Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thomas Paine
and the Age of Revolutions
AMSTERDAM MONOGRAPHS IN AMERICAN STUDIES
12
General Editor
Rob Kroes
Amerika Instituut
University of Amsterdam
The Transatlantic Republican
Thomas Paine
and the Age of Revolutions
Bernard Vincent
ISBN: 90-420-1614-0
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005
Printed in the Netherlands
Acknowledgments
Various parts of this book have appeared previously in other versions, as follows:
The author wishes to express special thanks to Rob Kroes for his unremitting support
and encouragement, as well as to John Goulet and Marc Niemeyer, who accepted to
read the manuscript with a critical eye.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Introduction
Storming the “Bastille of Words”: Tom Paine’s
Revolution in Writing 1
Bibliography 167
Index 173
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
1
Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, 1903-
1907), 15: 305.
2
Quoted in Bulletin of Thomas Paine Friends 4, no. 3 (August 2003): 3.
3
Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of George Washington (Boston, 1833-37), 3: 347.
4
Jared Sparks, ed., The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution
(Boston, 1829–30), 1: 136.
2 The Transatlantic Republican
*
From a literary point of view, the success of Paine’s books may be
attributed to two central causes: the simplicity of the revolutionary
doctrines formulated in them, and the simplicity, or directness and
accessibility, of the style in which these doctrines were formulated.
It must be remembered that in Paine’s time those who wrote
books did so to be read by an elite. They had spent years in schools
and universities, learning a language which was both a means of
5
Philip S. Foner, The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, 2 vols. (New York:
The Citadel Press, 1945), 2: 340-41 (henceforward referred to as FO 1 or 2).
6
Thomas Clio Rickman, The Life of Thomas Paine (London, 1819), 34.
7
John Keane, Tom Paine: A Political Life (Boston, London: Little, Brown &
Company, 1995), 25.
The Bastille of Words 3
8
Isaac Hunt, Rights of Englishmen. An antidote to the poison now vending by the
Transatlantic Republican Thomas Paine (London, 1791). Quoted in John Keane, Tom
Paine, 307.
9
Wilmarth S. Lewis, Horace Walpole’s Correspondence (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 1973), 11: 239.
10
It was apropos of “titles” that Paine, in Rights of Man, first used the ‘Bastille of
Words’ metaphor: “It is, properly, from the elevated mind of France that the folly of
titles has been abolished. It has outgrown the baby clothes of count and duke, and
breeched itself in manhood. France has not levelled, it has exalted. It has put down the
dwarf, to set up the man. The insignificance of a senseless word like duke, count or
earl has ceased to please. Even those who possessed them have disowned the
gibberish, and as they outgrew the rickets, have despised the rattle.
“The genuine mind of man, thirsting for its native home, society, contemns the
gewgaws that separate him from it. Titles are like circles drawn by the magician's
wand, to contract the sphere of man's felicity. He lives immured within the Bastille of
a word, and surveys at a distance the envied life of man” (FO 1: 286-87, emphasis
mine).
4 The Transatlantic Republican
target, and his weapon, was “common sense,” not the refined and
sometimes euphuistic intelligence of the ‘happy few.’
Who, however uneducated, could not understand the following?
The duty of man . . . is plain and simple, and consists but of two points. His
duty to God, which every man must feel; and with respect to his neighbour, to
do as he would be done by.11
This is a common sense remark, quite biblical in its simplicity,
but indeed much more subversive than one might think at first. As
James Boulton explained in his book on The Language of Politics in
the Age of Wilkes and Burke, for Paine “the duty to one’s neighbour
should be recognised by all men, by rulers as well as the ruled; Paine’s
reader then discovers that the moral injunction has become a means by
which rulers are to be assessed and that those who act well according
to this principle will be respected, those who do not will be
despised”12—i.e. rejected from the universe of reason and ousted from
their throne. Innocent and harmless at first sight, common sense was
now a revolutionary tool.
Paine wanted to be read by all classes of men, and he was. While
visiting the British Parliament in 1792, Francisco de Miranda, one of
the liberators of Latin America (and a friend of Paine) “noted that
copies of the second part of Paine’s Rights of Man, at that time
proscribed by the British government, were being sold along with
sandwiches in the House of Commons.”13 But similar attitudes were
also to be found at the other end of the social spectrum. As J. T.
Mathias, a contemporary of Paine, pointed out in 1797, “our peasantry
now read the Rights of Man on mountains, and moors, and by the
wayside.”14 Paine was indeed well aware that, in his time, some 90%
of the population were farmers or lived and worked in a rural
environment. Hence, among many other instances, his famous reply to
Edmund Burke’s sympathy for the fate of Marie-Antoinette: “He
pities the plumage, but forgets the dying bird”15; or the final
11
Rights of Man, Part 1, in FO 1: 275.
12
James T. Boulton, The Language of Politics in the Age of Wilkes and Burke
(London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1963), 136 (republished by Greenwood Press in
1975).
13
A. Owen Aldridge, Early American Literature: A Comparatist Approach
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 217n.3.
14
In Boulton, op. cit., 138.
15
Rights of Man, Part 1, in FO 1: 260
The Bastille of Words 5
16
Ibid., Part 2, in FO 1: 453-54.
17
Ibid., Part 1, in FO 1: 258.
18
Third letter “to Cato” (Rev. William Smith, Anglican Provost of the College of
Philadelphia) signed “The Forester”, FO 2: 78.
19
The American Crisis I, in FO 1: 50, 56.
20
Boulton, 134.
21
“Preface” to Rights of Man, Part 2, in FO 1: 348-49.
6 The Transatlantic Republican
22
Brooke Boothby, Observations on the Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,
and on Mr. Paine’s Rights of Man (London, 1792), 106n, 273-74.
23
The Monthly Review (May 1791): 93.
24
Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., ed., Selected Letters of Edmund Burke (Chicago &
London: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 295-96. William Smith was a young
Irish barrister who wanted to dedicate to Burke the second edition of his anti-Paine
pamphlet The Rights of Citizens. Being an Examination of Mr Paine’s Principles
Touching Government (spring 1791).
25
Boulton, 137-38.
26
Benjamin Vaughan, 30 Nov. 1792, Home Office Papers, 42.22, cited in E. P.
Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books,
1966), 108.
27
Olivia Smith, The Politics of Language, 1791-1819 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1984), 39. This book contains an excellent study of Paine’s innovative prose—in
particular Chapter 2, “Rights of Man and its aftermath.”
The Bastille of Words 7
28
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Harmondsworth:
Penguin books, 1981), 173. One page further, Burke defines the swinish multitude as
“a nation of gross, stupid, ferocious, and at the same time, poor and sordid barbarians,
destitute of religion, honour, or manly pride, possessing nothing at present, and
hoping for nothing hereafter” (174).
29
Rights of Man, Part 1, in FO 1: 282.
30
Ibid., 267.
8 The Transatlantic Republican
31
Ibid., 258-59.
32
Ibid., 317.
The Bastille of Words 9
33
“The Past IS Unpredictable: A Conversation with Bernard Bailyn,” interview by
Mary Lou Beatty, Humanities 19, no. 2 (March-April 1998): 7.
34
Common Sense, in FO 1: 25.
35
Ibid., 18, 19.
36
Ibid., 30.
10 The Transatlantic Republican
*
When compared to the political writers of his time, Thomas Paine may
be viewed as a new kind of artist—the modern author—or, as Novalis
would have put it, a “harp in the democratic wind” of the history of
letters. This, as we have seen, was due to the way he wrote and the
peculiar quality of his prose, but if one moves from quality to quantity
(the amount of books sold), what one finds is that Paine’s new
‘plebeian’ approach to writing actually won him the admiration of an
unprecedented number of readers. And this was true for each of his
three major works, Common Sense, Rights of Man, and The Age of
Reason. The fact that these works were all ‘bestsellers’ is remarkable
in itself, as a unique historical occurrence, but it is even more
important in terms of the impact they had on those who read them.
Common Sense was undoubtedly the most widely circulated
bestseller in early American history—a literary contribution to the
cause of independence which, according to John Keane, proved to be
as important “as that of George Washington on the battlefield or
Benjamin Franklin on the diplomatic front.”37 On April 8, 1776, Paine
reported with pride that in less than four months, although “the book
was turned upon the world like an orphan to shift for itself,” at least
120,000 copies had already come off the press.38 Between January and
June 1776, 35 editions were published.39 Three years later, Paine
claimed that “the number of copies printed and sold in America was
not short of 150,000,” adding rightly, but somewhat immodestly, that
this was “the greatest sale that any performance had ever had since the
use of letters.”40
As far as sales were concerned, Paine was probably not
exaggerating, and the figures are astounding: they mean that out of a
total population of 2.5 million people (minus 500,000 black slaves,
minus a great number of illiterate white people, minus children), at
least some 500,000 Americans actually read Common Sense, i.e.
practically all American adults then able to read: this was indeed, if
one excepts the Bible, the first mass phenomenon in the history of
37
John Keane, Tom Paine, 110-11.
38
Second letter “to Cato” signed “The Forester”, FO 2: 67.
39
Nathalie Caron, Thomas Paine contre l’imposture des prêtres (Paris:
L’Harmattan, 1998), 321.
40
Letter to the Honorable Henry Laurens (14 January 1779), FO 2: 1163.
12 The Transatlantic Republican
41
Ibid.
42
Lyman H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), 2: 351.
43
Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the
United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), 2: 124.
44
A. Owen Aldridge, Early American Literature, Chap. 8, “Paine and Latin
American Independence,” 244.
The Bastille of Words 13
standards: 12,000 copies were sold within one month; the total
circulation for the first year was 19,000, and the book continued to sell
well afterwards outside of Britain—in Ireland, the United States,
Germany and Italy—the circulation was huge too, and in France some
15,000 copies were sold in only three months.45
But this was nothing compared to the historic circulation figures
achieved by Paine’s book. At the time of the publication of Rights of
Man, the average size of an edition in Britain was about 1,250 for a
novel, 750 for more general works.46 As John Keane points out, “Sir
Walter Scott, the most popular novelist a generation after Paine, sold
10,000 copies of Rob Roy in a fortnight,” but Paine’s figures were
beyond belief. Part 1 had appeared on February 22, 1791, and by May
50,000 copies had been sold. In all, 26 editions (of the first and second
parts) appeared.47 Basing his calculations on information from his
publishers, Paine himself, Keane explains, “estimated that in Britain
the sales of the complete edition [Part 1 + Part 2] reached ‘between
four and five hundred thousand’ copies within ten years of
publication, making it the most widely read book of all time, in any
language”—with, again, the exception of the Bible.48
Out of the nine or ten million people then living in Britain, four
million at most were able to read: this means that one potential reader
in ten purchased Rights of Man. But even those figures are misleading
because they do not take into account pirated and serialized editions—
and there were many. Nor do they include the number of those to
whom parts of the book were read and who, openly or secretly,
discussed the ideas put forward by Paine. There is no doubt that
Rights of Man was circulated and talked about in the literate public,
but, Keane goes on to say, the great novelty was that it was also “read
aloud and talked about to the illiterate on an unheard-of scale,” i.e. in
taverns and radical societies, in much the same way as Common Sense
had been in America. Therefore “not only did the book touch virtually
the whole of the reading public; it also helped transform the meaning
45
William B. Todd, “The Biographical History of Burke’s Reflections on the
Revolution in France,” The Library, 5th ser., 6 (1951-52): 100-108.
46
Raymond Williams, “Notes on English Prose,” in Writing in Society (London:
Verso, 1980), 69-70.
47
Nathalie Caron, Thomas Paine contre l’imposture des prêtres, 321.
48
John Keane, Tom Paine, 307. (For the total claimed by Paine, see E. P.
Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, 117).
14 The Transatlantic Republican
49
Ibid., 308.
50
Keane, Tom Paine, 392.
51
The opening words of The Age of Reason: “It has been my intention, for several
years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion.”
52
Keane, 397.
The Bastille of Words 15
53
Ibid., 396, 399.
54
Paine’s letter to Samuel Adams (1 Jan. 1803), in FO 2: 1436.
55
W . E. Woodward, Tom Paine: America’s Godfather (New York: Dutton, 1945),
254.
56
F. W. Hagen, Vindicae Prophetarum Ebraicorum et Jesu Christi contra Thomam
Paine ejusque libelli de vera et fictitia religione Germanicum interpretem
(Nuremberg, 1798).
57
Nathalie Caron, Thomas Paine contre l’imposture des prêtres, 272-81, 323-28.
Her full list (522-30) includes 69 replies published in the British Isles—with about 50
in England alone—as against 41 published in the United States.)
16 The Transatlantic Republican
58
Paine was still in France when the Bishop of Llandaff’s reply appeared. He
immediately began to write a rebuttal, which he intended to publish, once back in the
United States, as Part 3 of The Age of Reason. But no American publisher wanted to
take the risk, and Paine’s rebuttal was not published until after his death. The text may
be found in FO 2: 764-788.
59
Theodore Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris (New York, 1888), 289.
60
Washington C. Ford, ed., “Letters of William Duane, 1800-1834,” Proceedings
of the Massachusetts Historical Society 20 (1906-07), 279.
61
FO 1: 523.
The Bastille of Words 17
62
Letter of Gouverneur Morris to Thomas Jefferson, 21 Jan. 1794, quoted in
Moncure Daniel Conway, The Life of Thomas Paine (Folcroft Library Edition, 1974),
202.
This page intentionally left blank
PART I
1
See Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), in particular Chapter 1, “The
Literature of Revolution”; Maurice W. Cranston, Philosophers and Pamphleteers:
Political Theorists of the Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986);
Howard Zinn, Artists in Times of War (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003),
particularly Chapter 4, “Pamphleteering In America.” Some 400 political pamphlets
were published in the thirteen colonies between 1750 and 1776.
2
The King’s Speech to Parliament, 26 October 1775, was published in
Philadelphia on January 10, 1776. It acknowledged the fact that “the rebellious War
now levied is become more general, and is manifestly carried on for the Purpose of
establishing an independent Empire,” and it solemnly aimed at putting “ a speedy End
to these Disorders by the most decisive Exertions.”
3
The Prohibitory Act of 22 December 1775 forbade “all manner of trade and
commerce” between England and the rebellious colonies and declared a blockade of
the American coast.
22 The Transatlantic Republican
had been drafted in a few short weeks, published with no or very little
publicity; and yet—and this was the first paradox—during the course
of the next few weeks or months 120,000 copies or so were sold in
America alone, sparking off impassioned debates among people
everywhere. From the outset, the chronology, the moment, and the
circumstances were clearly the main ingredients of a work in which
the action of time was transmuted by some instantaneous alchemy into
action upon time. It is impossible to talk about time in Common Sense
without instantly mentioning the impact that Common Sense had on
time itself.
Thomas Paine’s life was unique—and that is the second
paradox—in that it began with the crossing of an endless wilderness.
Paine disembarked at Philadelphia on November 30, 1774. The man
had spent the first thirty-eight years of his existence in Britain, making
corsets or occupying some obscure post as an Excise officer. And here
we find him, only two years later, covered in glory, with Common
Sense the biggest publishing success of the eighteenth century, and
himself one of the leading lights of the American Revolution! Such a
destiny, such a turnabout of fate, such a “revolution” in this up-to-then
perfectly humdrum existence could not but give Paine a peculiar sense
of the nature of time and endow Common Sense with an uncommon
subversive power amid the surrounding slowness and gravity of
things. If time could so radically and swiftly change the life of one
man, what could the vagaries and turnabouts of fate not do to the life
of a nation?
This brings us to the third paradox. Between 1776 and 1783
Paine published in the wake of Common Sense sixteen articles or
essays, under the heading The American Crisis. Signed “Common
Sense,” these texts, read and acclaimed just as much as the original
pamphlet, have the same single objective: to keep time from resuming
its former heaviness; to ensure that the revolutionary enthusiasm and
fervor continue, come what may, to strip away the cloak of history; to
force inexorable time inexorably to change its course, its logic, its
nature. Herein lies the fundamental paradox: to turn freedom into
destiny, a fleeting moment into history, the present into
transcendence; to catch time in the trap of time; to reconcile “kaïros”
and Kronos, and be ready to depose Kronos, as Zeus, his own son,
once did.
Time and space: both are to be found at the heart of Common
Sense, shoulder to shoulder in the same cause, bent on achieving the
The Strategy of Time 23
same object, and with geography, when need be, speeding to the aid of
history. In Crisis II (13 January 1777), when the American troops
were in a critical situation and when time seemed once more to be in
the Crown’s favor, Paine, addressing his words to Admiral Richard
Howe, brother of the commander-in-chief of the British forces,
developed along these lines a spatial strategy based on a war of
attrition, and the Fabian tactics dear to Washington, in which space
turns out to be a mere auxiliary, or even a particular form or modality,
of time:
Your advantages turn out to your loss, and show us that it is in our power to
ruin you by gifts: like a game of drafts, we can move out of one square to let
you come in, in order that we may afterwards take two or three for one; and as
we can always keep a double corner for ourselves, we can always prevent a
total defeat. You cannot be so insensible as not to see that we have two to one
the advantage of you, because we conquer by a drawn game, and you lose by
it . . . Were you to garrison the places you might march over, in order to
secure their subjection . . . , your army would be like a stream of water
running to nothing. By the time you extended from New York to Virginia, you
would be reduced to a string of drops not capable of hanging together; while
we, by retreating from state to state, like a river turning back upon itself,
would acquire strength in the same proportion as you lose it, and in the end be
capable of overwhelming you.4
“Like a river turning back upon itself”: this fluid strategy of
space is also, in a way, the strategy of time brought into play by
Common Sense—with this not inconsiderable difference, however,
that time is more complex than space, that it can be interpreted in
many different ways, that Paine plays on the diverseness of the
concept and bases his strategy precisely on its fundamental polysemy.
We shall attempt, therefore, to unravel the skein, to see what
subterfuges went hand in hand with such an unwonted use of time,
and to understand how Paine managed, once Kronos had been
deposed, or at least shaken to the very core, to ensure that a dark and
unbending past actually gave way to what he was later to call “the
morning of Reason.”5
4
FO 1: 67, 68.
5
Rights of Man, ed. Henry Collins (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1982), 230
(afterwards referred to as RM).
