Published anonymously in 1776 by an unknown Englishman who had just recently emigrated to North America under the advice of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine’s legendary pamphlet Common Sense went on to become one of America’s bestselling and most influential literary documents. In its brief 47 pages, Paine takes a very rhetorical approach to promoting the cause of independence from Great Britain, and in many ways his arguments fail to take into account logic or common sense, contrary to what the title of the pamphlet would suggest. While some of the points Paine made in the book were fairly straightforward, others held very little water. In spite of this, Common Sense went on to become, and remains, the bestselling book in American history relative to the percentage of the population that had read it, or at the very least, heard it recited. There is no doubt that this pamphlet was instrumental in influencing the population to support independence from Britain. Therein the question lies: how did Common Sense achieve this in spite of its author’s illogical arguments?

Several of Paine’s rhetorical ideas found in Common Sense stand out as particularly lacking in the attribute suggested by the title. One of Paine’s arguments was that going to war for independence from Britain would promote peace. He criticizes Quakers who were skeptical of the violence and unrest that such a war would bring, stating that “OUR PLAN IS PEACE FOR EVER. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation.” While this is an understandable position to take, there is obviously no peace during a time of war. This attainment of peace would not come without great trial and bloodshed among all parties involved.

The Revolutionary War, which lasted over 8 years, was the longest conflict America was involved in for nearly two centuries thereafter. While it is true that the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, officially declared peace between England and the colonies, which has been thereafter maintained for the most part, the road that led up to this point was in no way peaceful. It can be thus determined that, although his self-proclaimed goal of peace was ultimately achieved, he still seemed to be downplaying the detriments of war. The same way Paine described independence from Britain as being inevitable, so also was the lengthy and tragic conflict that soon followed in an effort to gain said independence. The issue is that Paine didn’t seem to view the upcoming war as any sort of threat to peace.

Paine’s argument in favor of peace is one among a number of arguments throughout the pamphlet in which logic is substituted for rhetoric. This particularly stands out because, as he fails to acknowledge, the very nature of a society under war is the opposite of a society under peace. While his intentions were to promote the independence that America did eventually gain, due in part to the influence that his book helped provide to the general masses, it is clear that his means of convincing were less than logical at times.

Despite its initial popularity and its great influence in history, the book is seldom read or taught in modern day literature or history courses today. If it were, scholars and students of Revolutionary history would quite possibly become aware of Paine’s fallacious arguments, and perhaps question how Common Sense managed to become so influential. In my opinion, this is an example of rhetoric and an appealing style of writing bearing more importance in the influencing of broad audiences than the actual logic carrying the argument, something that too many seem to simply not care about.🔹