claimed that society and government have two completely different origins. He visualized these elements as patron and punisher respectively. In particular, he considered the cause of the former to be human wants and the latter to be human wickedness (see Foner 4–9). In his words, society causes intercourse and interaction among human beings, while the government leads to debilitative distinctions. To give his rationale for describing government as “necessary evil” or “a badge of lost innocence”, he raised the case of a primitive society that existed in a “state of natural freedom”:
“In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural freedom, society will be their first thought” (5).
In what followed, Thomas Paine employed similar rhetorical strategies such as exemplification, comparison and elaboration. Through inductive reasoning, the author would then give reasons for his claim to convince the colonists that the English Constitution has inherited the characteristics of ancient tyrannies. This is where the cause of America came to light for the audience. To avoid tyranny, Paine concluded that the government must display republican materials. The other components of the government, particularly the British government, are a combination of authoritarian elements which the author has described as the “monarchical tyranny in the person of the king” or “aristocratic tyranny in the person of the peers” (7). Like most of the Enlightenment thinkers, Paine saw it fit to criticize monarchy and aristocracy and stress the “consent of the governed” which is a phrase that has also appeared in the United States Declaration of Independence even though it only concerned propertied white males. In its second paragraph, the declaration states that:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Rakove 77).
Likewise, Thomas Paine considered the third element, which is republican materials, to be a distinct feature that was given voice by the Commons whose collective responsibility, in his interpretation, guaranteed the freedom of England. In fact, he paved the way for a critique of the British monarchical tyranny at the beginning of “Common Sense” by distinguishing what he considered hereditary and public in British law (see Foner 9–10). Thus, in simple terms, the government-versus-society distinction led to the Commons-versus-King debate, a contrast which forged Paine’s thesis in the pamphlet. By emphasizing the redundant role of the king, Paine pointed out a contradiction in the English constitution. The constitution presupposed that the commons were wiser than the Crown but, on the other hand, gave the power to the king to control the commons. According to Paine, this inconsistency has caused an absurdity and, by the same token, he argued that it would be therefore absurd for America to stay under the yoke of monarchical authority. Here, in an appeal to his audiences’ sense of logic, Paine employed ‘reduction ad absurdum’ to undermine monarchical government, claiming that adherence to such a government would lead to contradiction or absurdity. Therefore, he rejected this alternative. Having distinguished between society and government, he expressed this contradiction as follows:
“There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless” (8).
Throughout his pamphlet, Paine continued to accentuate the constitutional errors in the English system to deprecate the composition of monarchy. Perhaps following the absolutist style of the Enlightenment thinkers, the author considered the government to be the cause of division and the society to be the cause of empathy. In some consecutive sections in the text, Paine presented historical examples and familiar biblical allegories selectively in order to advance the Doctrine of Independence. In other words, in another appeal to his audiences’ sense of logic, he employed inductive reasoning which proceeded from historical examples to arrive at general truths in favor of his doctrine. One reason for this presentation was that the Scriptures provide ancient stories about early kings and societies and some of these stories recount their injustice, corruption, and oppression. Another reason could be that the Bible was still the most widely read book among the colonists. Simply put, biblical allegories provided context for some of Paine’s arguments. In this chronology, the author found strong anti-monarchical parts which, to quote the author, “have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments” (10).