24 The Transatlantic Republican
6
Common Sense, ed. Isaac Kramnick (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1982),
87 (afterwards referred to as CS).
The Strategy of Time 25
custom and tradition on their own ground. Moreover, Paine was well
aware that his readers knew the Bible inside out, that none of them
had forgotten England’s recent past, and that the ideas of Locke on the
origin of political power were familiar to a good many of them. It is
not surprising, then, that he made rhetorical use of all these pieces of
history which, whether real or imaginary, militated so forcibly in favor
of both independence and the republic.
But, deep down, the validity of the past is well and truly rejected.
The dead, Common Sense contends, have no legitimate claim to
govern the living; the present belongs to itself, and forfeits its nature if
it consents to be no more than a mechanical and morbid extension of
centuries past. In Rights of Man (1791-92) things will be made even
clearer. Attacking Edmund Burke and his mystical cult of tradition,
Paine will describe the past as being a grave (“the tomb of time” [RM,
190]), a dark night (“the obscure field of antiquity” [RM, 207]), a
sepulchre, and a form of tyranny. Whoever establishes a regime and
wishes to justify its continuation from one generation to another by
calling on the authority of tradition makes of time both a despot and a
usurper. Not only does he bequeath to those who come after a polity
which is not of their own choosing, but, in addition, he forces them to
live under an hereditary form of government which, by definition, the
founder himself was not subject to. This is the height of the perversion
of time. Hence the necessity for any man capable of reason not to
allow himself to be walled up within the “sepulchre of precedents,”
where the upholders of tradition, those “ghosts of departed wisdom”
(RM, 218, 219), would like to keep him forever. Precedent is not law.
There is no such thing as an authority of the past. Time is a monarch
or a tyrant only for those who regard it as sacred.
Paine’s attachment to the present as the pulse of history, as the
historic time of the living, does not prevent him from making
incursions—rhetorical or polemical—into the future: a time to come,
upon which he simply projects the various potentialities of the present,
foreseeing the worst for America if the loyalists get the upper hand (a
king motivated by a desire for revenge [CS, 92-93], seizure of power
by some foreign adventurer [CS, 98], internecine war between the
colonies [CS, 95]); or, on the other hand, describing an America at last
independent, “now descending to the scenes of quiet and domestic life
. . . to enjoy in her own land and under her own vine the sweet of her
26 The Transatlantic Republican
labors and the reward of her toil.”7 Here looms a new contradiction: if
the past does not command the present, the present, as Paine sees it,
certainly has command over the future. Thus, the right he denies his
forebears he accords to himself, and along with himself, to a whole
generation: in his eyes, proclaiming independence and setting up a
republic are irrevocable acts: “’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or
an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more
or less affected even to the end of time by the proceedings now” (CS,
82).
In Rights of Man, Paine will get out of this contradiction most
elegantly by proposing a type of constitution not fixed or frozen
forever, but subject at will to revision by future generations.
Nonetheless, the present so vaunted and proclaimed in Common Sense
is more than just the present; it is affected by temporal transcendence
(“The cause of America is in a large measure the cause of all
mankind” [CS, 63]) and it quite clearly carries with it something of a
prophetic or even messianic nature: “We have it in our power to begin
the world over again. A similar situation to the present has not
happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new
world is at hand” (CS, 120). Utterly cut off from the past, America
finds herself, as it were, outside of time, somewhere before or after
history, and there is consequently no gap between the present and
what naturally extends and perpetuates it. Rights of Man will go
further than Common Sense in this respect. There, in addition to the
wiping out of the past, Paine will refer to the utter newness of
America, and to the pioneer virginity of a continent set, so to speak, in
times prior to time: “The case and circumstances of America present
themselves as in the beginning of a world . . . We are brought at once
to the point of seeing government begin, as if we had lived in the
beginning of time. The real volume, not of history, but of facts, is
directly before us, unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of
tradition” (RM, 207). With the past consigned to the shadows, time
relieved of its weightiness, the immediate terrain cleared of all
obstacles (save the British occupying forces), and with the future like
a new book to be written in the present, America is seen, in these ideal
circumstances, as a nation free to choose its own destiny with a lack of
constraint previously unknown to man in any age or place. Such is, in
7
FO 1: 231 (Crisis XIII).
The Strategy of Time 27
its naïve form and force, the adamic message conveyed by Common
Sense. Just like Jefferson, Thomas Paine acknowledged the legitimate
right of each generation, and in particular his own, to reconstruct the
world and reset the clock of the universe to zero. Time must indeed be
magnanimous, since history—American history at any rate—was in
great measure to prove them right: independence was achieved and the
republic was established.
2. An Ambiguous Concept
sooner or later illuminates human reason, and from that moment when
man half glimpses a possible advance toward freedom, no power in
the world can reverse the order of time, which has suddenly become
the order of his conscience. “When once any object has been seen,”
Paine was to write in Rights of Man, “it is impossible to put the mind
back to the same condition it was in before it saw it . . . it has never
been discovered, how to make man unknow his knowledge, or unthink
his thoughts” (RM, 140, 141). Doubters must therefore remain silent,
or convert. American independence and the establishment of the
republic belong to the realm of inevitability.
But the doubters could not, any more than the patriots or Paine
himself, be satisfied with such an implacable necessity. To place one’s
trust in the force of circumstances, or in the perpetuity of the Crown,
did not exempt anyone from believing in God and in His capacity to
intervene in the affairs of the world. Alongside the time of necessity
there appears, then, in Common Sense, another category of time: that
of the Almighty, or of Providence, or of Grace. Paine is convinced,
and openly admits, “that God governs the world.”8 Comparing various
great human events, he asks himself whether the American Revolution
“may be called one.”9
Occasionally, providential time may of course be the accomplice
of Kronos: Why was the Reformation preceded by the discovery of
America if not, in fact, because “the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years”? (CS, 87). But it is
also possible for God to intervene against the tide of events, as if to
deflect the arrow of time. Thus, for instance, does He induce fiendish
General Howe to commit certain strategic errors (in particular in
November 1776 during the retreat of the American troops from New
Jersey to Pennsylvania); one must assume, Paine then observes, that
the agents of Hell “are under some providential control.”10 Whether
divine intervention simply accompanies the mechanical course of
events, or imperiously forces the hand of destiny by reversing the
most desperate situations, it is indeed God, and His grace, who finally
rules over the work—here, the revolutionary work—of time.
8
FO 1: 54 (Crisis I).
9
Ibid., 232 (Crisis XIII).
10
Ibid., 52 (Crisis I).
The Strategy of Time 29
11
Ibid., 55.
30 The Transatlantic Republican
I have never met with a man, either in England or in America, who has not
confessed his opinion that a separation between the countries would take place
one time or other . . . As all men allow the measure, let us, in order to remove
mistakes, take a general survey of things and endeavour, if possible, to find
out the very time. But we need not go far; the inquiry ceases at once, for the
time has found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things
prove the fact. (CS, 100)
One idea obsesses Thomas Paine from the first to the last page of
Common Sense—namely, that alongside this multiplicity of times
which govern the world, there exists an historical tempo, a rhythm to
events, now slow, now spasmodic; an alternation of quiet and hectic
phases; miraculous conjunctions, unforeseen and undreamed of
encounters; historical marriages where opposites are joined in
wedlock, finally producing “the general concurrence, the glorious
union of all things.” These fragile parentheses in which the various
forms of time suddenly fuse and become one Paine calls “the very
time” or “the present opportunity”(CS, 108) or again “seasonable
juncture[s]” (CS, 113). When the times of Necessity, Providence and
Man coincide in this manner, when they unexpectedly combine, and
dispel their irreducible contradictions for a while, then history
becomes moment, momentum, movement, mutation. No longer a
trinity, the various times, working now as one, can carry out their
common task.
But in what ways was America favored, during the period 1775-
76, by the particular circumstances then prevailing? Politically, says
Paine, in the following way (the prophetic character of which is quite
astonishing):
It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the continent into one
government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by
an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be
The Strategy of Time 31
against colony . . . Wherefore the present time is the true time for establishing
it. (CS, 108)
And militarily thus:
At the conclusion of the last war [1763], we had experience but wanted
numbers, and forty or fifty years hence we shall have numbers without
experience; wherefore the proper point of time must be some particular point
between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains and a
proper increase of the latter is obtained. And that point of time is the present
time. (CS, 116)
Paine did not believe in the cyclical theories of history. He was
convinced that history never passes the same way twice and that
America’s situation was of the kind “which never happens to a nation
but once” (CS, 108). Out of this conviction was to be born his
strategy—a strategy based on historical opportunism, and that can be
summed up as follows: making the most of coincidence; being able, at
the right moment, to synchronize one’s own efforts with the action of
circumstances or of Heaven; uniting one’s free will with Necessity
and Grace; bringing to earth at the self-same spot the three arrows of
time. At such little cost (with its echo of Taoist wisdom) nations are
founded, republics set up, new historical eras ushered in.
This way of thinking which, with the benefit of hindsight, seems
self-evident, was at the time far from being a matter of course. It
necessitated, in those days of confusion and painful soul-searching, a
lucidity and audacity quite out of the ordinary. But, more than that, it
implied, and heralded too, an unprecedented vision of ‘man in the
world.’ For the independence advocated by Paine was not simply a
break with Britain; it was also, at least in part, a means of severing the
links with a history hitherto subject to forces and powers external to
man himself. Simultaneously, the wished-for setting-up of an
American Republic meant not simply a rejection of the divine right of
monarchs, or of the sacred person of the king; it was also, at least in
part, a way of denying the divinization or fetishization of history, and
of establishing man as an actor, or co-actor, in his own history. This
incipient revolution, which the time of men was soon to complete, is
what Paine later called, as previously stated, “the morning of Reason.”
*
To conclude will be an easy task. How can we account for the fact that
a 50-page pamphlet by an unknown writer, published if not at the
32 The Transatlantic Republican
else but what John Adams was soon to call “Independence like a
torrent.”12
The fascination that Common Sense held for its readers was that
of a piece of writing in direct contact with time, and which, to some
extent, was able to master it—a superhuman achievement for the work
of a mortal man, an achievement which probably ensured its perpetual
glory. It might also be said that the fact that the author was totally
unknown, and that the pamphlet was originally published
anonymously, added to the mysterious and magical force surrounding
it. These strange circumstances no doubt induced many of Paine’s
contemporaries to regard Common Sense as one of those disturbing
texts which from time to time history has the knack of producing—a
Word falling from nowhere, to bring meaning and sense to a world of
chaos.
12
John Adams, letter to James Warren, 20 May 1776, Warren-Adams Letters,
Being Chiefly a Correspondence Among John Adams, Samuel Adams and James
Warren (New York: AMS Press, 1979 [1925]), 1: 249.
This page intentionally left blank
II
1
On Franklin as Freemason, see Ronald E. Heaton, Masonic Membership of the
Founding Fathers (Silver Spring, MA.: Masonic Service Association, 1974), 18-19.
2
Bernard Faÿ, Revolution and Freemasonry, 1680-1800 (Boston: Little, 1935); La
franc-maçonnerie et la révolution intellectuelle du XVIIIesiècle (Paris: Cluny, 1935),
156.
36 The Transatlantic Republican
not give any factual evidence in support of his assertion. The only
thing we know for sure is that on September 30, 1774, on the very eve
of his departure from London, Paine was given by Franklin a letter of
recommendation addressed to his son-in-law, Richard Bache, himself
a Mason3 and a wealthy businessman in Philadelphia. It was Bache
who guided Paine’s first steps in that city, where he was to live until
1787, and where he met, among many other colonial Masons, John
Witherspoon, Frederick Mulhenberg, Benjamin Rush, David
Rittenhouse, William and Thomas Bradford—and, some time later,
Henry Laurens, the Lee brothers, General Roberdeau, Robert Morris,
Nathanael Greene, Joel Barlow, Thomas Jefferson (whose
membership is not proven), and of course George Washington.4 And
who were to become his friends in revolutionary France? Danton,
Condorcet, Lafayette, Sieyès, Brissot, La Rochefoucauld, Duchâtelet,
all Masons. And where did he stay after his release from prison in
Paris? First with Nicolas de Bonneville and then with James Monroe,
both of them well known as Freemasons.
Paine’s interest in Freemasonry was such that toward the end of
his life, in 1805, he wrote a lengthy piece entitled An Essay on the
Origin of Freemasonry,5 in which he traces back the birth of Masonry
to the ancient rituals of druidism. (This essay was published only after
his death.)
But this does not prove, any more than any other detail or fact
that we know of, that Paine was a Mason. There is indeed no formal
trace of his initiation or membership in England, none in America, and
none in France. Questioned about Paine’s membership—questioned
because non-Masonic scholars cannot have direct access to English
Masonic archives—the United Grand Lodge of England had only this
to answer: “In the absence of any record of his initiation it must,
therefore, be assumed that he was not a member of the order.”6
Whether or not he was initiated, it is most unlikely that Paine ever
3
Mentioned as a member of Lodge No. 2 in Norris Stanley Barrett & Julius
Sachse, Freemasonry in Pennsylvania, 1727-1907, as shown in the records of Lodge
No. 2 (Philadelphia, 1908-1919), 2: 438.
4
Evidence of their membership is to be found either in Heaton or Barrett, or in
documents issued by the Library of the Supreme Council, 33° (Washington, D.C.).
5
New York, 1810.
6
Audrey Williamson, Thomas Paine: His Life, Work and Times (New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1973), 237.
The Masonic Order 37
7
Alain Le Bihan, Francs-maçons parisiens du Grand Orient de France (fin du
XVIIIe siècle) (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1966); Loges et chapitres du Grand
Orient et de la Grande Loge (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1967).
8
Dr. Robinet, Danton émigré (Paris, 1887), 8.
9
Frank Alengry, Condorcet, guide de la Révolution française (Paris, 1904), 19.
10
J.-P. Brissot de Warville, Mémoires relatifs à la Révolution française (Paris,
1830), 1: 218. “Mon ami Bonneville et Thomas Payne . . . qui se piquent de posséder
tous les secrets de l’Ordre.”
11
The quote from Guillotin’s diary is to be found in a “special file on Thomas
Paine” at the Library of the Supreme Council, 33° (Washington, D.C.). In spite of
intense research, I have been unable to find the original document.
38 The Transatlantic Republican
12
R. Le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande
(Paris, 1915), 654.
The Masonic Order 39
rationalist. Therefore it was into ideas rather than into rituals that
Franklin initiated his protégé, inasmuch as he initiated him into
anything. Paine’s psychology is here more convincing than material
evidence. A rugged individualist, Paine neither liked collective
ceremonies nor secret practices; he dreamed, instead, of an open form
of democracy, of a see-through republic with a public life as
transparent as a palace of glass. Both his nature and the lessons of
experience made him loathe the idea of regimentation. He never was a
declared member of any party or sect or church, and it is highly
probable that he never joined the Masonic Order. “My own mind is
my own church”: no words could describe better than this key
sentence of The Age of Reason a man who could at best become a
‘fellow-traveler,’ as we say today, but whose real vocation was to
espouse causes, not structures.
Why then bother, some might rightfully ask, about Paine’s
relationship with an organization to which in all probability he never
belonged? Well, just as penicillin was serendipitously invented by a
scientist who was in fact looking for something else, so studying Paine
in that context, i.e. against the background of Masonic organization
and militancy, inevitably led me to widen the scope of my research—
and of my inconclusive findings—to the role of Freemasonry in the
American revolution at large. The paradox is that, although I did not
find much about Paine in terms of positive data, I discovered quite a
number of interesting things about the larger issue that had hitherto
been unjustly neglected. Let me then lift here at least one tiny corner
of the veil.
13
In the Harvard Guide to American History (1974 edition), not a single page, not
even a single entry deals with early Freemasonry. A Guide to the Study of the United
States of America (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1960; suppl. 1976) has
one entry on Freemasonry out of a total of 9,430. In Ronald M. Gephart’s more recent
bibliography of the Revolution (Revolutionary America, 1763-1789. A Bibliography,
2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1984)), Freemasonry is allotted 1/4
page out of 1,671, and 6 entries out of a total of 14,810. As regards standard historians
40 The Transatlantic Republican
contrary been prone to overrate their real impact. This neglect on the
part of traditional historians may be ascribed to either skepticism,
academic routine, or to some legitimate distrust of occult activities;
but an important reason for their wariness probably lies in the fact that
in such a field secondary as well as primary sources must be handled
with particular care. Consider, for instance, the Declaration of
Independence and its 56 signers: how many of them have been
identified as Masons? The answer varies considerably from one
enumerator to another. William Grimshaw gives a list of 51 Masonic
signers, as only against 8 in Henry Coil’s Encyclopedia. William
Boyden suggests 29; Ronald Heaton 9; Philip Roth 20; and the George
Washington Masonic National Memorial Library 30.14 Which of these
are we to believe? And how can such differences be accounted for?
The main problem lies in fact with primary sources, whose
unreliability has been, and still is, a frequent cause of error. The early
lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges were careless about the keeping
of records and minutes. Early Masonic records were not always well-
written or, if written at all, were not always carefully preserved. In
Colonial days many lodges functioned for a short time only, leaving
no trace whatsoever of their transient existence. And during the War
of Independence there were many so-called “Army Lodges,” which
conferred degrees, but kept no records or destroyed them for lack of a
safe and permanent place to store them in. Over the years a fair
amount of Masonic records were destroyed as a result of warfare, or
were lost by fire,15 or discarded by heedless holders through ignorance
of their value, or disposed of to prevent disclosure. Also, in the
of the United States or of the American Revolution, they rarely make more than
casual allusions to the Masonic Order—a few scattered lines for the sake of local
color. A few recent publications have tried to throw some light on this neglected
dimension of early American history: Neil L. York, “Freemasons and the American
Revolution,” The Historian 55 (1993): 315-30; Allen E. Roberts, Freemasonry in
American History (Richmond: Macoy, 1985); Stephen C. Bullock, “The
Revolutionary Transformation of American Freemasonry, 1752-1792,” William and
Mary Quarterly 37 (1990): 347-69.
14
These authors are listed in the bibliography.
