Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs

    Thomas Pain's "Common Sense" can be seen as a difficult text to chew through, if you are unaccustomed to the language and turn of phrase, but if you give it the proper attention it deserve, the message shines through clearly. In this excerpt "Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs" from his text "Common Sense" Mr. Paine gives a well thought out explanation of all the reasons final separations from Great Britain is necessary. He lists many reasons as to why people who were still calling for reconciliation need to open their eyes as to the truth of how much staying tied to the monarchy would actually hinder the budding country of America. Although his text is  a personal one, his argument is more logical and less of the fiery emotional nature than the colleagues of his day (such as Patrick Henry) was.

    This entire text appeals to the logos of the reader. This excerpt spells out simple, yet effective examples as to why it is necessary to split with Britain as soon as possible, even if it means taking up arms.  Mr. Paine explains that fiscally and politically it is more advantageous to have relations with Europe as an entitty separate from Britain rather than as a "child" of the country. To be looped in with Britain forces America to stick with them in the bad times as well as the good. If Europe should take up arms against Britain, America would be forced to comply - and then be ostracized from European markets. Also, he argues, Britain will always be there to trade with, regardless. The author appeals to the pathos of the reader when he speaks of Mans' fear of Independence. He reminds them the only reason they are fearful is because this is a completely new path. If the colonists are brave, the prize will be much greater than continuing with the fallacy of reconciliation. He also reminds people that America is not only made up of Englishmen, but a brotherhood of the   entire European companies. This, he points out is another reason that America should separate; so that his brotherhood from other countries can retain their ancestry as well as gain this new country-hood. The ethos of this seems to come through showing Mr. Paine as a man who has tolerated all he can from the monarchy, and in respects his countrymen who are bent on the failings of reconciliation. He seems a bit of a patient man who is trying to convincingly get his point a cross in a way that the every-man can understand.

    This document (as well as the entire body of "Common Sense)" I feel is still very historically significant as well as relevant. This document, to me, stands out from many of the speeches and texts from the Revolutionary/Pre-Revolutionary period in that it is not so much filled with flowery, fiery phraseology. Instead, it is an organized, logical yet persuasive body of work that targets a wide range of readers. It addresses economy, politics, loyalty, brotherhood among other things and it very much gets you to think "outside the box".

   I very much agree with the Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". I think he did a wonderful job of spelling out his reasoning for separation, and had I been one of the Patriots, I believe I would have rallied to his cause. You can really sense his passion for the subject at hand, and still he makes very studied, sound reasoning for the Patriotic agenda.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!!!

         Patrick Henry's most famous speech, made to the House of Burgess in 1775, is aptly referenced as the "Give  Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. This immortalized title more or less sums up the whole point of Patrick Henry's speech. The point of the speech is a call to arms. He is telling the House that the colonists have done everything they can do by either petition or pander to try to reconcile these ten years past. He points out that reconciliation is not possible when you see how the colonists petitions are received by the monarchy, and how the British militia becomes more and more prevalent in their towns. Although Mr. Henry is for peace, his speech clearly tells that peace has been tried to its very limit. The only thing that can be done now is to take up arms and fight; because to him the war has already been started on the British side. 

       Patrick Henry appeals to the pathos of the House when he points out that their petitions and attempts at reconciliation with the monarchy have been either completely ignored, or they are have been answered in the uprising of greater hostility and violence of the British Militia against the colonists. He warns them that as reconciliation attempts are continually thrown out or are causing violence against the people; this is effectually putting them in-midst war already. The pathos of his speech often circle around the idea of slavery versus freedom. Patrick Henry urges that if the colonists don't take up arms and fight for their liberty, then they are effectually letting themselves become slaves to the monarchy. I believe the perceived character of Patrick Henry is one of a God-fearing man who prefers peace. Although he may be one who prefers peace and reconciliation, he is also smart enough to know when these measures are not going to work anymore. He can tell that if an answer to the query of reconciliation is violence, then really have no choice to take up arms and defend your liberties.

        The historical significance of this document, I believe is great. This speech was delivered barely a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and is one of the most influential in history. Had Patrick Henry not delivered this speech, especially when he did, there may have not been as much fervor to move things along as quickly as they did. Although the masses do not write or communicate in the beautiful language of that time, the message is still completely relevant to this country. In one place I enjoy greatly he says specifically that if your body of government (in his case the monarchy) is not allowing you your liberties, and they refuse to come to any sort of compromise (or reconciliation), and you refuse to defend your liberties -not only are you being treasonous to yourself (and your country) but you are allowing yourself to be a slave to the government (or monarchy).

      In conclusion, I have to say I am in complete agreement with Mr. Patrick Henry. I believe he was right in his petition to the House of Burgess, and although I am a person who always upholds peace over war; if you are being forced into a situation where as a country your inquiries of peace and reconciliation are being met with intolerance and violent acts against, and you have tried every other method; some times you have to take up arms to defend yourself and what you believe in.