A quality shared among successful writers is the acquired awareness of the reader’s general state of mind. Thomas Paine stressed the colonists’ high regard for the Christian faith which showed a strong historical sense of good and evil. But with a selective arrangement of scripture chronology, the author tried to convince the reader that monarchy is sinful according to the scripture. As the study will argue later, the widespread acceptance of this pamphlet by the revolutionaries suggests that the author was successful in coupling moral arguments derived from Christian teachings with political and rational arguments. However, in most of these historical examples and their interpretations, the modern reader may find a limited version of history and government. That is to say, the government is either tyrannical or public. Throughout his pamphlet, Thomas Paine continued to give an either-or account of historical events or the present affairs. This narrow or selective interpretation could have its origins in the Enlightenment political philosophy. Denis Diderot, a prominent philosopher of this era, had pointed out in 1771 that “the rope which holds and represses humanity is composed of two strands: one of them cannot give way without the other breaking” (Lough 317). Diderot believed that every century has its own “characteristic spirit”. “The spirit of ours”, he said, “seems to be liberty” (317). However, in the context of revolution, Paine’s strategies of rhetoric did not entirely serve theoretical dogmas, which were perhaps common among some public intellectuals; rather, they were a sensible response to political hindrance in Britain and America. Indeed, by an appeal to logic, he made several references in the text to the colonists’ reconciliatory actions including the petition to the king and how these efforts were disregarded in London. As stated in the introduction, George Washington stressed this condition in his letter to Fairfax. As a seasoned military commander, Washington was a hardened pragmatist. Nevertheless, he thought it was proper to write that “the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves”. On another level, Paine too remained selective in his appeal to logic as he approached the leading conclusion of his biblical narrative:
“That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priest-craft in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government” (12).
Paine has not limited his anti-monarchical narrative to the divine argument. Rather, with his knowledge of the events preceding the Battles of Lexington and Concord, he was also aware of the prejudices of the protestant British America towards the rest of colonies where Catholicism was predominant. He claimed that “monarchy is the Popery of government”, a statement which is reminiscent of the traditions of the Catholic Church in the Americas. However, following this selective chronology, the author rejected monarchy as folly and claimed, by what seems to be an appeal to logic, that even nature disapproves of the hereditary rights given to kings. In pushing this thesis forward, the text gives some examples of the evils caused by hereditary succession. While mentioning examples from the history of England and Europe, Paine did not lose sight of the present concerns of the British-American colonies and, where possible, tried to align these examples with current affairs. As discussed previously, one of the goals of “Common Sense” was to diminish the doubts about the Doctrine of Independence. At that time, those advocating independence could not easily discard the fear of a long, bloody and possibly fruitless war with the Empire. For this reason, after listing the evils of the kings, the author then brought forward what is apparently the only plausible plea for monarchy.
“The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact” (15).
The instances of civil wars and rebellions in the history of England disproved the claim that the monarchy could uphold peace and unity. It remains to be seen whether this claim is historically valid or not as, for instance, the author did not refer to the failure of classical republicanism in England. Nevertheless, the counter-argument raised by the author can be considered part of an all-out attack on the monarchy which was discussed earlier. In a calculated form, therefore, the text suggested that perhaps the war of independence is inevitable and the institution of monarchy cannot dissolve the current crisis in that the monarchy itself has caused the revolution.
As the arguments develop in support of independence and republicanism, the reader of “Common Sense” may wonder if the author was more under the influence of his own disapproval or indeed aversion to the English Crown than his devotion to the American cause. Upon close inspection, the reader may thus reconsider the author’s anti-monarchical stance. It is not clear whether the other revolutionaries who perhaps had never visited England or Europe shared the same degree of radicalism. However, following the above discussions, it can also be assumed that, behind an American narrative, the author inserted a British anti-monarchical narrative which was the product of his intellectual growth in the parent country. Interestingly, Paine’s biographers, such as Harvey J. Kaye, have emphasized the fact that he lived and worked for a considerable period in the county town of Lewes in Sussex (Kaye 36). Due to its strong puritan sentiments and its role in the English Civil War, Lewes was once a center of anti-monarchical ideas and opposition to the Crown.
After an elaborate discussion of the historical evils in monarchical government, which followed an initial distinction between government and society, Paine reached the point where he was expected to give an account of the present state of American affairs. Arguably, this part has encapsulated some of the author’s most incendiary words for which the general reader remembers “Common Sense” today. However, as discussed earlier, Paine could not have explained the state of American affairs or the conflict between the revolutionaries and the King’s men without first rejecting monarchical government as “mere absurdity” (Foner 7). For this reason, this article regarded the government-versus-society paradigm as a point of departure for the author’s moral, political and rational arguments in favor of republicanism. To complete these arguments, Thomas Paine called for a declaration of independence, which soon materialized in the Second Continental Congress.