15
A good instance of this was the burning of the Masonic Hall in Philadelphia
(standing on the north side of Chestnut Street) on March 8, 1818. Although part of the
records of the Provincial Grand Lodge were destroyed, many of the old papers were
saved, and taken to the house of the Grand Secretary, George A. Baker, Jr.
The Masonic Order 41
16
“The basic system of Masonry, the ‘Blue Lodge,’ contained three degrees of
membership: a new member was ‘initiated’ to become an entered Apprentice,
‘passed’ to become Fellow Craftsman, and ‘raised’ to the Master’s degree” (Dorothy
Ann Lipson, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, 1789-1835 [Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1977]).
17
William R. Denslow, 10,000 Famous Freemasons, 4 vols. (Richmond: Macoy,
1957-1961).
18
Mercer’s letter to Madison has recently been published as part of Volume XV of
The Papers of James Madison (University of Virginia, 1985).
42 The Transatlantic Republican
his wife, Dolley Payne Todd; and that the initiation into Masonry to
which Mercer referred was nothing but an initiation into the bonds and
mysteries of married life. Although an obvious source of error, this
Masonic metaphor is nevertheless interesting and significant in that it
shows how important Freemasonry was in the mental world of
eighteenth-century Americans. The final scales about Madison fell
from my eyes when I discovered that in 1832 he himself had denied
the rumors which were then being spread about his membership: “I
never was a Mason,” he wrote to Stephen Bates,19 thus refuting
allegations which then, the anti-Masonic crusade being in full swing,
might have hurt his political reputation.
*
Prior to the Revolutionary period, Freemasonry existed in the
Colonies only in an embryonic form. One of the earliest American
Masonic manuscripts dates back to 167720; but it was only around
1730 that Freemasonry actually became established in British
America. In 1734 Benjamin Franklin printed Anderson’s Constitutions
originally published in London in 1723: James Anderson was the
Grand Master of the First Grand Lodge of England, a central Masonic
organization which had resulted from the unification, in 1717, of the
“Four Old Lodges” then operating in the London area. Under that First
Grand Lodge, also known as the Premier Grand Lodge of the World,
began an era of Masonic expansion within the British Empire and
beyond. Patronized by royalty, the Craft (i.e. the Masonic Fraternity)
spread rapidly throughout Great Britain and the American Colonies. In
imitation of their English brethren, the Masons of Ireland and
Scotland founded, in 1725 and 1736 respectively, Grand Lodges of
their own.
The First Grand Lodge of England developed a pronounced
aristocratic and elitist tendency, recruiting most of its members among
gentlemen of culture and substance, selecting its grand officers from a
limited privileged class, and denying admission to Irish workers
19
On Madison’s letter to Stephen Bates, and on the debatable date of the letter, see
Ronald E. Heaton, Masonic Membership of the Founding Fathers (Silver Spring, Md.:
Masonic Service Association, 1974), 141-43.
20
“Carlson ms.” in Massachusetts. Mentioned in Hugo Tatsch, Freemasonry in the
Thirteen Colonies (New York: Macoy, 1929), 20.
The Masonic Order 43
residing in London. The official reason was that they were affiliated
with the Grand Lodge of Ireland, but the real motive was that socially
they did not belong in the same league. Under the leadership of
Lawrence Dermott, who soon allied himself with the Grand Lodge of
Scotland, these rejected Masons formed their own lodges, declaring
themselves to be “Antient Masons,” i.e. faithful to the old tradition of
Operative Lodges, while the Grand Lodge of England was
opprobriously called “Modern,” because of its new selective approach
to fraternity.
This breach had far-reaching consequences in the history of the
American Colonies.21 Because they recruited from every walk of life,
the lodges of “Antients” were more democratic in substance and
tended to attract budding republicans, whereas most conservative-
minded colonists would naturally join “Modern” lodges, openly
patronized by provincial governors and leading notables.22
Hierarchically, the Moderns were utterly dependent on England
(through Provincial Grand Masters), while the Antients were
connected with the Grand Lodges of either Ireland or Scotland, whose
statutes were much less constraining and more respectful of local
autonomy—a circumstance which probably favored, among the
Colonial “Antients,” the development of a more independent turn of
mind. Such was the case in Boston for instance, with St John’s Lodge
(Moderns) founded by Henry Price in 1733, and St Andrew’s Lodge
(Antients) organized at the Green Dragon Tavern in 1752, a lodge
chiefly composed of merchants, seafaring men, artisans and
mechanics. The Green Dragon Tavern, which was also the meeting
place of the Sons of Liberty and of the North End Caucus (“a band of
stalwart, daring and fearless mechanics”)23 was described as “a nest of
21
For a detailed description of the schism between Antients and Moderns, see
Sidney Morse, Freemasonry in the American revolution, Volume III of The Little
Masonic Library (Kingsport, Tenn.: Southern Publishers, Inc., 1946), 226-30.
22
S. Morse, Freemasonry in the American revolution, 243.
23
Ibid., 252. St Andrew’s Lodge purchased the Green Dragon Tavern in 1764 and
changed its name to “Freemason’s Hall,” by which name it was known until 1818
when the lodge moved to the Exchange Coffee House. On the whole, the social
picture of Freemasonry during the Revolution was, it seems, more complex than the
one described by Henry Wilson Coil: “It is probable that most Freemasons in the
Colonies were for the Revolution, not because they were Freemasons, but rather
because they were of the less wealthy class. Many of the prominent Freemasons were
well off and were Tories” (Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia [New York, 1961], 525).
44 The Transatlantic Republican
*
Here then are some figures and a selection of events, some well-
known, some less known, but the bulk of which is fairly impressive:
24
S. Morse, 242.
25
See Lipson, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, 51n.15a.
The Masonic Order 45
26
Herman Nickerson, “Masonic Lodges in the American Revolutionary Period,”
The New Age (August 1975): 9; and Marie-Cécile Révauger, “La franc-maçonnerie
dans la Révolution américaine: rites et idéologie,” in Idéologies dans le monde anglo-
saxon, ed. Pierre Morere (Grenoble: Centre de Recherches d’Etudes Anglophones,
1985), 220.
27
Most of the above figures and data are in S. Morse, 228, 229, 241, 258, 269,
271, 285, 288, 298, 301, 309. They can be nothing but an approximation, especially as
membership in several lodges was a current practice at the time.
28
S. Morse, 288.
29
E. G. Storer, The Records of Freemasonry in Connecticut (New Haven, 1859),
15-16.
30
S. Morse, 250. On James Otis as a Mason, see Philip A. Roth, Masonry in the
Formation of Our Government, 1761-1799 (Milwaukee, WI.: Masonic Service
Bureau, 1927), 16-18.
31
S. Morse, 250.
46 The Transatlantic Republican
32
Lodge of St Andrew Bicentennial Memorial, 1756-1956 (Boston: A Publication
of the Lodge, 1963), 21-23; and Proceedings in Masonry: St John’s Grand Lodge,
1733-1792 (Boston: Grand Lodge of Mass., 1895).
33
Hugo Tatsch, “Freemasons and the Boston Tea Party,” The Empire State Mason
(December 1973): 7.
34
George Washington was made a Mason at Fredericksburg, Va., in 1752; he was
Charter Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 39 when he acceded to the U.S. Presidency
in 1789; on September 18, 1793, he laid the cornerstone (a Masonic rite) of the
National Capitol in Washington; on May 13, 1783, at the very end of the War, he had
been elected first president of the Order of Cincinnati, a veteran officers’ association
based on the social principles of Freemasonry. Benjamin Franklin was a Past Grand
Master of Pennsylvania (elected 1734); he was appointed Provincial Grand Master in
1749 and, according to tradition, laid the cornerstone of Independence Hall in 1734.
Joseph Warren was Provincial Grand Master of Massachusetts and Master of St
Andrew’s Lodge whose Junior Warden was Paul Revere, afterwards Grand Master of
the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. (After the death of Warren, whose body had been
mangled by the British victors of Bunker Hill, it was Revere who identified the body
The Masonic Order 47
by a tooth which he himself had recently filled with gold). Peyton Randolph was
Provincial Grand Master of Virginia and the highest Masonic officer present at
Carpenter’s Hall when the delegates to the first Continental Congress elected him to
the chair.
35
For documented membership of these names, see Heaton, Masonic Membership
of the Founding Fathers. Robert R. Livingston, whom Heaton does not mention,
ended up his Masonic career as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York.
David Rittenhouse is identified as a Mason in N. S. Barrett & J. F. Sachse,
Freemasonry in Pennsylvania, 1727-1907, as shown in the Records of Lodge No. 2
(Philadelphia, 1908-1919), 2: 85.
36
Heaton identifies 33 generals of the Continental Army as indisputable Masons,
and about 40 as “possible.”
37
Masonic membership of French officers in America is to be found in Gilbert
Bodinier, Dictionnaire des officiers de I’armée royale qui ont combattu aux États-
Unis pendant la Guerre d’Indépendance (Vincennes: Services historiques de I’Armée
de Terre, 1982). As regards Hamilton and Burr, they are described by Sidney Morse
on the outbreak of hostilities as “two young New Yorkers, both of whom later became
Freemasons” (S. Morse, 275).
48 The Transatlantic Republican
*
Dorothy Ann Lipson’s Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut offers
an accurate analysis of the many reasons why enlightened Americans
were at the time so attracted to the Craft. Masonry, she argues, tended
to reconcile the growing diversity of religions with the emergence of
universal values based on Reason and Science; and it did so by
providing a “pseudo-religion” or “surrogate religion,” a kind of
secularized Deism, with rituals, myths, symbols, esoteric knowledge,
and initiation as a substitute for baptism. For members of a growing
empire (whether British or American), the humanistic idea of a
“global fraternity” or “secular catholicity,” i.e. the idea of Masonry
turning men into citizens of the world, was also a relevant concept. So
too was, for the then rising classes largely represented in the
38
See S. Morse, 276, 280, 288, 289, and Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, 525.
39
On the “influence of fraternal feelings . . . even amidst the passions of war,” see
S. Morse, 289.
The Masonic Order 49
40
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Pelican Classics,
1981), 150.
41
Lipson, 37-41, 74, 120-121, 260, 263.
42
On this particular point, see Marie-Cécile Révauger, “La franc-maçonnerie”,
237-38.
50 The Transatlantic Republican
43
Augustin Cochin, Les sociétés de pensée et la démocratie (Paris, 1921).
44
R. R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1964), 2: 53.
45
Ibid., 1: 245.
46
Révauger, “La franc-maçonnerie”, 238.
47
Both Burke and Wilkes were members of Jerusalem Lodge No. 44 in London.
Tradition has it that Wilkes was initiated into Masonry by Burke himself. See
Révauger, “Franc-maçonnerie”, 235. On Pitt, earl of Chatham, see Roth, Masonry in
the Formation of Our Government, 24.
The Masonic Order 51
Throne and the Altar” was originally put forward by Barruel in France
and John Robison in Britain.48 Robison’s ideas were peddled in
America by leading figures of the New England Congregationalist
establishment like Jedidiah Morse, minister at Charlestown, David
Tappan, professor of divinity at Harvard, and Timothy Dwight,
president of Yale.49 Not only were Masons accused of subverting
social order and religion, but it was also proclaimed that they were
manipulated by infiltrated agents, and that their own conspiracy was
in fact secretly engineered by the international Order of the Bavarian
Illuminati.50
That Order was founded in 1776 at Ingolstadt by an enlightened
and ambitious eccentric called Adam Weishaupt. Weishaupt had first
been tempted by Masonry, but he had found the initiation fee too high
and the level of secrecy too low. His sect was originally designed as a
means of combating Jesuit influence in academe, but he soon turned it
into an organization aimed at promoting his own utopian dreams of
social regeneration. The most convenient way of achieving this was to
penetrate secretly the Masonic Craft which he had failed to join: “The
Illuminati,” J. M. Roberts writes, “were the first society to use for
political subversion the machinery of secret Organization offered by
freemasonry.” The result, he concludes, was that “the grip of the new
order on Masonic lodges grew steadily.”51 Barruel puts the blame on
48
Abbé Barruel, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du jacobinisme, 4 vols.
(London, 1797-1798); John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions
and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons,
Illuminati, and Reading Societies (Edinburgh, 1797; New York, 1798).
49
Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Delivered at the North Church . . . May 9th, 1798
(Boston, 1798); David Tappan, A Discourse delivered in the Chapel of Harvard
College, June 17, 1798 (Boston, 1798); Timothy Dwight, The Duty of Americans, at
the Present Crisis (New Haven, 1798) and The Nature and Danger of Infidel
Philosophy (New Haven, 1798). On their anti-Masonic activity, see Vernon Stauffer,
New England and the Bavarian Illuminati (New York: The Columbia University
Press, 1918), especially Chapter 4: “The Illuminati Agitation in New England”; see
also Ruth Bloch, Visionary Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985),
140, 204.
50
On the Bavarian Illuminati, see R. Le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière (Paris,
1914); J. M. Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret Societies (New York: Scribner,
1972). As regards the influence of the sect in America, see Vernon Stauffer, New
England and the Bavarian Illuminati.
51
Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret Societies, 124. Barruel describes that grip
as follows: “Under the name of Illuminés, a band of Conspirators had coalesced with
the Encyclopedists and Masons, far more dangerous in their tenets, more artful in their
52 The Transatlantic Republican
the French minister to the United States, Adet, for the introduction of
the Order into North America; but lyricism is all he has to offer by
way of evidence: “As the plague flies on the wings of the wind, so do
their triumphant legions infect America.”52 In New England the
campaign launched by Morse and his fellow ministers was soon
amplified by the press, with in particular the Massachusetts Mercury
serving as an echo chamber. Thomas Paine was one of Morse’s
favorite targets, his widely-circulated pamphlets being viewed as “part
of the general plan to accomplish universal demoralization.”53
Theodore Dwight, brother to Timothy, aimed even higher: “If I were
to make proselytes to illuminatism in the United States,” he wrote on
Independence Day 1798, “I should in the first place apply to Thomas
Jefferson, Albert Gallatin, and their political associates.”54 These
indirect political attacks sounded like rearguard actions, but at the
same time, with the myth of Masonic conspiracy serving as a pretext,
they actually foreshadowed, and paved the way for, the anti-Masonic
witch-hunt of the early 1830s.
*
Just as the autonomous status of “Antient” lodges favored the
contemplation of Independence among American colonists, so the
ritual functioning of Masonic fraternities, both Antient and Modern,
helped to promote the ideal of a republican and democratic system
throughout the Continent. When one considers Freemasonry during
the Revolutionary period, the difficult thing is to weigh the active,
conscious, militant part it played, against its more seminal role in
favor of independence, human rights, or the republic—a role and an
influence that extended far beyond the bounds of the Craft itself and
which, in spite of its diffuseness, or perhaps thanks to it, was an
important factor in ideological and political transformation. Whether
the political commitment of a Patriot should be ascribed to his being a
plots, and more extensive in their plans of devastation.” Quoted in Stauffer, 223n.
52
Quoted in Stauffer, 226. Pierre-Auguste Adet (1763-1832?) was appointed
Minister to the United States in 1795.
53
J. Morse, 24 (quoted in Stauffer, 234). Thomas Paine is described, together with
Brissot, Lafayette, Mirabeau and others, as a member of the Illuminati in an official
Austrian diplomatic document cited in Le Forestier, 654. As regards Freemasonry,
Paine’s membership has never been established.
54
Theodore Dwight, An Oration spoken at Hartford, in the State of Connecticut,
on the Anniversary of American Independence, July 4th, 1798 (Hartford, 1798), 30.
The Masonic Order 53
Mason or to some other cause can hardly ever be proved. But what
effect it had on an American to “attend lodge” and model his behavior
on its rituals is something that can more easily be grasped and
measured.
In all lodges, whatever their affiliation, an extensive though
orderly and ritualized liberty of expression and discussion was the
rule—much on the model of the British Parliament—together with a
common practice of tolerance and open-mindedness. What American
Masonry actually contributed to the Revolutionary movement was
first and foremost an image of its own functioning, with its local
chapters operating as discreet schools of liberalism, as republics in
miniature, as living laboratories of democratic and egalitarian values,
as the palpable prefiguration of a new era. Belonging to a lodge was in
itself a form of dissent, since the lodge worked, both in vitro and in
vivo, as a social utopia experimented with against a background of
universal tyranny.
As we have already suggested, what most characterized Masonic
lodges was that they generated a new kind of sociability. While
attending lodge, colonial Masons normally divested themselves of
their social differences so as to appear, if only for a limited time, on an
equal footing with their brethren. An artificial form of equality was
thus pitted against the social hierarchies of the outside world, with its
oppressive pattern of age-old subordination. To be a Mason was to
usher in “a world turned upside down” and, as François Furet has
pointed out in his illuminating comments on Cochin, a Masonic lodge
was, as a société de pensée, “characterized, for each of its members,
by nothing else but its relation to ideas, thereby heralding the
functioning of democracy.”55 If Masonry was important in the
American Revolution, it was not as the instrument of a mythical plot,
but because, Furet goes on to say, it embodied more than anything else
“the chemistry of the new power, with the social becoming political,
and opinion turned into action.”56 By and large, Masons tended to
belong to social groups that were not miles apart, so that their abstract
equality within lodges was not too difficult to achieve; but what
mattered politically and ideologically was the ritual itself as the living
sign of a better world for all. And since 1% of all Americans belonged
55
François Furet, Penser la Révolution française (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), 272.
56
Ibid., 291.
54 The Transatlantic Republican
57
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (Pelican Classics, 1969), 165.
58
S. Morse, 221-22.
59
Lipson, 47.
60
Ibid.
The Masonic Order 55
61
See Lipson, 60-61 and S. Morse, 296-97. The accounts they give of the
Morristown attempt at unifying American lodges are somewhat different.
62
Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1976).
63
See S. E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven &
London: Yale University Press, 1972), 366-68. In his Constitutions, James Anderson
expresses the view that Masons are obliged only “in that natural religion in which all
men agree.”
64
Lipson, 124
56 The Transatlantic Republican
65
See Heaton, 18 and 74.
66
The early developments of black Freemasonry are accurately related in Joseph
A. Walkes, Jr., A Prince Hall Masonic Quiz Book (Ames, Iowa Research Lodge No.
2., 1981). See also Cécile Révauger, Noirs et francs-maçons (Paris: EDIMAF, 2004).
67
Thomas J. Harkins, Symbolic Freemasonry Among the Negroes of America: An
Answer to their Claims of Legitimacy and Regularity (Asheville, N.C.: Grand Lodge
of North Carolina, n.d.), 29.
68
Walkes, A Prince Hall Masonic Quiz Book, 108
The Masonic Order 57
*
Had not the impact of Freemasonry on the American Revolution been
real, if only in the back of people’s minds, one would be at a loss to
understand the violent reactions and passions it aroused. The plot
theories brandished by Morse, Tappan and Dwight, the books written,
the sermons delivered, were all misdirected in that there was no
Masonic conspiracy, but they were responding to something whose
reality was unquestioned and is evidenced in many ways. Some thirty
years later, the anti-Masonic hysteria of the late 1820’s, a thorough
account of which would exceed the scope of this study, was not a
reaction to imaginary dangers: as Lynn Dumenil recently recalled, the
idea that Masonry challenged democratic and Christian values was
widely-accepted at the time, and it rested on some real facts: (1) “the
power of Masons to subvert the law for their own benefit” (in the
William Morgan affair)70; (2) their actual or alleged elitism “in an age
69
William Alan Muraskin, Middle-Class Blacks in a White Society: Prince Hall
Masonry in America (Berkeley: University or California Press, 1975), 260
70
The Anti-Masonic party was in fact an American political organization that rose
after the ‘abduction’ and disappearance in New York state in 1826 of William
Morgan. A former Mason, Morgan had written a book purporting to reveal Masonic
secrets. The Masons were said, without proof, to have murdered him, and in reaction
local organizations arose to refuse support to Masons for public office. Anti-Masonry
spread from New York to neighboring states and influenced many local and state
elections. At Baltimore, in 1831, the Anti-Masons held the first national nominating
convention of any party and issued the first written party platform—innovations
followed by the older parties. The vote for their presidential candidate, William Wirt,
58 The Transatlantic Republican
Selected Bibliography
3. State studies:
Barratt, Norris Stanley & Julius F. Sachse. Freemasonry in Pennsylvania, 1727-1907,
as shown in the Records of Lodge No. 2. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1908-1919.
Clark, George B. Genealogy of Masonic Grand Lodges of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Masonic Service Association, 1939.
Haywood, H. L. Well-Springs of American Freemasonry: A Historian Looks at our
Forty-Nine Grand Lodges. Silver Springs, Md.: Masonic Service Association,
1953.
Heaton, Ronald E. & James R. Case, eds. The Lodge at Fredericksburg: A Digest of
the Early Records. Silver Spring, Md.: Masonic Service Association, 1981.
Huss, Wayne A. The Master Builders: A History of the Grand Lodge of Free and
Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania. Vol.I. 1731-1973. Philadelphia: Grand Lodge
F. & A.M. of Pennsylvania, 1986.
Kidd, George Eldridge. Early Masonry in Williamsburg. Richmond: The Dietz Press,
1957.
Lipson, Dorothy Ann. Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, 1789-1835. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1977.
Lang, Ossian. History of Freemasonry in the State of New York. New York, 1922.
Lodge of St. Andrew Bicentennial Memorial, 1756-1956. Boston: Publication of the
Lodge, 1963.
McCalla, Clifford P. Early Newspaper Accounts of Freemasonry in Pennsylvania,
Ireland and Scotland, 1730-1750, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin. Philadelphia, 1886.
Proceedings in Masonry: St. John’s Grand Lodge, 1769-1792. Boston: Grand Lodge
of Massachusetts, 1895.
Proceedings of the Lodge of St. Andrew. Boston: Boston Masonic Library, n.d.
5. Illuminati – Occultism:
Le Forestier, R. Les Illuminés de Bavière. Paris, 1914; new ed. Genève, 1974.
——. L’occultisme et la franc-maçonnerie écossaise. Paris, 1928.
The Masonic Order 63
7 Anti-Masonry:
Cummings, William L. A Bibliography of Antimasonry. New York, 1963.
Davis, David Brion, ed. The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion
from the Revolution to the Present. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971.
Formisano, Ronald P. The Birth of Mass Political Parties, Michigan, 1827-1861.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971 (especially 60-71).
——. The Transformation of Political Culture: Massachusetts Parties, 1790-1840.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Lemaire, Jacques. Les origines françaises de l’antimaçonnisme (1744-1797).
Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1985.
Lipson, Dorothy Ann Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, 1789-1835. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1977 (especially 267-340).
McCarthy, Charles. The Antimasonic Party: A Study of Political Antimasonry in the
United States, 1827-1840. Washington, D.C., 1903.
——. “The Antimasonic Party.” American Historical Association Annual Report for
the Year 1902, I, 1903.
Morgan, William. Light on Masonry, a collection of all the most important documents
on all subjects of speculative Freemasonry, Utica, N.Y., 1829
(this book led to the abduction and disappearance of Morgan and sparked off the
anti-Masonic reaction that followed).
Palmer, John C. Morgan and Antimasonry. Volume 7 de The Little Masonic Library.
Kingsport, Tenn.: Southern Publishers, Inc., 1946.
Vaughn, William Preston. The Antimasonic Party in the United States, 1826-1843.
Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky, 1983.
III
Though not specifically focused on Paine, this chapter may serve to better
understand the political, cultural and cosmopolitan setting in which Paine—
English by birth, French by decree, but American by adoption— moved and
acted in the capital of France during the first (pro-American) phase of the
French Revolution.
1
Albert Mathiez, La Révolution et les étrangers (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre,
66 The Transatlantic Republican
as the “county seat of the globe” and was soon to pronounce that his
“soul [was] sans-culotte” was surrounded as he spoke by a motley
troop of Englishmen, Prussians, Spaniards, Italians, Swiss, Arabs,
Indians and Chaldeans, as well as people from Brabant, Liège and
Avignon. Having won his case, Cloots then took a seat with his
friends on the benches of the Champ-de-Mars “in his capacity as
ambassador of the human race.” The following day he wrote: “The
ministers of tyrants were watching us with jealousy and nervousness
in their eyes.”2
The Americans, the principal (and eventually only) allies of
France were given special consideration under the circumstances;
they, for instance, were allowed to march under their own flag. Both
in reality and in the hearts of the French, they stood out from the rest.
Yvon Bizardel, who studied their presence in Paris during this period,
discovered that over 200 Americans “had resided [in the capital]
between 1789 and 1799.”3 This number did not take into account
tourists or other short-term visitors; it included only Americans who
had left some evidence or trace of their stay, and thus, only persons
whose visits were so remarkable or long enough as to appear in the
printed documents of the time. These citizens of the New World were
not just concentrated in Paris. They were also numerous and active in
the major French ports. Bizardel found, for example, that there had
been over 200 Americans in Bordeaux for the celebrations of the
recapturing of Toulon in December 1793.
Why were there so many Americans in Paris, and who were
they? In 1789, the intelligentsia of what was often called the civilized
world was attracted more than ever to France. Added to the desire to
be in Paris, traditionally the capital of fine taste and minds, was an
enormous sympathy with the new France and an eagerness to see the
“land of liberty” in all its ebullience. Many therefore traveled far, and
despite the obstacle of the ocean, Americans were not to be left
behind. Besides diplomats and special envoys sent by Congress, there
were a number of intellectuals flocking to Paris to see first-hand the
theories of the great “philosophes” and “encyclopedists” being put
into practice, or to witness the initial steps of a revolution which, to
1918), 52.
2
Ibid., 53, 54.
3
Yvon Bizardel, les Américains à Paris pendant la Révolution (Paris: Calmann-
Lévy, 1972), 8.
The Americans in Paris 67
some extent, was the daughter of their own. There were also officers
like John Skey Eustace or Eleazar Oswald, who came with the
intention of offering the Revolution the experience they had acquired
during the War of Independence. In terms of numbers, the artists and
writers (John Trumbull, Patience and Joseph Wright, John Vanderlyn,
Joel Barlow, Philip Mazzei, etc.) vied for first place with the
diplomats and the scientists. The latter group did not hesitate, despite
the cost and difficulty of the journey, to come and present their
inventions before the Academy of Sciences, of which Condorcet, La
Rochefoucauld and many other daring minds were members: Thomas
Paine, for his part, was to submit an original plan for a metal bridge4
and James Rumsey a steam system designed to replace draft horses.5
Americans from well-off families, making the grand tour of Europe,
were all too happy to find themselves by chance in the middle of an
historic event. Paris also welcomed a few eccentric adventurers, such
as William Langborn and John Ledyard: their plan was to cross
Europe on foot, and both intended to reach St Petersburg, one by the
Lapland route, the other by way of Dantzig.6 True enclaves of
Americanism existed within Paris, such as the “House of Boston” or
the “House of Foreigners” on rue Vivienne, or the “Hôtel White”
(soon to be renamed “Hôtel de Philadelphie”) located near the Place
des Victoires. Visitors from across the Atlantic were readily invited to
the tables of numerous wealthy “Americanophiles,” and the American
dinners in Lafayette’s mansion were among the best attended in Paris.
The Masonic lodges gave a warm reception to their foreign “brothers”
(or “brethren”), and Paris even had an “American Lodge” 143
members strong.7 In all these places, ideas and information were
exchanged—not to mention state and “boudoir” secrets in which
English spies, well represented in these anglophone circles, took
special delight.
In the midst of this very diverse American colony, merchants and
4
Bernard Vincent, Thomas Paine ou la religion de la liberté (Paris: Aubier, 1987),
155-172.
5
Bizardel, Les Américains à Paris, 17.
6
Ibid., 18-19.
7
See Alain Le Bihan, Francs-maçons parisiens du Grand Orient de France (fin du
XVIIIe siècle) (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1966); and Francs-maçons et ateliers
parisiens de la Grande Loge de France, 1760-1795 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale,
1973).
68 The Transatlantic Republican
8
For further information on the Scioto affair, see Jean Bouchary, Les compagnies
financières à Paris à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1942); J. J. Belote, The Scioto
Speculation (Cincinnati, 1907); and the warning issued by Franklin to Frenchmen
sorely tempted by the American adventure: Avis à ceux qui voudraient aller en
Amérique (Passy, 1784). Also Jocelyne Moreau-Zanelli, Gallipolis: Histoire d’un
mirage américain au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000).
9
Bizardel, 278-79.
The Americans in Paris 69
10
Ibid., 231-32.
11
Vincent, Thomas Paine, 285-87; Keane, Tom Paine, 400-402.
12
Bizardel, 80.
70 The Transatlantic Republican
consciousness. This being so, one can only wonder about the image of
“the American” as seen by the French, and its relation to tangible
reality; quite obviously, the Parisians of the time had a vision of the
American which had little to do with the examples—or samples—they
had before them. The reality of these Americans was infinitely less
important, it seems, than their mythical representation. Let us look at
this point in some more detail.
Nothing illustrates this French tendency better than the veritable cult
which developed around Franklin.13 When he arrived in Paris in 1776,
he already had a flattering reputation and personified a country which,
in the true sense of the word, was a country of dreams. The French
knew practically nothing of the real English America. The numerous
accounts published in the second half of the 18th century were written
second- or third-hand and they readily replaced critical appraisal and
accuracy with imagination: Paine rightly blamed Abbé Raynal for
having written about a country in which he had never set foot.14
Between 1760 and 1775, it was precisely Raynal—along with Buffon,
de Pauw and others—who propagated the idea of a natural
“degeneracy” of the American settlers, supposedly due to the
composition of the soil and the particularly harsh climatic
conditions.15 This myth crumbled during the War of Independence
when several important Americans appeared on the Paris scene who
conformed more closely to the concept of the “new man” described by
Crèvecoeur than to that of the subhuman depicted by Raynal and his
followers. Franklin’s humor quickly put paid to the anti-American
legend: one day when he had Raynal to dinner at his home in Passy,
13
See in particular James A. Leith, “Le culte de Franklin avant et pendant la
Révolution française,” Annales historiques de la Révolution française (1976): 543-71.
Also (although much less rigorous) Susan Mary Alsop, Yankees at the Court: The
First Americans in Paris (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982).
14
Vincent, Thomas Paine, 139-143. See also Durand Echeverria, Mirage in the
West: A History of the French Image of American Society to 1815 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1957), 43.
15
Abbé Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du
commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes (Amsterdam, 1772); Buffon, Histoire
naturelle (Paris, 1761), 9: 103-104, 111, 114, 125; Corneille De Pauw, Recherches
philosophiques sur les Américains (Berlin, 1768).
The Americans in Paris 71
he invited all his American and French guests to rise from the table
and compare each other: it turned out that the Americans were much
taller and sturdier than the French group. As regards Raynal himself,
Franklin declared that he was no more imposing than a “mere
shrimp.”16
Franklin represented much more than just his government or
himself in Paris. If he stood for the New World better than any other
American, it was because he was a kind of one-man band of
Americanism and also because he was, without a doubt, the ‘great
communicator’ of his time. A scientist, well-known inventor, rural
economist, educator, legislator, patriot and subtle politician, he had
the makings of a legendary hero. He incarnated the political, moral
and scientific values of the age of Enlightenment; his name was
associated with the Pennsylvania constitution and everybody knew the
part he had played in Philadelphia in the drafting of the U.S.
Constitution. He wore his coonskin cap even at Versailles, and the
simplicity of his garb and manners made him a sort of new Diogenes.
Poor Richard’s Almanac, published in Paris in 1777, price 4 sous,
spread the new principles of civic duty and common morality at all
levels of society. He was known for his experiments on lightning
conductivity and in 1772 was triumphantly elected to the French
Academy of Sciences. It was Turgot who had the honor of merging
the daring man of science and the bold republican into one phrase,
which itself was to become legendary: “Eripuit coelo fulmen,
sceptrumque tyrannis” (he snatched lightning from the sky and the
scepter from tyrants).17
Franklin’s glory was earned. But it was also gained through the
way his image was portrayed by the various media of his time. As
early as 1773, a two-volume translation of his works was published in
Paris, and a host of newspaper articles were written about him. So
many portraits were painted of him that he claimed to be tired of
posing for them. He was included as a symbol in allegories: thus
Fragonard represented him diverting the thunderbolt and ordering
Mars to overthrow Tyranny. But, aside from paintings, Franklin was
also depicted in a series of drawings, prints, statues (most often busts),
16
Quoted by Jefferson in Works of Jefferson, ed. W. C. Ford (New York, 1904), 3:
458.
17
See Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York: The Viking Press, 1938),
606.
72 The Transatlantic Republican
18
Leith, “Le culte de Franklin,” 557.
19
Chronique de Paris, 4 May 1792, 499.
20
Leith, 558.
21
Félix Nogaret, “À M. Franklin,” Almanach littéraire (1784): 264.
22
Tribut de la société nationale des Neuf Sœurs (14 October 1790): 288-291.
23
16 pluviôse an III. Archives nationales, F17 1331B, dossier 6, No. 167.
The Americans in Paris 73
24
Georges de Cadoudal, Les Serviteurs des hommes (Paris, 1864), 24.
74 The Transatlantic Republican
25
Edith Philips, The Good Quaker in French Legend (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1932).
26
Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire (Paris: Garnier, 1879), 22: 91.
27
Philips, The Good Quaker, 134-35.
28
Bizardel, 90.
The Americans in Paris 75
29
See Philips, 157-58.
30
Ibid., 138.
31
Ibid., 139-40.
32
Ibid., 161-62.
33
La Feuille villageoise, 17 Feb. 1791.
76 The Transatlantic Republican
34
le Journal de Paris, 10 Feb. 1791.
35
Vincent, Thomas Paine, 261.
36
Brissot, Examen critique des voyages de M. le marquis de Chastellux (London,
1786) [in reply to Chastellux, Voyage de M. le chevalier de Chastellux en Amérique
(Paris, 1785)].
37
Ferdinand Bayard, Voyage dans l’intérieur des Etats-Unis pendant l’été de 1791
(Paris, Year VI) Introduction: x.
38
Chateaubriand, Voyage en Amérique (Paris, 1815).
The Americans in Paris 77
costume,” he wrote, “there are no more honest men than under any
other . . . They are just ordinary men.”39 He did not go as far as
Marsillac who, on his return from Philadelphia in 1798, disowned
overnight twenty years of Quaker belief and worship.40 All those who
traveled to the United States during the Revolution—except for
Crèvecoeur later in his Voyage dans la Haute Pennsylvanie (1801)—
saw their dreams shatter when they came into contact with reality.
They then devoted themselves to demythologizing the legendary
Quaker, who had become so dear and undoubtedly so important to the
French.
But to no avail. Realistic, or at least more qualified accounts,
failed to erase the popular image of the good Quaker, an image that
subtly merged the two main utopian ideals of the era—that of a pure
republic and that of a purified religion. The unreal continued to prevail
over reality throughout the Revolution, and in fact it was on the
Parisian stage, through the “Américain de théâtre” and the magic of
performance, that the unreal manifested itself in its most visible and
mythical form: the theatrical representation.
Before the War of Independence and the French Revolution, the only
American character portrayed on the Parisian stage was the Indian. As
the Ancien Régime came to an end, he was gradually replaced by the
“new man” described in idyllic terms by Crèvecœur.41
In the first half of the 18th century, plays representing the “noble
savage” inspired the philosophes; in the second half of the century,
such plays served more to illustrate their theories. In the 18th century,
there were roughly 50 comedies and 20 tragedies that had an oriental
backdrop and depicted Turks, Persians, Chinese and Hindus. Plays
having to do with American Indians were less common, and they
fulfilled a different function. As Gilbert Chinard has remarked, the
Orientals were depicted in the theater (and elsewhere) as civilized
beings, not savages, and the very act of putting them in a French
39
Cité dans Philips, 143 et 144.
40
Philips, 140-42; and Bernard Faÿ, L’esprit révolutionnaire en France et aux
Etats-Unis à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1925), 304-05.
41
St. John de Crèvecœur, Letters from an American Farmer (London, 1783).
78 The Transatlantic Republican
42
Gilbert Chinard, L’Amérique et le rêve exotique dans la littérature française au
XVIIe et XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1913), 223.