2.3. Common Sense: “Modes of persuasion”
One of the subjects that rhetoricians have debated over the last few decades is the extent to which rhetoric can lend itself to an authentic historical context. In this sense, a textual investigation of “Common Sense” reveals a variety of common but effective rhetorical strategies. One may list general strategies such as narrations, comparisons, illustrations, exemplifications, causal analyses or arguments. Throughout the pamphlet, the author employed these strategies to persuade his audience or even provide historical analyses. However, as discussed earlier, Thomas Paine also employed specific strategies such as analogies, inductive reasoning, contradictions and notably arguments from absurdity. A case in point was the author’s distinction between government and society and the depiction of monarchical government as “mere absurdity” since it was the opposite scenario to the proposed democratic republic. Paine’s selective chronology also facilitated inductive reasoning which allowed the author to make generalizations in rejecting monarchy and embracing an American republic.
Previous discussions were an effort in setting Thomas Paine’s rhetoric in the context of American Revolution. However, in an examination of the link between rhetoric and historicity, one must consider the meaning of rhetoric. In fact, its application has long been the concern of thinkers. Likewise, in his “Treatise on Rhetoric”, Aristotle presented the so-called art of persuasion by categorizing rhetorical strategies and observing how the writer or speaker appeals to the audience. Accordingly, the Philosopher defined rhetoric as “an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, On Rhetoric 36). Though the ages, rhetoricians have revisited and revived the significance of rhetoric to human understanding. However, contemporary scholars have also criticized the limitations of Neo-Aristotelian approaches, claiming that they employ limited methods and neglect the psychological and sociological complexities of modern movements and societies. In a relevant example, Edwin Black has argued that Neo-Aristotelianism promotes a limited model of human behavior and neglects how context-bound discourses may “function in ways not dreamed of in Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (Black 131). Black has noted in his criticism that not all discourses address “rational judges” and there are discourses designed simply “for men as they are” (131). Arguably, this can be relevant in addressing the historical audience of “Common Sense”. That being said, Aristotle’s seminal work, which is still of interest to rhetoricians, has approached the rhetorical system in some practical details which can be of use in the analysis of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”. However, as “pluralist” rhetoricians often insist, the application of Aristotelian rhetoric can benefit from an emphasis on motives, historical contexts, political cultures and ideologies (see, for more discussion, Klyn). Thus, one can assume that, in theory, a skilled orator is one who employs a combination of these strategies appropriately in order to persuade an audience. Based on this classification, the modes of persuasion include the appeal to ethos (i.e. the author’s credibility or authority), pathos (i.e. the audience’s emotions) and logos (i.e. the rationality of audiences or, to use Paine’s term, their common sense). Altogether, rhetoricians have referred to these modes as the rhetorical triangle; however, one may also mention “kairos” which has been regarded as another mode of persuasion. In simple terms, kairos stresses the appeal to timeliness or context. It depends on the author’s use of contextual factors to write persuasively. In this section, the present analysis will approach these modes of persuasion based on the discussions of previous sections.
Ethos, a word derived from Greek, literally means “character”. It gives credit to the author as an authority on the subject of discussion. In this sense, it promotes the credibility of the author by highlighting his or her knowledge, competence, authority or expertise. Here, the first point to consider is that, by definition, Thomas Paine seems to have neglected this mode of persuasion because he chose anonymity for the reasons stated previously. But while “Common Sense” was published anonymously, the strong arguments and the convincing tone of the text may also display the author’s credibility. In fact, the warm welcome of the colonists could demonstrate his successful appeal to ethos. In addition to historical evidence, by studying classical rhetoric, this mode of persuasion is clear in the sense that it is not limited to the established status of the speaker. It also involves the use of argumentative elements in speech. In short, Aristotle categorizes ethos as phronesis (practical wisdom), arete (virtue) and eunoia which stresses goodwill towards the audience (see Garver 112). Particularly, the third element was relevant to this textual analysis. In fact, the author has implied qualities such as goodwill and wisdom throughout the pamphlet and the author has tried to cultivate these qualities in addressing the colonists. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, to his audiences, Paine’s timely advocacy of the intended doctrine and his convincing arguments were evidence of his ethos, that is, his character and status. Hence, Paine asserted “who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man” (4).