43
Ibid., 226.
44
Quoted in Chinard, L’Amérique et le rêve exotique, 230.
The Americans in Paris 79
45
See Echeverria, Mirage in the West, 141.
46
For instance, J. C. Gorgy, Les Torts apparents, ou la famille américaine (1787).
80 The Transatlantic Republican
which were then multiplying in Paris, presented the virtue and liberty
of the New World.
The comedy Allons, ça va, ou le quaker en France by Beffroi de
Reigny (1793) is the best example illustrating this change. In
Chamfort’s previously mentioned play, the figure of the Quaker,
portrayed for the very first time on a French stage, was that of a true
individual identified by his name (Mowbray), his family and his
character. But he was included mainly for local color and his personal
morality, with no overtones of a political message. Reigny’s treatment
of the Quaker was totally different. His Quaker no longer had a name
or character of his own; he was the prototype of the perfect citizen,
incarnating abstractedly, so to speak, public-spiritedness and the
principles of republicanism. He was exhibited as a mere instrument of
propaganda and the author had him express only dominant popular
opinions and thus serve the Revolutionary cause: Reigny’s Quaker
had left behind him an America where money was starting to corrupt
everything and where, as he confides, “luxury perverts our success.”47
The character was distorted to such an extent that this unfortunate
representative of the Friends finally appeared as a militarist and a war-
lover! In this example, the idealization of the Quaker went hand in
hand with the intentional deformation of his message. A few years
later, during the Directory, the “Quaker de théâtre” ceased to be
fashionable, as did virtue and idealism. No longer fitting the
requirements of the time, he disappeared forever from the French
stage.
The case of Franklin calls for similar reflections. If he appeared
in certain plays or inspired certain scenes during the Revolution, this
was never in his lifetime—and never as a living character. Nothing
was seen but a shadow, and nothing heard but a mere voice from
beyond the grave. Joseph Aude, in Le Journalisme des ombres (1790)
placed him in Charon’s boat and had him say to Voltaire (who had
departed from this world twelve years before): “I have seen equality,
the bane of the great, / Spread its deep roots throughout the universe.”
The sage of Philadelphia never appeared except in the company of the
dead—the philosophers of Antiquity, the emancipators of the human
race, or the great thinkers and orators of the 18th century, such as
Rousseau, Voltaire or Mirabeau. In Dejaure’s play, L’Ombre de
47
Beffroy de Reigny, Allons, ça va, ou le quaker en France (Paris, 1793), 24.
The Americans in Paris 81
48
Kenneth N. McKee, “The Popularity of the ‘American’ on the French Stage
during the Revolution,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 83 (Sept.
1940): 479-91.
49
Ibid., 479.
50
Billardon de Sauvigny, Vashington [sic] ou la liberté du Nouveau Monde (1791).
82 The Transatlantic Republican
All in all, we can say that the Americans who most influenced the
French Revolution were not those who resided in France, and in
particular in Paris, for the longest time.54 On the contrary, it would
seem that their influence was inversely proportional to their actual
presence. Neither the nature of their characters nor their basic
Americanness can explain the infatuation or fascination they aroused.
Whether absent from the scene (like Jefferson), dead (like Franklin),
or seemingly fallen from another planet (like the Quakers), it was their
lack of reality which, lending itself so well to the illusions of the
theater, had the most real impact on France—a France in need of
51
Journal de Paris, 13 July 1791, supplement: 80.
52
McKee, “The Popularity of the ‘American’”: 487.
53
Ibid., 479.
54
Paine might be regarded as an exception, but he was not exactly an American;
and, although he continued to live in Paris after his release from prison (he sailed back
to the United States only until 1802), he was no longer to play any important role
there and, while present in the capital, was virtually absent from the French political
scene.
The Americans in Paris 83
fantasy and anxious to idealize the only model then at hand to create
its own history.
Durand Echeverria rightly speaks of the American “dream” or
“mirage” as a psychological necessity for the French in revolt. In
resorting to an idealized representation of America, they could project
their “aspirations upon a scene which was both accommodating and
distant enough to blur the inconsistencies and contradictions.”55 But it
is less the idealization that counts here than the projection, less the
embellished image of a legendary America than the “Frenchification”
of that image for the sake of the cause. The Revolution did more than
just “naturalize” the new America by adopting some of her ideas or by
bestowing the title of French citizen on several of her heroes
(Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, Barlow); it also
“naturalized” the mythical image of the New World, and taking
advantage of its vagueness, modified it so as to find in it an idealized
image of itself.
This then was the main function of American exoticism: to
supply French revolutionaries with a reassuring reflection of their own
audacity.
55
Echeverria, 140.
This page intentionally left blank
IV
Paine’s “Share”
in the French Revolution
1
RM, 9.
2
FO 2: 1285.
86 The Transatlantic Republican
in America in 1774 when he was 38, that he became famous due to the
publication of Common Sense in 1776, that he was the first American
to mention in print the idea of a “declaration of Independence,” that
he served in the Continental army under General Greene, that he
negotiated, on behalf of Congress, a peace treaty with Indian tribes at
Easton, Pa., that he was the first official in charge of American
diplomacy (as secretary of the Congressional Committee of Foreign
Affairs), that as secretary of the Pennsylvania Assembly he then wrote
(in March 1778) the preamble of a bill for the gradual abolition of
slavery, that he defended the universal dimension of the American
Revolution against the belittling interpretations of the Abbé Raynal,
that he upheld the supremacy of the Union over the States in Public
Good (1780), and lastly that he went to France in early 1781, together
with John Laurens, and brought back to America the promise of
enough money and weapons to defeat the British army at Yorktown.
Paine’s revolutionary achievements in France are not as well
known. His most spectacular and perhaps most positive action was of
an intellectual order: the publication, in early 1791, of Rights of Man,
in response to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in
France. The Burke/Paine controversy stands, even today, as the most
important political and ideological debate over the French Revolution
to have taken place during the Revolution itself. Burke’s book was a
frontal attack on the pretensions of the French to create a completely
new polity. This, as he saw it (and he was in this respect quite a
visionary), was an historical error that could only turn into tragedy and
end up in military dictatorship. The shaky ‘reason’ of individuals
being by definition unable to establish stable institutions, only the
collective wisdom incarnated by some national ‘tradition’—the
wisdom of the dead—was, in his eyes, capable of leading the living.
The present was not so much a break with the past as a continuation of
it, the perpetuation of proven formulae, an immovable tribute to the
inspired generation of those who had forever shown the way.
It would have been difficult to express ideas more contradictory
to the convictions of Thomas Paine. The world, Paine retorted in
Rights of Man, belongs to those who live in it, and the rights of men,
be it in England or anywhere else, are the rights of the living, not
those of the dead. It is the light of individual reason, as a reflection of
God’s own reason, and not the obscurity of the past, that must preside
over the organization of society, and it belongs to every generation, if
it so desires (an idea also shared by Jefferson), to endow itself with
The French Revolution 87
new institutions suited to its wishes, its rights or its ideas. Conceived
in the image of God, Paine went on to say, men were born equal in
rights and free to exercise these rights, i.e. free to think, to express
themselves, to imagine, and to unite as equal citizens to change what
must be changed and to reshape the world in their own fashion.
Viewing the French Revolution as a prolongation or an offshoot of the
American upheaval, he found it, in this respect, quite exemplary and
above criticism. It should be mentioned as a kind of footnote that, at
the time he was writing Rights of Man, the French Revolution had not
yet begun to devour its children and to violate the fundamental rights
it had just proclaimed.
In December 1792, Paine was banished from England for “high
treason,” and further distribution of his book was prohibited. But,
even before the verdict was announced, Paine had left his native island
as a result of circumstances which tell us a lot about his tremendous
popularity among French people at the time. In August, while he was
still in England, the National Assembly in Paris made him a French
citizen (together with 17 other distinguished foreigners)3; and a few
days later, even though he had not presented his candidacy and knew
nothing about what was brewing in his favor across the Channel, he
was elected deputy of the Convention in four different departments,
all of them rural areas. He finally chose to represent Calais, where he
arrived on September 13 and was given a colorful and enthusiastic
reception.
The republic was proclaimed a few weeks after, and, as the new
regime needed new structures, Paine was elected, along with Sieyès,
Barère, Danton, Condorcet, Brissot and three others, to the
“Committee of the Nine” in order to draft the Constitution of Year I. It
was at this juncture that the trial of Louis XVI took place, a crucial
event in which Paine was to play, or could have played (had he spoken
French, which he never did), a decisive role. Against the mood of the
times, he expended great efforts and risked his reputation (which was
then at its peak) to try and save the head of a deposed prince who was
now referred to as Louis Capet or the “one-time King.” During the
3
In a letter written to James Monroe from the Luxembourg prison on September
10, 1794, Paine asserts that he was the originator of that measure: “The idea of
conferring honor of citizenship upon foreigners, who had distinguished themselves in
propagating the principles of liberty and humanity, . . . was first proposed by me to
Lafayette, at the commencement of the French Revolution” (FO 2: 1345).
88 The Transatlantic Republican
4
Ibid., 723.
90 The Transatlantic Republican
5
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, ed. Philip Foner (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press,
1974), 109.
6
David Freeman Hawke, Paine (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 353, 354.
7
FO 2: 946.
8
Ibid., 941.
The French Revolution 91
*
Moving beyond the foregoing data and anecdotes, I will now
emphasize one particular aspect of Paine’s revolutionary commitment
or “career” which has, to date, been largely overlooked, to wit that,
while he had been almost completely in tune with the American
Revolution, he found himself, in many respects, ‘out of phase’ with
the French one.
Strangely enough, though, the starting point had been quite
similar in both cases. When Paine published Common Sense and
recommended independence together with the establishment of an
American republic, he was ahead both of his time and of his fellow
countrymen: not only were very few—if any—Americans in favor of
independence, but before Common Sense, Pauline Maier asserts, there
was to be found in America “no notorious apology for republicanism
as a system.”10 In much the same way, Paine created, along with
Condorcet, Brissot, Duchâtelet and Bonneville, the very first
“Republican Society” of the French Revolution and, in late June 1791,
right after the King’s return from Varennes, drafted with his own pen
the first “republican proclamation” ever posted on the walls of Paris.
His placard read, among other things:
[The king’s] flight is equivalent to abdication; for, in abandoning his throne,
he has abandoned his office . . . Never again can the nation trust a ruler who
has proved derelict to his duties; has broken his oath, entered into a secret
conspiracy to escape from his post . . . made his way to a frontier full of
traitors and deserters, and then intrigued for his return at the head of an army
that would enable him to act as a tyrant . . . The facts show that, if he is not a
hypocrite or traitor, he must be a madman or an imbecile, and, in any case,
entirely unfitted to discharge the function confided to him by the people.11
And Paine wrote these lines at a time when practically no one among
the French revolutionaries contemplated the establishment of a regular
9
Ibid., 944.
10
Pauline Maier, “The Beginnings of American Republicanism, 1765-1776,” in
The Development of a Revolutionary Mentality (Washington, D.C.: Library of
Congress, 1972), 100.
11
“A Republican Manifesto,” FO 2: 517-18.
92 The Transatlantic Republican
12
This is, quite typically, what Paine wrote on the subject in 1795: “Had a
constitution been established two years ago (as ought to have been done), the
violences that have since desolated France and injured the character of the Revolution,
would, in my opinion, have been prevented. The nation would then have had a bond
of union, and every individual would have known the line of conduct he was to
follow. But, instead of this, a revolutionary government, a thing without either
principle or authority, was substituted in its place; virtue and crime depended upon
accident; and that which was patriotism one day became treason the next”
(Dissertation on First Principles of Government, FO 2: 587-88).
The French Revolution 93
13
FO 2: 587.
94 The Transatlantic Republican
but here they believe neither in heaven nor hell, and yet are slaves by
choice. I know of no Republic in the world except America, which is
the only country for such men as you and I . . . I have done with
Europe, and its slavish politics.”14
Several factors seem to have delayed his departure from France.
Some have to do with reality, others with dreams. During the last
decade of the century, the war between France and England was still
going on, and Paine, it will be remembered, was an outlaw in his
native country. Had he tried to cross the ocean, he would have risked
being arrested by the English—who searched all neutral ships—and
being returned to London, there to be hanged or at least jailed for
years. Aware of this, Thomas Jefferson, who had just become
President, wrote to Paine (this was in March 1801), inviting him to
return to the United States aboard a war vessel, the Maryland.
Excerpts of that letter were published in several American
newspapers, and the Federalists immediately howled and screamed
against Jefferson’s friendship with Paine—the blasphemous author of
The Age of Reason, the insulter of George Washington, the stateless
peddler of French anarchism. The hubbub was such that Paine had to
give up the idea of travelling on the proposed vessel, and it was not
until a year later, when a truce was signed at Amiens between England
and France, that Paine could at last safely board a merchant ship and
“bid adieu to restless and wretched Europe.”15
But Paine’s protracted stay in France was probably also due to
some secret ambition, which he nourished for years, of playing some
political role in England. The idea that British monarchy would be a
perpetual cause of warfare and international insecurity became such an
obsession with Paine that in 1796 he started contriving and planning a
naval invasion of England, with Bonaparte at the controls and himself
serving as counselor. “The intention of the expedition,” he then wrote,
“was to give the people of England an opportunity of forming a
government for themselves, and thereby bring about peace.”16 It
happens that in the course of my research on Paine I stumbled upon
something which is to be found in none of the previous Tom Paine
biographies: a classified report written in French by some secret agent
14
Moncure Daniel Conway, The Life of Thomas Paine (New York: Putnam, 1909),
301-02.
15
“Letter to Consul Roth, July 8, 1802,” FO 2: 1429.
16
“To the People of England on the Invasion of England,” FO 2: 680.
The French Revolution 95
17
Historical Manuscripts Commission, The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue
presented at Dropmore (London, 1894), 4: 70.
96 The Transatlantic Republican
1
A Senator from Kentucky, who was very active in the Louisiana affair, and was
later (in 1805) to be appointed Attorney General in the Cabinet of President Jefferson.
2
See David Freeman Hawke, Paine (New York: Harper, 1974), 353, 354, 365.
98 The Transatlantic Republican
publication of The Age of Reason and for the writing of his both
famous and “infamous” open letter to George Washington in which he
depicted the President as a military cipher (who had lost most of his
battles) and an unworthy friend who had not lifted a finger to get him
out of jail during the French Terror.3 Only Jefferson and a handful of
Republicans remained on friendly terms with the “enfant terrible” of
the age of revolutions. And only through Jefferson, or in his shadow,
or under his wing, could Paine, as we shall see, still exert some
intellectual and political influence in American affairs. He was to
strike back at the Federalist faction in a series of eight letters “To the
Citizens of the United States,” appearing mostly in the National
Intelligencer and reprinted by sympathetic editors throughout the
country where they were widely read and became the subject of heated
discussions.
When Paine arrived in Washington in November 1802, he took
up his quarters at Lovell’s hotel where, as a Federalist reported, “he
dines at the public table and, as a show, is as profitable to Lovell as an
Ourang Outang, for many strangers who come to the city feel a
curiosity to see the creature. They go to Lovell’s and call for the
show.”4 It was nevertheless in that hotel that Paine first became
involved in the Mississippi question. Word had crossed the Atlantic
that Spain had ceded the Louisiana Territory to France. At about the
same time (October 1802), the Mississippi and the American
“deposit” at New Orleans had been closed to American traffic,
provoking the rage of the Westerners (now half a million people—
mainly in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio). Wishing to embarrass
Jefferson whose pacifism made them bristle, Federalists in Congress
called for a declaration of war against Spain. But Jefferson was more
infuriated by the French, whom he suspected of playing an active part
behind the scenes: “The day that France takes New Orleans,” he said,
“we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation.”5
But things turned out differently. On the suggestion of one
Michael Leib, a Republican congressman to whom he had confided
his views at the hotel, Paine sent Jefferson a letter explaining that,
3
See excerpt in Chapter 4.
4
W. P. and J. P. Cutler, Life and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler
(Cincinnati, 1888), 2: 119.
5
Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History (New York: Harper,
1953), 132.
The Louisiana Purchase 99
6
FO 2: 1432.
7
“Letter to Henry Laurens” (printemps 1778), FO 2: 1143.
8
Ibid, 213n.70. In 1777, Beaumarchais stole a march on Paine by creating in Paris
the “General Statutes of Drama.”
9
Ibid., 332. In Common Sense, Paine used the phrase “Continental Charter.”
10
Quoted in Alfred Owen Aldridge, Man of Reason: The Life of Thomas Paine
(Philadelphia & New York: Lippincott, 1959), 99. See also FO 2: 692, note 2.
11
Paine, Rights of Man (Pelican Classics, 1982), 289.
12
FO 2: 941, 946. For more details on Paine’s proposals regarding international
peace, see Chapter 9 in the second part of this volume.
100 The Transatlantic Republican
13
Arthur Preston Whitaker, The Mississippi Question, 1795-1803 (Gloucester,
Mass.: Peter Smith, 1962), 237.
14
FO 2: 1462.
15
Ibid.
16
François Barbé-Marbois, Histoire de la Louisiane et de la cession de cette
colonie par la France aux États-Unis de l’Amérique septentrionale (Paris, 1829), 335.
17
FO 2: 934.
The Louisiana Purchase 101
18
Ibid, 962.
19
See Whitaker, The Mississippi Question, 223, 233.
20
FO 2: 932.
21
Ibid, 934.
22
Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President, First Term, 1801-1805 (Boston, 1970),
320-21.
23
FO 2: 1442.
24
Ibid., 1443.
102 The Transatlantic Republican
“one of those cases with which the Constitution has nothing to do, and
which can be judged only by the circumstances of the times.”25 But
the agreement eventually was called a “treaty,” and Jefferson had to
submit it to the Senate, particularly as it contained a provision stating
that Louisiana was to be “incorporated into the Union” and its
inhabitants made American citizens. This was a political decision
which fell within the constitutional competence of Congress, and of
no other branch of government.
What in fact interested Paine at that point was not so much
parliamentary tactics as the “American” future of the newly acquired
territory. On August 2, 1803, he sent Jefferson the first of a series of
important letters on “the mode of beginning government in the ceded
country.”26 Knowing that the inhabitants of Louisiana had no
experience in democratic ways, Paine even planned to visit New
Orleans and offer them his services: “They are a new people,” he told
Breckenridge, “and unacquainted with the principles of representative
government and I think I could do some good among them.”27 To
Jefferson he suggested that the best way of starting things would be
for Congress to establish a “Government provisoire” for a few years,
until the population was sufficiently “in train to elect their State
government.”28 Paine recommended an attitude of “prudence and
justice” in such matters. With the Northwest Ordinance in mind, he
suggested subdividing Louisiana into several future states, so as to
counter the dangerous wish of certain local inhabitants to govern
“Louisiana in the lump.” He also explained, however, that no such
state ought to be actually created until the number of American
immigrants in any part of the territory equaled that of the French
inhabitants: “To do it now,” he insisted, “would be sending the
American settlers into exile.”29 He even proposed giving up the very
name of “Louisiana,” in imitation of revolutionary France where the
creation of departments had consigned to oblivion the names of the
larger royal provinces. Although he maintained that the Louisianians
had not been forced to adopt American citizenship (“we have neither
25
Ibid., 1447.
26
Ibid., 1441.
27
Ibid., 1445.
28
Ibid., 1441.
29
Ibid., 1457.
The Louisiana Purchase 103
conquered them, nor bought them, but formed a Union with them”),30
it is quite clear that one of Paine’s (and Jefferson’s) main concerns
was how to colonize and Americanize this territorial godsend.
“The present Inhabitants and their descendants,” Paine wrote to
Breckenridge, “will be a majority for some time, but new emigrations
from the old states and from Europe, and intermarriages, will soon
change the first face of things, and it is necessary to have this in mind
when the first measures shall be taken.”31 Congress, Paine thought,
should take action to empower the President “to devise and employ
means for bringing cultivators to Louisiana from any of the European
countries,” and Congress should also appoint an “agent” in New
Orleans so as to keep immigration under control.32 Suiting as it were
the action to the word, Paine informed Jefferson that he had
“thousands and tens of thousands” of British friends “in all ranks of
life,” some of them rich, whom he might persuade to settle in the new
country.33 He added that, had he not been 68 years of age, he would
have gladly volunteered as a recruiting agent: “Were I twenty years
younger, and my name and reputation as well known in European
countries as it is now, I would contract for a quantity of land in
Louisiana and go to Europe and bring over settlers.”34 But
immigration on a large scale would remain difficult and perhaps
impossible, Paine pointed out, so long as settlers did not “know
beforehand the government and the laws they [were] to be under.”
Hence his insistence that Congress should frame a provisional “form
of government for them to continue until they arrived at a state of
population proper for constitutional government.”35
Immigration was not only a matter of quantity. Paine considered
that it was equally important to pay attention to the quality of those
who were to come and settle (all future Americans) and, if necessary,
to separate the wheat from the chaff: “The people from the Eastern
States are the best settlers of a new country, and of people from
abroad the German peasantry are the best. The Irish in general are
generous and dissolute. The Scotch turn their attention to traffic, and
30
Ibid., 1446.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid., 1461.
33
Ibid., 1441.
34
Ibid., 1459.
35
Ibid., 1457.
104 The Transatlantic Republican
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 1461.
38
Ibid., 1457.
39
Ibid., 1458.
The Louisiana Purchase 105
40
Ibid., 1462.
41
Ibid., 1456-57.
42
Ibid., 1441.
43
Ibid., 1446.
44
Ibid., 1441.
106 The Transatlantic Republican
45
Moncure Daniel Conway, The Life of Thomas Paine (New York: Putnam, 1909),
2: 339.
46
FO 2: 964-68 passim.
47
Ibid., 1321.
The Louisiana Purchase 107
Paine wrote again to Jefferson about the conflict which was now
opposing France and the newly-proclaimed Republic of Haiti. He
wanted to persuade the President to have the United States serve as a
mediator between the two parties. Such an intercession, he said,
“would be beneficial to all the parties, and give us a great commercial
and political standing, not only with the present people of Domingo
but with the West Indies generally.”48 Here again we have a perfect
example of how Paine was able to combine idealism and practical
action, a deep attachment to universal principles and a keen sense of
what American interests were about.
*
Paine’s influence (that of Common Sense, Rights of Man, The Age of
Reason) had been most felt, to begin with, in Europe and in the
Northern and Middle States of the U.S. With the Louisiana affair, his
influence spread to the Western Territory and to the South. A few
decades later, as Alfred Owen Aldridge has pointed out, it went even
farther south, reaching Latin-America where it “certainly made a
significant contribution to the development and final success” of
various independence movements, particularly in Venezuela,
Argentina and Chile.49
Influential in North America, Europe, Louisiana, Latin America,
to be sure, Thomas Paine, the “farmer of thoughts,” did deserve the
title which he readily and immodestly applied to himself—that of
“citizen of the world”—for so he was.
48
Ibid., 1454.
49
Alfred Owen Aldridge, Early American Literature: A Comparatist Approach
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 215-260.
This page intentionally left blank
VI
A National of Nowhere:
The Problem of Thomas Paine’s American
Citizenship
1
FO 2: 69.
2
George Clinton, former governor of New York, was then Vice-President of the
United States.
3
FO 2: 1486-87.
110 The Transatlantic Republican
4
May 4, 1807, FO 2: 1489-90.
A National of Nowhere 111
5
May 3, 1807. FO 2: 1486-87.
6
See Bernard Vincent, Thomas Paine, 300.
7
May 4, 1807. FO 2: 1488-89. Barlow’s letter to the Court is currently owned by
Mr. Richard Maass, Hamson (N.Y.).
8
Letter to James Monroe, September 10, 1794, FO 2: 1353.
9
Frank George Franklin, The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United
States (New York: Arno Press, 1969 [Chicago, 1906]), 2.
112 The Transatlantic Republican
August 1792) and was elected to the Convention (in September); but
in December 1793 he was dismissed from that assembly, arrested and
jailed “as a foreigner,” that is as an Englishman—the irony being that
he was no longer English at the time. The publication of Rights of
Man had recently caused him to be tried in absentia at the Guildhall in
London, to be banished from Britain, and therefore deprived of his
original national identity—a kind of civil death. It could be argued
that, having spent so many years (15 in all) away from the United
States, Paine could rightfully be considered as an alien or at least as a
non-citizen. But in 1807 there existed no legislation taking this kind of
absence into account. Only in 1808—maybe as a consequence of the
Tom Paine affair—did the Federalists try to get the U.S. Congress to
enact a law stipulating that “if any citizen shall expatriate himself, he
shall, ipso facto, be deemed an alien, and ever after be incapable of
becoming a citizen.”10
It would take a whole book to analyze all the political and legal
aspects of this strange affair. Although I am well aware that the
political context, i.e. the tension between Jeffersonians and
Federalists, probably played a more important role than the sheer rigor
of the law itself (let alone the fact that, as a child, Gouverneur Morris
had attended school in the Huguenot settlement of New Rochelle, and
therefore probably knew the Ward family personally ...),11 I will
restrict myself here to analyzing some of the purely formal reasons
why Paine finally lost his suit and therefore never recovered his
American citizenship.12
Madame Bonneville, wife of the French revolutionary printer
Nicolas Bonneville, lived for many years on Paine’s farm in New
Rochelle (this farm, incidentally, was the confiscated property of a
former Loyalist, one Frederick Devoe, and had been given to Paine by
the New York legislature in 1784, in recognition of his great
“patriotic” services). In the notes she left, Mme Bonneville, to whom
Paine bequeathed most of his estate, gives interesting information
10
Ibid., 116.
11
This detail is mentioned in Mark M. Boatner III, Encyclopedia of the American
Revolution (New York: David MacKay, 1976), 737.
12
My main source here will be a short but well-documented pamphlet written by
Thomas D. Scoble, Jr. and published in 1946 by the Thomas Paine National Historical
Association in New Rochelle (Thomas Paine’s Citizenship Record, hereafter referred
to as ‘Scoble’).
A National of Nowhere 113
13
Moncure Conway, The Life of Thomas Paine (New York: Putnam, 1909), 2:
448.
14
On this accident, see Conway, op. cit., 383.
15
Scoble, 29.
16
Conway, op. cit., 381.
114 The Transatlantic Republican
such testimony. Such has always been the strict rule in our courts and it
properly prevails today.
Accordingly, if Paine’s attorney tried to present his case merely on letters
and affidavits, the presiding judge quite rightfully may have excluded them
from evidence and dismissed Paine’s complaint, without passing on its merits,
for failure to present proper proof. This action would not be a judicial
determination that Paine was wrong in his contentions, or Ward right. The
merits of the issue simply would not receive judicial consideration, much less
determination. The decision would constitute no precedent or court ruling on
Paine’s citizenship.17
*
The net result of this nonsuit was that Paine, who had so ardently
contributed to the establishment of republicanism in America, spent
the last two years of his life (he died in June 1809) without any formal
citizenship or voting rights.
As early as 1778, Paine had defined himself as a cosmopolitan:
“My attachment is to all the world, and not to any particular part.”18
But unlike those who shared or had shared this kind of sentiment
(Hume, Voltaire, Condorcet, Gibbon or even Burke),19 Paine was not
only a philosophical cosmopolitan; he was an activist of universal
citizenship—neither an abstract citizen of the world nor the citizen of
an abstract world. He was prepared to become a real citizen of any
country where universal rights were at stake or imperiled: “Where
liberty is, there is my country,” Franklin once reportedly told him;
“Where liberty is not, there is mine,” Paine allegedly replied. That was
why he had come to America; that was why he had then gone to
France; that was why he had dreamed of establishing a British
republic. And now he was in America again, but this time a citizen of
nowhere, a man without a country, a voter forbidden to vote, a
disenfranchised Founding Father. He soon after died, but his bones
were stolen from the grave by William Cobbett, taken back to
England, sold, dispersed, never to be found again.
17
Scoble 30.
18
FO 1: 146.
19
See Ian Dyck, “Local Attachments, National Identities and World Citizenship in
the Thought of Thomas Paine,” in History Workshop Journal 35, 1993: 117-135; and,
more generally, Thomas Schlereth, The Cosmopolitan Ideal in Enlightenment Thought
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977).
PART II
*
In Common Sense, the problem of popular representation is referred to
in two different but essential passages. In the opening pages, it is first
1
Word used in various texts, e.g. in “Constitutional Reform” (1805), FO 2: 993.
118 The Transatlantic Republican
2
CS, 67 (emphasis mine).
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 96, 97 (emphasis mine).
Universal Suffrage 119
Republic, a body of judges chosen from among the people.” But Paine
does not enlighten us about how to define “the people” and “choose”
their leaders. He often refers to the people as “the public,” which is
just as vague, and he sometimes identifies voter with freeman, a fairly
ambiguous term. “On the part of the public,” he writes in the first
Forester Letter, “it is more consistent with freemen to appoint their
rulers than to have them born.”5 Apart from the question of knowing
whether to “appoint” and to “choose” mean the same thing (and what
exactly do they mean?), Paine’s mention of freemen as being those
who choose points to a somewhat restrictive conception of suffrage on
his part, at least if we trust John Toland’s definition of the word: “By
freeman, I understand men of property, or persons that are able to live
of themselves; and those who cannot subsist in this independence I
call servants.”6 We are quite far here from universal suffrage; but, as
we shall see, Paine’s doctrine of property was far more sophisticated
and egalitarian than that of Toland.
More enlightening was Paine’s attitude toward the electoral
system adopted in Pennsylvania at the very outset of the American
Revolution. Although he did not participate in the Pennsylvania
Constitutional Convention and took no part in the drafting of the
Constitution itself, he nevertheless approved of its (relatively) radical
approach to suffrage. In his “Serious Address to the People of
Pennsylvania” (December 1778), Paine eloquently supported a
constitution that he called “the Bible of the State,”7 and which had
extended the vote to all white males over twenty-one who had lived in
the state one year and paid taxes of any kind. Although this was still
what the French call a système censitaire (i.e. a voting system based
on tax liability), property qualifications for both voting and office-
holding had been abolished; and Paine, for the first time, spelled out
his views on the subject of property-and-franchise, insisting that
suffrage was a matter of natural equal rights, not property:
Property alone cannot defend a country against invading enemies. Houses and
lands cannot fight; sheep and oxen cannot be taught the musket; therefore the
defence must be personal, and that which equally unites all must be something
5
Ibid., 78, 79, 80.
6
In H. T. Dickinson, Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth
Century Britain (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson: 1977), 89.
7
Paul P. Selsam, The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776; A Study in Revolutionary
Democracy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936), 208.
120 The Transatlantic Republican
equally the property of all, viz. an equal share of freedom, independent of the
varieties of wealth . . . The man who today proposes to regulate freedom by
fortune, being rich himself, little thinks what may be his own state before he
dies, and that of his children after his death.8
Paine’s remarks on the injustice of property qualifications were not
just leveled at Pennsylvanians, but concerned the whole continent: “I
speak this to the honor of America,” and his final motto had a
universal ring to it: “Leave Freedom free.”9
In a retrospective article published in 1805 (again, a Letter to the
Citizens of Pennsylvania—and the very last pamphlet of his life),
Paine argued that, though imperfect, the Pennsylvania Constitution of
1776 “had many good points,” and that, in sharp contrast to it, the new
conservative Constitution adopted in 1790 was not “conformable to
the Declaration of Independence [because it made] artificial
distinctions among men in the right of suffrage,”10 meaning
distinctions based on property.
Some further clarification came, in 1786, with the publication of
Dissertation on Government; the Affairs of the Bank; and Paper
Money. What Paine clarified was not so much the concept of people
(vaguely and metaphorically defined as “the fountain of power”) as
that of nation and sovereignty.
Regarding the people, whose natural right it was to choose “a
select number of persons, periodically . . . who act as representatives
and in behalf of the whole,” Paine referred his readers, in a footnote,
to Article VII of the Declaration of Rights “prefixed” to the
Pennsylvania Constitution, and which reads: “All free men having a
sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to, the
community, have a right to elect officers, or to be elected into
office.”11 Although women, blacks, jobless citizens and other idle or
dependent persons were left out, this was indeed the most daring
definition of manhood suffrage ever formulated and put into practice.
More explicit, and even more central to our topic, was Paine’s
definition of the nation as a disparate or non-unified seat of sovereign
power, i.e. as the reverse of an army:
A nation is composed of distinct, unconnected individuals, following various
8
FO 2, 288, 289 .
9
Ibid., 289.
10
Ibid., 993, 1001.
11
Ibid., 369, 372, 373.
Universal Suffrage 121
12
Ibid., 371.
13
On this controversy, see Julien Laferrière, Manuel de droit constitutionnel
(Paris: Domat-Montchrestien, 1947), 66 ff.
122 The Transatlantic Republican
14
FO 2: 505.
15
Ibid. (emphasis mine).
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 560 (Plan of a Declaration of the Natural, Civil and Political Rights of
Man).
Universal Suffrage 123
18
Ibid., 590.
19
Ibid., 579, 583.
20
FO 1: 607.
124 The Transatlantic Republican
black males being some day granted the right to vote. After all, he was
the one who, as early as 1776, had prophetically warned his fellow-
Americans: “Forget not the hapless African.”21
But, unlike Mary Wollstonecraft, Paine never went so far as to
advocate franchise for women. Not a word, in all his writings, about
the New Jersey law of July 2, 1776, giving the right to vote to female
citizens—and no comment of his when this very right was taken back
from them in 1807! And not a word either against the then prevalent
idea that women were mere dependents and had “no wills of their
own”22 and therefore could not vote.
For once, Paine failed to be a prophet. To his “Forget not the
hapless African” he might, and should, have added (like Abigail
Adams, in March 1776, in a famous letter to her husband, John
Adams):
Remember the Ladies . . . If particular care and attention is not paid to the
Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves
bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.23
She was right (although one may wonder whether she was
worried about the blacks): liberty, like suffrage, is either universal—or
is nothing at all
21
“To Cato,” FO 2: 82.
22
In Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York:
Vintage Books, 1993), 179.
23
L. H. Butterfield, M. Friedlander and M. J. Kline, eds., The Book of Abigail and
John. Selected Letters of the Adams Family (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1975), 121.
VIII
1
Whitfield J. Bell, The Bust of Thomas Paine (Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1974—printed for The Friends of the Library), 16.
2
See “Author’s English Preface” to Agrarian Justice, FO 1: 609.
3
David Freeman Hawke, Paine (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 328.
4
On June 5 1793, the Convention also resolved that all common property (“biens
126 The Transatlantic Republican
has been estimated that 40% of the land thus redistributed was
acquired by the peasantry. The rest was bought by rural bourgeois or
surviving aristocrats.5 France had, to a relatively large extent, become
of nation of land-owners. The question of representative democracy
and the problem of land-taxation appeared in a new light, and raised
new social issues that Paine now wanted to address differently from
what he had done a few years before in the second part of Rights of
Man.
In 1797, the Terror was over, but war was going on between
France and England—with England, as Paine said, “supporting the
despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of
France.”6 In his preface to the English edition, Paine explains that he
would have preferred the pamphlet to appear later, when “the present
war” was over, but that he had resolved to publish it now in response
to a sermon delivered by Richard Watson, bishop of Llandaff—a
sermon entitled “The Wisdom and Goodness of God, in having made
both rich and poor.” “It is wrong,” Paine wrote, “to say God made rich
and poor; He only made male and female; and he gave them the earth
for their inheritance.”7 This, as we shall see, was to be the starting-
point of his Biblical case for a welfare system.
Another aspect of the context in which Paine wrote and then
published Agrarian Justice has to do with the French Constitution of
Year III, adopted by referendum in September 1795. Paine had been
one of the drafters of the Girondin constitutional project of 1793, and
he probably thought of himself as an indirect originator of the new
constitution. He, therefore, unsurprisingly called it “the best organised
system the human mind has yet produced.”8 But, in his view, the
Constitution of Year III had one important flaw: suffrage, instead of
being equal, was now based on property qualification, i.e. the payment
of a direct land or personal property tax. The consequence of this was
that unpropertied citizens were purely and simply excluded from the
9
Gracchus Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of the Equals” (1796) was one of several plots
that aimed at overthrowing the Directorate. Babeuf and his friends were arrested, but
Babeuf used the trial as an opportunity to denounce the decline of the Revolution and
to restate his vision of a communist egalitarianism. He was sentenced to death, and
executed the following year.