On another level, the words from the introductory paragraphs of “Common Sense” can be the author’s appeal to pathos. Literally, this Greek word means experience or suffering. But whose suffering or experience? In context, this mode of persuasion seems to have dealt with the conflicting emotions, differences and dilemmas amongst the colonists in 1776. Although it was Paine who wrote the text and constructed its tone and arguments, the interpretation and realization of the text was a task reserved for the passive colonists, patriots or violent insurgents. The author had created an actionable text which not only rejected a system of government (indeed a system of social existence in the colonies) but also offered an alternative. In doing so, he had left much to his readers. Given his close familiarity with their sentiments, he crafted the pamphlet in anticipation of some convergence that would link the previous acts of random insurgency to resolute and unified action that could perhaps rhyme with his political ideals. In this way, pathos or the appeal to emotions could facilitate the convergence between the text and its audience. This concept appears consistently in the author’s recognition of the “cause of America” and the colonists’ dilemmas, fears and grievances. But additionally, the text also accentuated the differences between patriots and loyalists. For example, in analyzing this mode of persuasion, the American classicist, George A. Kennedy has explained the goal of pathos as “awakening emotion in the audience so as to induce them to make the judgment desired” (Aristotle and Kennedy 119). Paine’s close observation of unfolding events and the reception of “Common Sense” during the American Revolution is an indication of Thomas Paine’s strong awareness of the sentiments among the colonists. It is worth noting that this rhetorical strategy is not only limited to deliberate word choices or meaningful utterances, but includes a wide range of relevant examples and stories. In the context of this study, one may refer to the biblical allegories or narrated events from the history of England that evoked the colonists’ emotions. Indeed, according to Aristotle, the appeal to pathos (emotions) and ethos (credibility) may enhance the speaker’s credibility. But none of these modes of persuasion will be ultimately effective in convincing the audience unless they are coupled with an appeal to the readers’ sense of logic or common sense with the help of timely facts and cogent arguments.
Notably, while ethos and pathos are related to extra-textual and non-linguistic qualities, logos is embedded in the segments of speech. To quote Paul A. Rahe, the American classicist and historian, this mode of persuasion enables the author “to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil” (Rahe 21). This description seems to be consistent with some of the arguments presented in this article. In fact, “Common Sense” largely tried to inculcate the enlightenment-era dichotomies in the reader’s mind. Thomas Paine used reasoned discourse to draw a sharp contrast between general concepts such as tyranny and freedom, government and society, and monarchical government and democratic republic. In addition to the description of logos, it is equally important to note how Paine appealed to this sense of logic to engage the American colonists. His appeal to logos, as the previous discussions proposed, seems to favor exemplification followed by inductive reasoning. Considering this mode of persuasion in addressing the colonists, the interesting point is the author’s reliance on their everyday language and their basic knowledge of the Bible. In other words, with a specific audience in mind, these examples reduced the author’s global perspective to a local and immediate vision. As indicated previously, Thomas Paine belonged to the guild of Enlightenment thinkers but the use of specific examples from the history of England and the portrayal of biblical allegories were relevant with regard to the troubled spirit of British America. Furthermore, as some historians have argued, Paine’s rhetoric on the concept of government and society characterized a new chapter in his political life in the New World. For example, John Kean concludes in his review of Paine’s political life that “although Paine swam comfortably in the cosmopolitan waters of the Enlightenment, his account of the shrinking world in terms of civil society and representative government was novel” (Keane 232). Keane’s conclusion seems to emphasize the role of the unique context in which Paine produced his revolutionary discourse and formulated his reasoning.