10
Ibid., 608.
11
Ibid., 606.
12
Title of the French edition: La Justice Agraire opposée à la Loi Agraire, et aux
privilèges agraires.
128 The Transatlantic Republican
13
Gregory Claeys, Thomas Paine: Social Justice and Political Thought (Boston:
Unwin Hyman, 1989).
14
Among the most active of these groups are: B.I.E.N. (Basic Income European
Network), A.I.R.E (Association pour l’Instauration d’un Revenu d’Existence) and
M.A.U.S.S (Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales). For a precise
definition of “Basic Income,” see Philippe Van Parijs, ed., Arguing for Basic Income
(London: Verso, 1992): “A basic income is an income unconditionally paid to all on
The Welfare State 129
20
FO I, 621.
21
Ibid., 618.
22
Claeys, 201.
23
FO I, 613.
24
Claeys, 199.
The Welfare State 131
25
FO I, 610.
26
Ibid., 620.
27
Ibid.
28
Claeys, 205. “Paine’s efforts represent an important transitional stage in the
radical secularization of natural law arguments . . . Paine’s was a middle position
132 The Transatlantic Republican
*
Due to circumstances (the war, “Pitt’s Terror” in England, the
aftermath of the Terror in France, the political anticlimax that
followed it), the impact of Agrarian Justice at the time of its
publication seems to have been negligible. Paine himself had
predicted that, at least in his native country, the reaction of the
dominant class to his Basic Income proposal would be highly
negative: “I know that the possessors of [overgrown] property in
England, though they would eventually be benefited by the protection
of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan”30—the irony being
that this plan would in fact be less costly, annually, for English
taxpayers than the war against France which they currently had to
support. The wealthy, Paine argued, ought to be less blind in the
defense of their own interests; they should realize that “it is only in a
system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.”31 Social
justice as the natural companion and safeguard of economic
between the Spenceans and others who unabashedly appealed to divine intention in
support of positive community of goods, and the Owenite socialists of the early 1820s
and later, who, both more historicist and more consistent in their deism, rejected
completely appeals to the state of nature and founded property rights entirely upon
labour, and community of goods upon its economic and moral advantages rather than
its divine origins” (206).
29
John Keane, Tom Paine, 427.
30
FO I, 619.
31
Ibid., 621.
The Welfare State 133
32
David V. Erdman, Blake, Prophet Against Empire (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1954), 277.
33
Claeys, 207.
34
Ibid., 207.
35
Philippe Van Parijs, “Competing Justifications of Basic Income,” in Philippe
Van Parijs, op. cit., 12.
36
Jean Jaurès, Histoire socialiste de la Révolution française (Paris: Éditions
sociales, 1971 [1901-1904]), 4: 422.
134 The Transatlantic Republican
37
Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward (New York: The New American Library,
1960 [1888]), 98.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., 58.
40
Ibid., 136.
41
Paul and Percival Goodman, Communitas (New York: Vintage Books, 1960
[1947]), 188-89.
42
Ibid., 192.
43
Ibid., 198.
The Welfare State 135
44
Philippe Van Parijs, op. cit., 3.
This page intentionally left blank
IX
1
“Reflections on Titles,” FO 2: 33.
2
“Thoughts on Defensive War,” FO 2: 53.
3
Ibid.
4
Common Sense, FO 1: 17.
5
American Crisis III, FO 1: 94.
6
Ibid., 93.
A Quaker with a Difference 139
7
Maritime Compact, FO 2: 946.
8
Ibid., 941.
9
Ibid., 944.
10
Ibid., 945.
11
Ibid., 946.
12
Letter to the Abbé Raynal, FO 2: 262.
13
See D. Abel, “The Significance of the Letter to the Abbé Raynal in the Progress
of Thomas Paine’s Thought,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,
LXVI (April 1942): 176-90.
140 The Transatlantic Republican
14
Letter to the Abbé Raynal, FO 2: 241.
15
Ibid., 256.
16
Ibid., 244.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 245.
19
Ibid., 242.
A Quaker with a Difference 141
their forms what they may, are relatively republics with each other,”
such was, he explained, “the first and true principle of alliance.”20
Ten years later he had learned much and changed his mind in
many ways. In the second part of Rights of Man (1792) he takes up
again, and expands, the utopian themes outlined one decade before in
his reply to Raynal, advocating this time: (1) a sort of Alliance for
Progress in the form of a European Confederacy including England,
France and Holland—not unlike the “European Republic” envisioned
by Rousseau21; (2) a gradual but “general dismantling of all the navies
in Europe”; and (3) a joint pressure of the United States and
Confederated Europe in order to obtain from Spain “the independence
of South America and the opening [of] those countries . . . to the
general commerce of the world.”22 But Paine was now convinced that
his dreams had no chance of coming true so long as England remained
allergic to democratic and republican principles, so long as it
remained a court government “enveloped in intrigue and mystery,”23
equally unable to cater for the actual needs of its people and to
peacefully cooperate with such countries as had cast off the yoke of
tyranny. He was confident that the establishment of a democratic
system in Britain would powerfully contribute to the spread of
republicanism throughout the world and to international peace.
The idea that British monarchy would be a perpetual cause of
warfare became such an obsession with Paine that in 1796 he started
contriving and planning a naval invasion of England, thus betraying
his own previous attachment to the doctrine of defensive war. But, as
he himself put it, it was still for the cause of peace that he was acting
that way: “The intention of the expedition [with Bonaparte at the
controls] was to give the people of England an opportunity of forming
a government for themselves, and thereby bring about peace.”24
Behind his dreams of naval conquest lay the deeply-rooted creed that
Britain’s external violence was nothing but a projection of its own
internal system based on social injustice, and that no lasting peace
would be achieved in Europe while England remained the stronghold
of hereditary inequality. More generally, Paine considered that the
20
Ibid., 244.
21
See the third Forester’s Letter, FO 2: 79.
22
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969), 289.
23
Ibid., 288.
24
“To the People of England on the Invasion of England,” FO 2: 680.
142 The Transatlantic Republican
25
“Letter addressed to the Addressers on the Late Proclamation,” FO 2: 488.
26
Letter to the Abbé Raynal, FO 2: 238.
X
1
Thomas Paine, “Predestination: Remarks on Romans, IX, 18-21” (1809), FO 2:
895.
2
In fact a pamphlet published in Paris in September 1797.
3
FO 2: 728.
144 The Transatlantic Republican
God, seem to have been, from his Quaker days at Thetford to the
woeful year spent in the Luxembourg prison, at the core of his
experience as both a man and a writer.
*
If one considers all the literature dedicated to Common Sense over
more than two centuries, one cannot fail to see that the religious
dimension of Paine’s first pamphlet has gone practically unnoticed.
And yet it is there, throughout, from the first to the last page of a book
which, above all else, was an act of faith. Most critics have contented
themselves with a few well-founded commonsensical remarks about
Paine’s rhetorical and insincere use of biblical references and
chronology, for instance when describing the ungodly origin of
monarchy or hereditary succession (“The will of the Almighty, as
declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of
government by kings . . . Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the
sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against
them,” etc., etc.) (CS, 72-73).
True, even as early as 1776, Paine most probably did not believe
a word of the Bible and was profoundly distrustful of established
churches, including the Christian denomination. Here is, for example,
what he wrote retrospectively on the subject at the beginning of The
Age of Reason:
Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the
exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be
followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection
of church and state . . . had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties
every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion,
that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could
not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this
should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human
inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the
pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.4
It is therefore unquestionable that the biblical references with
which Common Sense is pervaded were essentially a means artfully
resorted to to win over an audience of believers and church-goers for
whom the Bible (which they knew inside out) was, in most cases, all
the culture they had. But this should not blind us to other passages in
4
FO 1: 465.
146 The Transatlantic Republican
5
FO 1: 54.
6
CS, 87.
7
Ibid., 52 (Crisis I).
8
Ibid., 55.
Paine’s Ultimate Challenge 147
9
RM, 87-88
10
Ibid., 88.
148 The Transatlantic Republican
Adam,” and who believe that there are providential men, providential
kings, providential generations, providential or ‘glorious’
revolutionists who can legitimately take the place of God and make
their fellow-men in their own images, dictating to posterity—until the
end of time—what they should do, what they should think, how they
should be governed. If so many people refuse to “trace the rights of
man to the creation of man,” if they fail to acknowledge that “every
child born into the world must be considered as deriving his existence
from God,” if they are unable to admit that “the world is as new to
[any newborn child] as it was to the first man that existed,” and that
“his natural right in it is of the same kind,” it is, Paine argues,
“because there have been upstart governments, thrusting themselves
between, and presumptuously working to un-make man,”11 i.e. to
deprive him of his most divine attributes while dispossessing God
Himself of His monopoly as shaper of the human mind.
Paine’s insistence on what he calls “the illuminating and divine
principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the
Maker of man),” and his idea that “the equality of man, so far from
being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record,” aim at
discrediting Burke’s conservative recourse to “prescription” or
collective wisdom or “wisdom without reflection” (Burke’s own
phrase), as an artful way of negating the timelessness and adamic
nature of human rights. In whatever country or age, Paine contends,
each man is the depositary of Providence; and the same is true of
every single generation viewed as a body of individuals. If, for Paine,
the individual wisdom of the living was intrinsically superior to the
collective wisdom of the dead, it was precisely because man’s reason
(“the choicest gift of God to man”)12 was originally made,
manufactured and molded in the very image of God’s reason. And to
deny this was, in Paine’s view, to be a rejecter of God as the Maker of
Man and the Creator of all things. In other words, Mr. Burke, Mr.
Guelph,13 King John, William of Normandy, William of Orange,
George III, etc., the so-called founders or protectors of “English
liberties” (a British and abridged version of the rights of man) were all
11
Ibid.
12
FO 1: 482 (The Age of Reason, Part I; in the rest of the chapter, The Age of
Reason will be referred to as AR).
13
An amused and cruel allusion to the founder of the House of Hanover, from
which the ‘imported’ Kings of England were originally descended.
Paine’s Ultimate Challenge 149
*
Although it was, and is still, regarded as blasphemous, The Age of
Reason is, throughout, a book on blasphemy. In that respect, Common
Sense and Rights of Man had simply paved the way for this ultimate
plea entirely devoted to the defense of God—and to a merciless attack
on those who endeavor to substitute themselves for the Divinity in the
minds of men. In his letter to Erskine, Paine some time later gave a
very precise definition of what he meant by “blasphemy”:
A book called the Bible has been voted by men [an allusion to the councils of
Nicaea and Laodicea],15 and decreed by human laws, to be the Word of God,
14
RM, 108.
15
These two councils, Paine wrote in Examination of the Prophecies, “were held
three hundred and fifty years after the time Christ is said to have lived; and the books
150 The Transatlantic Republican
and the disbelief of this is called blasphemy. But if the Bible be not the Word
of God, it is the laws and the execution of them that is blasphemy, and not the
disbelief.16
Paine did not reject the possibility of ‘revelation’ in religious
matters, but revelation, as he saw it, was necessarily a direct
transaction between God and some particular individual. From the
moment the person who had received the revelation turned to other
people to tell them about his or her experience, this was no longer a
revelation (at least for the listeners), but a mere second-hand narrative
or testimony. And this was precisely, Paine contended, what the Bible
was entirely grounded upon, from the first line to the last: unverifiable
pieces of evidence, narratives based on hearsay, tales and fables
expressed in various ancient languages, when in fact, Paine added,
“the Word of God cannot [by definition] exist in any written or human
language” (AR, 477). Paine, just as he had previously done with
Burke, attacked the usurpers of the Word of God on their own ground,
and with their own weapon, resolutely setting out to expose their
trickery and “to show that the Bible is spurious, and thus, by taking
away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole structure of
superstition raised thereon” (AR, 554).
But in his eyes, the Bible was not only an unreliable collection of
factual contradictions, chronological impossibilities and human (i.e.
erroneous) artifacts; it was also a jumble “of the most unexampled
atrocities” (AR, 528), a “history of assassinations, treachery and wars”
(AR, 539) and therefore an immoral piece of writing, in addition to its
being a “lying book” (AR, 569). Paine consequently assigned to
himself a double task: first, to reinstate the truth of God’s Word in its
original natural rights, by debunking the claims of all Bible-forgers
and Scripture-makers; and, second, to “vindicate the moral justice of
God against the calumnies of the Bible” (AR, 523).
In this battle for truth and morality, Paine, obviously, did not
mince his words, stigmatizing in a most caustic way the blasphemous
and impious attitude of those who had so long and so shamelessly
imposed upon mankind, and put the name of God in the service of
their own cause or interests. The Old Testament (but how could God
that now compose the New Testament were then voted for by yeas and nays, as we
now vote a law. A great many that were offered had a majority of nays, and were
rejected. This is the way the New Testament came into being” (FO 2: 850).
16
FO 2: 729.
Paine’s Ultimate Challenge 151
17
Paine’s view is here close to Voltaire’s (“There can be no clock without a
clockmaker’). In The Age of Reason, Paine resorts to an image which is almost a
replica of Voltaire’s: “When we see a watch, we have as positive evidence of the
existence of a watchmaker, as if we saw him” (FO 2: 798).
152 The Transatlantic Republican
The thing that Paine most sharply criticized in revealed religions was
that they implied a renunciation of reason; they even condemned
science, and held it “irreligious to study and contemplate the structure
of the universe that God had made” (AR, 495). Conceived in that way,
Paine’s Ultimate Challenge 153
religion could only be “an insult to the Creator and an injury to human
reason.”18 As we have seen, reason (which he sometimes spelled with
a capital R) was regarded by Paine as “the choicest gift of God to
man.” In his last written piece (“Predestination,” 1809), he even spoke
of “the divine reason that God has given to man.”19 It is therefore
legitimate to think that Reason was Paine’s real and only God, as is so
glaringly suggested by the most famous (or, for some people,
infamous) quotation from The Age of Reason: “My own mind is my
own church” (AR, 464). Contrary to Blaise Pascal, who recommended
that people should turn themselves into half-wits if they wanted to
meet the Divinity and have faith, Paine insisted that “it is only by the
exercise of reason that man can discover God” (AR, 484). The “age of
Reason” and “the age of God” were, for him, one and the same thing.
His life-long effort as a writer, his spiritual ascension from Common
Sense to Rights of Man to The Age of Reason, was a continuous
attempt at reconciling nature and progress, religion and science,
reason and faith, the divine powers of the creature and the
almightiness of the Creator.
In the opening pages of The Age of Reason, Paine, who was
aware that his book would scandalize most of his readers, if not all of
them, wrote: “I know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but
it would be paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear
it on that account; the times and the subject demand it to be done”
(AR, 472). Thus Paine, who was himself very tolerant in religious
matters and refused to “condemn those who believe otherwise” (AR,
464), courteously apologized to his public for the occasional brutality
of his discourse, but in no way did he solicit their leniency. The price
that he had to pay for his “bold investigation” is well known: two
centuries of irrational disdain and hateful oblivion.
18
Examination of the Prophecies (1807), FO 2: 871.
19
FO 2: 897 (emphasis mine).
This page intentionally left blank
XI
1
Julian P. Boyd, quoting Richard Gimbel, in Whitfield J. Bell, The Bust of Thomas
Paine (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1974—printed for The Friends
of the Library), “Foreword,” 3.
2
Letter to the Abbé Raynal, on the Affairs of North America (Philadelphia, 1782).
3
On European travelers in the U.S., see, among many other works: Thomas D.
Clark, “The Great Visitation of American Democracy,” Mississippi Valley Historical
Review 44 (June 1957): 3-28; Peter Marshall, “Travelers and the Colonial Scene,”
British Association for American Studies Bulletin, New Series 7 (Dec. 1963): 5-28.
Early American Studies 157
4
Susan Manning, “Introduction,” in Crèvecoeur, Letters from an American
Farmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ”The World’s Classics,” 1997), viii.
5
Gay W. Allen and Roger Asselineau, St. John de Crèvecoeur: The Life of an
American Farmer (New York: Viking, 1987), 214.
6
Dennis D. Moore, ed., More Letters from the American Farmer: An Edition of the
Essays in English left unpublished by Crèvecoeur (Athens, Ga: The University of
Georgia Press, 1995), 325-26.
158 The Transatlantic Republican
has been a field pregnant with the most poisonous weeds, recriminations,
hatred, rapidly swelling to a higher degree of malice and implacability.7
*
In August-September 1782, almost a year after the battle of Yorktown,
Thomas Paine published a long pamphlet (a one-hundred-page
manuscript) entitled Letter to the Abbé Raynal, on the Affairs of North
America: In which the Mistakes in the Abbé’s Account of the
Revolution of America are Corrected and Cleared Up. This letter,
John Keane writes, “was among the most eloquent, tightly argued, and
insightful of Paine’s essays . . . certainly the longest.”9 Paine himself
attached so much value to this document that he subsequently often
introduced himself as the author of “Common Sense and the Letter to
the Abbé Raynal.” Beyond its intrinsic interest, this rigorous piece of
writing marked a turning-point in Paine’s political thinking—a
transition from his early insular view of America to an international
conception of human society. As an American historian has put it (a
quote already referred to), he “actually ceased to think in nationalistic
terms and became a practical internationalist”10—more utopian, one
should say, than practical. His times, indeed, were not ripe for the
radical prophecies contained in the Letter—which included the
establishment of international free trade, the organization of peace on
a world-wide basis, a concerted limitation of armaments and a
federation of nations—but Paine’s singular merit was that of a
visionary who was able to raise himself and his thought above the
narrow configurations of his age.
Paine’s Letter was a reply to Raynal’s famous book (Tableau et
révolutions des colonies anglaises de l’Amérique septentrionale)
7
Ibid. (emphasis mine).
8
To whom, incidentally, Crèvecoeur’s Letters were dedicated.
9
John Keane, Tom Paine, 230.