2.4. Insurgency and kairos in “Common Sense”
There exists voluminous scholarship regarding the American War of Independence and its causes and background. There is also a growing literature on those aspects of Thomas Paine’s life and work that contributed to the revolution. Thus far, this article has argued that Paine crafted his pamphlet based on his close knowledge, direct experience and ideals of the American revolution. It has argued that his audiences were mainly ordinary colonists, many of whom were doubtful and uncertain about the outcome of the break from Britain. Here, after discussing the application of rhetorical theory in “Common Sense”, one might approach the text from another rhetorical angle. While the reactions of notables against or in support of the pamphlet have appeared in separate writings, historians may only envisage the reaction or reception of ordinary insurgents by their actions in the process of the revolution. In the discussion concerning loyalists and patriots, the review indicated that the tension had started in earnest before Paine wrote his short masterpiece. Passionate acts of insurgency in support of self-government and independence were common and the key players were the ordinary colonists. One should note that, in the late eighteenth century, the word ‘insurgent’ or ‘insurgency’ perhaps did not invoke the negative sense which is today often associated with physical violence or terrorism. But some historians such as Gordon Wood and Timothy H. Breen have highlighted the radical and violent aspect of the revolution (see Wood & Breen). In this sense, Breen has expounded on this American insurgency to offer a reassessment of the role of patriots in shaping the cause of America. In this manner, one should remember that these patriots were first insurgents who were willing to commit violence, murder and treason to achieve political goals and their revolution furnished a succession of violent events. Organized violence against the authority of the government is an attribute of many revolutions and the uprising in the thirteen colonies was no exception. In today’s lexicon, insurgency denotes an attempt by those in a weak position to gain influence or control outside the framework of state institutions. During the course to the War of Independence, the rebelling colonists organized political and armed groups, committed violence and acts of subversion and challenged the British authority on every occasion. Viewing these patriots as insurgents and viewing the element of insurgency in the American Revolution may help one capture the sense that the ordinary residents of these colonies had already paved the path towards the revolution long before 1776. Indeed, Breen has documented such cases and events which took place well before the outset of the revolution (see Breen). Considering the resistance to the British rule as insurgency may also display the role of immediate and amplified passions, fears and sentiments that motivated the audiences of “Common Sense”. In this way, Paine appealed to their emotional experience and built on the sensations that had already existed and had come to their peak shortly after the author arrived in the colonies. Therefore, the radical nature of “Common Sense” echoed the radicalism of the American Revolution and its eruptive nature as the author subsequently tried to craft a timely reaction to it. Paine wrote the pamphlet to motivate these colonists to achieve a greater cause and, at the same time, justified this revolutionary cause by advancing arguments which made sense to his audiences. By the time Paine printed his work, as historians such as Wood and Breen have argued through different lenses, the colonists had become convinced of the ideals of freedom, individual rights and perhaps Republican virtues even though many of them had not read the writings of authors like John Locke. The call to the American Revolution was adjusted to the lengths of violence, disobedience and defiance that the patriots or insurgents were prepared to demonstrate. In other words, the time was ripe and the flow was in place for the reception of Paine’s seemingly radical doctrine in 1776.
Towards the end of this analysis, one may also argue that the persuasive tone of “Common Sense” and its strong resonance depended on its timeliness or kairos. Understanding this non-linguistic feature can be somewhat challenging because there are no exact equivalents for this word in English. The meaning of kairos is therefore not definitive. But, as discussed above, the analysis of the text also displays the author’s ability to discern the uniqueness of time or the opportune moment in a series of historical events.
This rhetorical element seems to have enjoyed a renewal of interest on part of rhetoricians. The motive, as is often the case, is the scholarly urge to learn about the concepts of the past, which rhetoricians have considered possible if one can approach them “in their own age, in their own environment, [and] on their own terms” (Anderson 248). As a departure from the classical application of this Aristotelian term, the modern rhetorical definition of kairos goes beyond timeliness to include appropriateness as well. As an example, in his critical-rhetorical ethnography, Aaron Hess has suggested that kairos may also accentuate “the decorum or propriety of any given moment and speech act” in addition to “the opportune, spontaneous, or timely” elements (Hess 138). In this sense, this fourth rhetorical appeal comes forth in a wide context with pathos, logos and ethos. Thus, in his analysis of vernacular advocacy, Hess has held that “rhetorical scholars examine locally situated discourses as they articulate against oppressive macro-contexts” (Hess 127). Paine’s work could show a balance between what was universal (that is, the Enlightenment ideas) and what was local (that is, the insurgency in the colonies). However, due to this historical and perhaps socio-cultural “situatedness”, the application of kairos seems more complex compared to other rhetorical appeals. Indeed, scholars have noted that the concept was complex even in its ancient use. For successful application, Kairos involved the Sophists’ attention to “aptum” or the measured exploitation of an opening. It led the speaker or writer to adapt to the gifts of a historical situation and measure the utterances in a flow with the preceding rhetorical appeals. In this sense, incorporating Kairos into one’s discourse necessitates a profound understanding of the affairs and perhaps some insight into the future. As discussed earlier, Thomas Paine had a delicate task in shaping the arguments in his pamphlet due to the uniqueness and indeterminacy of the situation in the colonies. For that reason, as rhetoricians have concluded, the effective use of kairos can be challenging and much is left to the rhetor’s instinct. In other words, Paine was not guided by some theory of writing or was not in full control of his discourse due to a variety of external constraints. Indeterminacy and unpredictability are the aspects that modern rhetoricians have highlighted in the problematization of Kairos, not least because they cannot teach it or explain it adequately. Thus, Phillip Sipiora has noted that:
“Since each discourse must be shaped in immediate response to the present occasion, instruction in kairos becomes virtually impossible. While theory, grounded in successful past discourse, provides models of right and wrong strategies, rhetorical theory cannot cast its net over the unforeseen, unpredictable, and uncontrollable moments” (Sipiora 6).
However, some other rhetoricians have noted that this word encapsulated two contradictory senses for ancient writers, one denoted adaptation to conventions and contrariwise the other denoted radical spontaneity (Paul 43; Kinneavy 60). In this sense, James Kinneavy regarded Kairos as the defining element of any rhetorical situation or “situational context”. This context develops through some stages and reaches the state of maturity that encapsulates the kairotic perspective since it calls for rhetorical intervention. For Paine, this intervention occurred when the time was ripe for the reception of his thesis in 1776. Paine’s writing demonstrated adaptation to conventions and radical spontaneity. In fact, kairos-based arguments cannot follow a predetermined pattern. The rhetors make such arguments when they explore the contingencies of a situation and learn more about it. In this manner, kairos necessitates some kind of “ready stance” in which the speakers are aware of the history of developments and seek ways to argue for or against their causes. In sum, as a successful pamphlet, “Common Sense” projects an awareness of time, space and audience. Arguably, these extremes (that is, conventional adaptation and radical spontaneity) have emerged in Paine’s writing and some well-known contemporaries such as John Adams and James Chalmers lambasted its contents. For that reason, Adams indicated in his reflections on Paine’s work that the author’s ideals lacked “equilibrium” or “counterpoise” and were so unrestrained that they produced “confusion and every evil work” (quoted in Foot and Kramnick 11). Similarly, Chalmers even wrote a pamphlet entitled “Plain Truth” in opposition to “Common Sense”. But this objection itself can be proof of the timeliness of the writing in the sense that the text attracted strong opposition and debate. In other words, despite the widespread dilemmas that circulated among the colonists, Thomas Paine’s call for independence prodded the insurgents and engaged the elites more deeply in the pro-independence discourse.
Few historians have approached the pamphlet from an exclusively rhetorical perspective, but most have acknowledged the significance of historical context in the work’s appeal to the colonists. Some have ascribed the work’s success above all to its timeliness because the author had sensed the winds of political change. In rhetorical terms, therefore, what historians have acknowledged is the author’s appeal to kairos and his consideration of time and setting. One could say that, of all the appeals that the author used in the pamphlet, the one that he exploited more frequently but less explicitly was the connections of arguments to their zeitgeist. Here, one can refer to the existing literature to see whether the popularity and impact of the work was, in historical debates, more due to the convincing arguments and cogent logic of the text or simply its timeliness. Such views may depend on the choice between a historical or rhetorical approach to the text. In this sense, research on “Common Sense” has attracted many generations of scholars who have added contradicting arguments to the subject. But in a case that may help the above rhetorical analysis, Owen Aldridge noted in his investigation of Paine’s American ideology that an integral aspect of its impact was simply the historical context in which the author was writing. Aldridge performed a thorough research into the author’s intellectual career from 1775 and, in this way, offered a history for “Common Sense” by a review of contemporary issues. In his now classic work, he also seems to insist that Paine was not subject to any ideology, but was in an ideal position to interact with the political environment (see Aldridge 19). This environment had produced insurgencies and armed hostilities between the colonists and British forces in 1775. Reluctance still existed among many colonists when independence from Britain was becoming more serious. In his advocacy, Paine addressed the loyalists who resisted the idea of independence while still admitting the flaws of tyrannical laws and unfair treatment. Paine thought that America had a unique chance to form a republic based on the doctrine of independence. But he insisted that the colonists must do this quickly before the circumstances could cause divisions among them. Hence, he wrote that “the present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once”. Some scholars have focused on Paine’s persuasive prose and his rhetorical skills, arguing that “Common Sense” is propaganda by today’s standards (see for further discussion, Wilson and Ricketson 26-27; Nelson, Thomas Paine 81-83). Whether or not the text can be regarded as propaganda, its words and arguments still show a balanced use of rhetorical devices and appeals which made it the most significant writing of that timeframe. As stated earlier, one of the subjects that rhetoricians have debated is the extent to which rhetoric can lend itself to historical context and this effort is relevant to the study of the call to American Revolution.
3. Conclusion
This historical analysis approached Thomas Paine’s rhetorical appeals in selected excerpts with an emphasis on extra-textual events and circumstances. In doing so, an attempt was made to view the significance of the text in its historical context.
In its structure, “Common Sense” touched upon social and intellectual matters which were the main concern of its audience. Following the intellectual tradition of the Enlightenment, Paine’s focus shifted tentatively towards a universal audience but, in describing the ‘Cause of America’, the American colonists were pivotal to his arguments. The pamphlet, as the title suggests, depended on common sense suggesting again that its main audiences were the colonists who relied on collective wisdom to understand their cause. As noted above, in his frequent appeals to logic, the author was at times concerned with matters of fact rather than political ideals. However, prior to theoretical dilemmas, the pamphlet addressed the colonists’ doubts and social challenges through direct appeal to their sentiments. As regards the discussion on loyalists and patriots, the message that the author conveyed to the colonists was that independence from Britain was not only possible but also favorable. In the following excerpts, Thomas Paine appealed to his audience’s sense of logic and employed rhetorical strategies to argue that independence from Britain was not only possible and favorable, but also logically necessary and inevitable. Furthermore, Paine’s leading argument in developing the distinction between government and society was that the most favorable form of government is a democratic republic. In the selected excerpts, the appeal to pathos served mainly to support the ‘Cause of America’ and the ‘Doctrine of Independence’ while the appeal to logos served the advocacy of republicanism. Altogether, elements such as the content, audience, purpose, style and the timing of its creation all contributed to the immediate sensation that the pamphlet created in the colonies.
Due to its historical significance, the text has attracted much debate and research ever since its creation in 1776. However, most of this scholarship seems to favor exclusively historiographical or textual focuses depending on the disciplines that approach the work. To manage these disciplinary focuses, the above discussions regarded these points with a balanced link between the text, author, audience and context. In view of this rhetorical–historical analysis, the study concludes that one can attribute the impact of “Common Sense” to Paine’s refined political thought, his strong awareness of the sentiments in the British-American colonies, and his balanced use of rhetorical appeals. More importantly, the success of “Common Sense” depended on the timeliness of the doctrine that it advocated. As this article has argued, these rhetorical appeals were meaningful with regard to their extra-textual circumstances. In this manner, Thomas Paine created a provocative and persuasive prose which combined his appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. However, within the larger context, key among these elements was kairos as the pamphlet was printed shortly after the Battle of Lexington and Concord which marked a point of no return in the American Revolution.
R e f e r e n c e s
Adams, Willi Paul. The First American Constitutions: Republican Ideology and the Making of the State Constitutions in the Revolutionary Era. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Aldridge, A. Owen. Thomas Paine’s American Ideology. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press, 1984.
Andersen, Øivind. ‘The Right Words at the Right Time’. In Scandinavian Studies in Rhetoric. Rhetorica Scandinavica 1997–2010, edited by Jens E. Kjeldsen and Jan Grue, 2011, 240–9. Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric, translated by Rhys W. Roberts. London: Random House, 1954.
Aristotle, and George Alexander Kennedy. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Breen, Timothy, H. American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People. New York: Hill and Wang, 2010.
Canavan, Francis. “Thomas Paine.” History of Political Philosophy, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Cotlar, Seth. Tom Paine’s America: The Rise and Fall of Transatlantic Radicalism in the Early Republic. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2011.
Foner, Philip S. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Citadel Press, 1945.
Foot, Michael, and Kramnick, Isaac, eds. The Thomas Paine Reader. Penguin Classics, 1987.
Ferguson Robert A. The American Enlightenment, 1750–1820. Harvard University Press, 1994.
Garver, Eugene. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
“George Washington letter to William Fairfax, 31 May 1775”, excerpted from The Writings of George Washington, Vol II, edited by Jared Sparks, 1847; at Family Tales Website. http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_gwa2752&person=gwa
Greene, Jack P., and J. R. Pole, eds. A Companion to the American Revolution. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
Hess, Aaron. “Critical-Rhetorical Ethnography: Rethinking the Place and Process of Rhetoric.” Communication Studies, vol. 62, no.2, 2011, pp. 127–152.
Klyn, Mark S. Toward a Pluralistic Rhetorical Criticism. Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Random House, 1968.
Keane, John. Tom Paine: A Political Life. New York: Grove Press, 1995.
Kaye, Harvey J. Thomas Paine: Firebrand of the Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Kinneavy, James L. “Kairos in classical and modern rhetorical theory.” Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis, edited by Phillip Sipiora and James S. Baumlin. State University of New York Press, 2002, pp. 58 –76.
Larabee, Leonard Woods. Conservatism in Early American History. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1948.
Lough, John. An Introduction to Eighteenth-Century France. London: Longman, 1960.
Larkin, Edward. Thomas Paine and the Literature of Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Nelson, Craig. Thomas Paine. New York: Viking, 2006.
Nelson, Craig. Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Paul, Joanne. “The Use of Kairos in Renaissance Political Philosophy.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 1, 2014, pp. 43-78.
Rahe, Paul Anthony. Republics Ancient and Modern: The Ancien Régime in Classical Greece. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.
Rakove, Jack N., eds. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Sipiora, Phillip. (2002) ‘Introduction. The Ancient Concept of Kairos’. In Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory, and Praxis, edited by Phillip Sipiora and James S. Baumlin, 1–22. New York: State University Press.
Vincent, Bernard. The Transatlantic Republican: Thomas Paine and the Age of Revolutions. Amsterdam: Rodopi BV Amsterdam Monographs in American Studies, 2004.
Wecter, Dixon. “Thomas Paine and the Franklins.” American Literature, vol. 12, no. 3, 1940, pp. 306–317.
Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1991.
Wilson, Jerome D., and William F. Ricketson, Thomas Paine. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1989.
Ebrahim Daryaee Motlagh
e-mail: selwin.daryaee@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0009-0002-1706-0280