10
See D. Abel, “The Significance of the Letter to the Abbé Raynal in the Progress
of Thomas Paine’s Thought,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
LXVI (April 1942): 176-90.
Early American Studies 159
published in Paris in 1781. Yet the text to which Paine refers is that of
an English translation based on a pirated version of the French book.
(An occasion for Paine to advocate—some time after Beaumarchais—
a universal legislation for the protection of intellectual property.)11
The translation (as well as a pirated version of the original)12 appeared
in London some six months before the authorized edition. A reprint of
that translation, entitled Observations on the Revolution in America,
was soon after published in Philadelphia and other American cities.
Paine read a copy he had borrowed from Robert Morris. His reply was
published ... at the author’s expense. Fifty copies were sent to George
Washington “for the use of the army”13; Paine received in return a
very warm letter of thanks. He also sent fifty copies to Robert R.
Livingston and Robert Morris, asking them to propagate his pamphlet
wherever they could in the West Indies and Europe, more particularly
in Britain and France.14
Refuting Raynal’s book had three different objects: (1)
preserving the image of Revolutionary America by dramatically
picking out Raynal’s factual errors and erroneous interpretations; (2)
11
Letter to the Abbé Raynal: “The state of literature in America must one day
become a subject of legislative consideration . . . When peace shall give time and
opportunity for study, the country will deprive itself of the honor and service of letters
and the improvement of science, unless sufficient laws are made to prevent
depredations on literary property . . . A man’s opinions, whether written or in thought,
are his own” (FO 2: 213n, 214). On Beaumatchais’s earlier initiative, see Chapter 5,
note 8.
12
“Révolution de l’Amérique par M. l’abbé Raynal, Lockyer Davis, Londres,
1781).”
13
Keane, Tom Paine, 232.
14
“Unsurprisingly,” John Keane writes, Paine’s “pro-American Letter to the Abbé
Raynal was greeted respectfully in America. A half-dollar second edition soon
appeared in Philadelphia, and a cheaper edition was reprinted by Benjamin Edes and
Sons in Boston . . . Robert Morris sent copies of the ‘excellent Pamphlet’ to contacts
such as Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Maryland’s superintendent of revenue, while
Charles Thomson, secretary of Congress, was forwarded thirteen dozen ‘to be sent as
occasion might offer to the several governments’ . . . The international reception of
the pamphlet was boosted by Paine’s distribution of free copies. He admitted at the
time to giving away nearly five hundred copies . . . Paine’s hopes were bolstered by
news that reprints of the pamphlet were soon to appear in London and Dublin and that
it was receiving excellent reviews in France, where two translations were published
during 1783. ‘I have lately travelled much,’ reported an American touring that
country, ‘and find him everywhere. His letter to the Abbé Raynal has sealed his
fame’” (John Keane, Tom Paine, 232-33).
160 The Transatlantic Republican
15
FO 2: 1232-33.
16
See Keane, Tom Paine, 580n.64.
17
FO 2: 221-22.
Early American Studies 161
18
Ibid., 215.
19
Abbé Raynal, The Revolution in America (London: Lockyer Davis, 1781), 126-
27.
20
FO 2: 216.
21
Ibid.
162 The Transatlantic Republican
22
Ibid., 217.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid., 218.
25
It must in all fairness be added here that Raynal was far from being entirely
negative about the future of the United States as a great nation. In his Revolution in
America, he admitted that “this part of the new world cannot fail of becoming one of
the most flourishing countries upon the globe. Nay, it has been even supposed, that
there is cause to fear lest Europe should one day find her masters in her children”
(174). But, in his comments on the ongoing Revolution, he seemed to have much less
confidence in the American population than in the country itself: “No sooner would
the liberty of this vast continent be established, than it would become the asylum of
all the offscouring amongst us, of men of intriguing, seditious spirits, blasted
characters, or ruined fortunes.” (169) Raynal was quite aware that his criticisms were
going against the tide, but he refused to give in to fashion: “Let us dare to stem the
torrent of public opinion, and that of public enthusiasm” (174). In the conclusion of
his book, he was nevertheless ‘a good sport’ with the American people, wishing them
well, although not without some qualification: “May your duration, if it possible,
equal the duration of the world” (181). If it is possible ...
26
FO 2: 235.
27
Ibid., 220.
Early American Studies 163
28
Ibid., 219.
29
Ibid., 243.
30
Ibid., 255.
31
Ibid., 242
32
Ibid., 240.
33
Ibid., 244.
34
Ibid., 243.
164 The Transatlantic Republican
35
In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont—both of them judges
at the Versailles court of justice—received permission to travel to the U.S. for the
purpose of studying the U.S. prison system. They were also intrigued with the notion
of American democracy and eager to see the country. So Tocqueville, then only 25,
and Beaumont, 28, spent nine months traveling throughout the U.S. in search of
America’s ‘essence.’ They ventured as far west as Michigan where guides led them
through the unspoiled wilderness. They headed south to New Orleans, risking their
lives to travel during the worst winter in years. But the majority of their time was
spent in Boston, New York and Philadelphia; they were warmly received by the elite
and had little difficulty arranging meetings with some of the most prominent and
influential American intellectuals of the early 19th century. For a full and detailed
account, see, among other biographies, John Wilson Pierson, Tocqueville in America
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).
36
Letter to John Stuart Mill, quoted in De la démocratie en Amérique: les grands
thèmes, ed. J.- P Mayer (Paris: Gallimard, 1968), 12.
37
Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America, translated by George Lawrence
(New York: Harper, 1988), 20.
Early American Studies 165
38
Quoted in J.-P. Mayer, ed., De la démocratie en Amérique: les grands thèmes,
12.
39
Ibid., 9.
40
Ibid., 11.
41
Ibid., 19.
42
Letter to John Stuart Mill, quoted in John Wilson Pierson, Tocqueville in
America, 748.
166 The Transatlantic Republican
43
“A statue of gold should be erected to you in every city in the universe”: this is
what Bonaparte is reported to have said to Paine during an unexpected visit to his
small apartment on rue de l’Odéon (then rue de l’Ancienne Comédie) in the fall of
1797. See W. E. Woodward, Tom Paine: America’s Godfather, 1737-1809 (London:
Secker & Warburg, 1946), 301.
Bibliography
1
Paine’s three main works are separately available in the following editions:
Common Sense, ed. Isaac Kramnick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982); Rights of Man,
ed. Henry Collins Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982 (also: ed. Gregory Claeys.
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992); The Age of Reason, ed. Philip S. Foner. Secaucus, NJ:
Citadel Press, 1974. No (complete) British edition of The Age of Reason is currently
available; The Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987) contains only Part 1. Most of Paine’s works can be
accessed on the Web, in particular at: http://www.thomaspaine.org/contents.html
168 The Transatlantic Republican
Foner, Eric. Tom Paine and Revolutionary America. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
Fruchtman, Jack. Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom. New York: Four Walls Eight
Windows, 1994.
Hawke, David Freeman. Paine. New York: Harper, 1974; Norton: 1992.
Joulin, Malou. Le temps de Thomas Paine. Bruxelles: Complexe, 2004.
Keane, John. Tom Paine: A Political Life. Boston, New York, Toronto, London:
Little, Brown & Co, 1995.
Lessay, Jean. L’Américain de la Convention: Thomas Paine. Paris: Perrin, 1987.
Oldys, Francis. See Chalmers, George.
Powell, David. Tom Paine: The Greatest Exile. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985.
Rabbe, Félix. See Conway, Moncure D.
Rickman, Thomas. Clio, Life of Thomas Paine. London, 1819.
Sherwin, Thomas. Memoirs of the Life of Thomas Paine. London, 1819.
Smith, Frank. Thomas Paine, Liberator. New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1938.
Stephen, Leslie. “Thomas Paine.” Dictionary of National Biography, vol. XLIII,
69-79.
Vale, Gilbert. The Life of Thomas Paine. New York: 1841.
Vincent, Bernard. Thomas Paine ou la religion de la liberté. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne,
1987.
Williamson, Audrey. Thomas Paine, His Life, Work and Times. London: Allen &
Unwin, 1973.
Wilson, Jerome D. and William F. Ricketson. Thomas Paine. New York: Twayne,
1978.
Woodward, William E. Tom Paine: America’s Godfather. London: Secker &
Warburg, 1946.
Claeys, Gregory. Thomas Paine: Social and Political Thought. Boston: Unwin
Hyman, 1989.
Copeland, Thomas W. “Burke, Paine and Jefferson.” In Our Eminent Friend Edmund
Burke: Six Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949, 146-89.
Davidson, Edward H. and William J. Scheick. Paine, Scripture, and Authority: “The
Age of Reason “as Religious and Political Idea. Bethlehem: Lehigh University
Press, 1994.
Dorfman, Joseph. “The Economic Philosophy of Thomas Paine.” Political Science
Quarterly 53 (1938): 372-86.
Dyck, Ian. Citizen of the World: Essays on Thomas Paine. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1988.
Falk, Robert P. “Thomas Paine and the Attitude of the Quakers to the American
Revolution.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 63
(1939): 302-10.
Fennessy, R. R. Burke, Paine and the Rights of Man: A Difference in Political
Opinion. The Hague: Martuus Nijhoff, 1963.
Fruchtman, Jack. Thomas Paine and the Religion of Nature. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Gimbel, Richard. Thomas Paine: A Bibliographical Checklist of “Common Sense”
with an Account of its Publication. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956.
Kaminski, John P., ed. Citizen Paine: Thomas Paine’s Thoughts on Man,
Government, Society and Religion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Kantin Georges, ed. Thomas Paine, citoyen du monde. Paris: Créaphys, 1990.
King, Arnold Kinsey. “Thomas Paine in America, 1774-1787.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Chicago, 1951.
Kramnick, Isaac. “Tom Paine: Radical Democrat.” Democracy 1 (January 1981): 127-
38.
Le Moal, Paul. “La doctrine de Thomas Paine. Genèse – Evolution et expression
d’une pensée.” Thèse d’Etat (Ph.D. diss.), Université de Paris, 1971.
Meng, John J. “The Constitutional Theories of Thomas Paine.” Review of Politics 8
(1946): 283-306.
Palmer, Robert R. “Tom Paine, Victim of the Rights of Man.” Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography 66 (1942): 161-75.
Pütz, Manfred and Jon-K Adams. A Concordance to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense
“and “The American Crisis.” New York: Garland, 1989.
Sykes, Norman. “Thomas Paine.” In F. J. C. Hearnshaw, ed., The Social and Political
Ideas of the Revolutionary Era. London: Harrap, 1931, 100-40.
Thompson, Ann. “Thomas Paine and the United Irishmen.” Études irlandaises 16
(June 1991): 109-19.
Vincent, Bernard. “La stratégie du temps dans Common Sense.” In Autre temps, autre
espace: essais sur l’Amérique pré-industrielle, ed. Élise Marienstras and Barbara
Karsky. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1986.
—. “Thomas Paine, Freemasonry and the American Revolution.” Bulletin of the
Thomas Paine Society 1 (spring 1988): 3-18.
—. “Cinq inédits de Thomas Paine.” Revue Française d’Études Américaines 40 (April
1989):213-35.
—. “Thomas Paine and the French Revolution.” Huguenot-Thomas Paine Historical
Association “Pamphlet” (summer-fall 1989 and winter-spring 1990).
170 The Transatlantic Republican
V. Fictionalized Accounts
Elias, Jacob T., Young Thomas Paine. New York: Xlibris Corporation, 2000.
Fast, Howard, Citizen Tom Paine. New York: The Modern Library, 1943.
VI. Theater
Foster, Paul, Tom Paine: A Play in Two Parts. New York: Grove Press, 1967.
Foxall, Vince, Tom Paine Live. Performed in London at the Islington “Red Lion
Theatre,” Sept. 24 – Oct. 12, 1985.
Lewis, Joseph, The Tragic Patriot: A Drama of Historical Significance in Five Acts
and Twenty-Five Scenes. New York: The Freethought Press, 1954.
This page intentionally left blank
Index
Cloots, Anacharsis, 65, 66, 72, 88 36, 39, 42, 46n.34, 50, 56, 69, 70-
Cobbett, William, 114 74, 79, 80, 81, 82, 96, 114
Cochin, Augustin, 50, 53 Freud, Sigmund, 9
Codman, Richard, 68 Furet, François, 53
Coil, Henry Wilson, 40, 43n.23
Condorcet, Marquis de, 36, 67, 87, Gallatin, Albert, 52, 106
91, 111, 122 Gandhi, Mahatma, 137
Copans, Sim, 155 George III, 148
Cornwallis, Charles (general), 47 George IV, 37
Cortés, Hernando, 79 George, Henry, 1133
Crèvecoeur, J. Hector St. John de, 70, Gibbon, Edward, 114
77, 156-58 Goodman, Paul, 134
Cumberland, Duke of, 37 Goodman, Percival, 134
Grafton, Dukes of, 2
Danton, Georges-Jacques, 36, 37, 87, Grasse, Admiral de, 47
88 Greene, Nathanael, 36, 47, 86
Deane, Silas,12, 50 Grégoire, Abbé, 75
Declaratory Act (1766), 161 Griffith, Thomas, 68
Defoe, Daniel, 9 Grimshaw, William, 40
Deforgues, François, Louis, Michel, Guillotin, Ignace, 37
Chemin, 111
Dejaure, Jean-Élie, 80 Hall, Prince, 56-57
De Kalb, Johann, 47 Hamilton, Alexander, 46, 47, 83
Delisle de la Drevetière, Louis- Hancock, John, 45
François, 78 Haskins, William, 68
Denslow, William, 41 Heaton, Ronald, 40, 47n.35, 47n.36
Dermott, Lawrence, 43 Henry, Patrick, 47
Desfontaines, Pierre-François, 81 Hérault de Séchelles, Marie Jean, 88
Desmoulins, Camille, 88 Hobbes, Thomas, 95
Devoe, Frederick, 112 Hooper, William, 47
Dickinson, John, 47 Houdetot, Mme d’, 72
Duchâtelet, Achille, 36, 91 Howe, William (general), 28, 146
Dumenil, Lynn, 57 Howe, Lord Richard (admiral), 23, 48
Dwight, Theodore, 52, 57 Hume, David, 114
Dwight, Timothy, 51, 52 Hunt, Isaac, 3
Hunt, Leigh, 3
Echeverria, Durand, 83
Edes, Benjamin, and Sons, 159n.14 Illich, Ivan, 134
Erskine, Thomas, 143, 149
Estaing, Admiral d’, 47 Jackson, Major William, 68
Eustace, John Skey, 67 Jaurès, Jean, 133
Jay, John, 47
Fabre d’Églantine, Philippe, 88 Jefferson, Thomas, 1, 3, 15, 27, 36,
Fauchet, Abbé, 38, 75 37, 46, 50, 52, 69, 82, 86, 90, 94,
Faÿ, Bernard, 35, 37 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
Fox, Charles, 6 105
Fragonard, Jean-Honoré, 71 Jeffries, John, 7
Franklin, Benjamin, 1, 11, 12, 15, 35, Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas,
Index 175
AR, 15-16; strategic timing of CS, the world, 1107, 114, 166; placed
21-33; TP corset-maker, 22, 35; TP in the Hall of Fame, 96; on and for
Excise Officer, 22, 35; the three universal suffrage, 117-24; against
forms of time in CS, 27-30, 31; on property qualifications, 119-20; on
the necessity of a “Continental “the people,” 120; on the “nation,”
Charter,” 99n.9, 118; TP and 120-21; on property, 122, 129-32;
Freemasonry, 35-39; Illuminati, 38, on the vote of Black people, 124;
51, 52; TP’s bridge on the Thames, on the vote of women, 124; TP and
67, 85; made a French citizen, 69, Quakerism, 10, 74, 76, 104, 137-
83, 87, 95, 111, 144; elected deputy 38, 145, 152; not a pacifist, 137,
of the Convention, 87; drafts (with 138; advocates an Unarmed Assoc-
Condorcet) the Constitution of iation of Nations, 90, 139; a
Year 1, 87, 122; speaks for Louis concerted limitation of armaments,
XVI, 87-88; jailed in the Luxem- 139; a federation of nations, 139,
bourg prison, 36, 69, 82, 87n.3, 88, 158; a European Confederacy, 99;
89, 93, 109, 110, 125, 144, 145; criticism of the Bible, 14, 15, 149-
escapes the guillotine, 88, 144; 51; of revealed religions, 125, 132,
criticizes George Washington, 89; 140; quotes the Bible for rhetorical
completes AR in James Monroe’s purposes, 10, 145-46; TP and
house, 89; writes Maritime Deism, 15, 16, 38, 89, 93, 143,
Compact, 80, 138; out of phase 151-52; Genesis as source of
with French Revolution, 91-93; human rights, 147-48; Adamism,
unable to speak French, 87; works 27, 121, 146, 148, 149, 151-52;
with the Theophilanthropists, 93; condemnation of the ‘usurpers of
criticizes the French Revolution, the Word of God,’ 150-52; TP’s
93-94; invited by Jefferson to faith in reason, 4, 5, 9, 23, 24, 25,
return to America, 94; unsuc- 28, 29, 31, 38, 143, 152; tolerant of
cessfully tries to return to America all other creeds, 153; TP compared
(1797), 125; plans (with Bonaparte) to Crèvecoeur, 157-58; to Raynal,
an invasion of England, 94, 138, 158-64; to Tocqueville, 164-66.
141; mentioned as a future member
of the “English Directory”, 95; Main works cited :
criticizes the Constitution of Year Address “To the French Inhabitants
III, 123, 126; against Babeuf’s of Louisiana,” 106
communism, 127-28; advocates Agrarian Justice, 93, 123, 125-35
taxation on land, 129-30, 131; An Essay on the Origin of Free-
proposes various allowances, 130; masonry, 36
and the creation of a national fund, “A Serious Address to the People of
130; impact of Agrarian Justice, Pennsylvania,” 119
132-35; returns to America (1802), Common Sense, 1, 5, 8-12, 14, 16, 17,
97, 123; on the Louisiana Purchase, 21-33, 86, 91, 93, 99n.9, 107, 110,
97-107; TP as “farmer of thoughts” 117-18
and prophet, 26, 30, 99, 107, 124, Dissertation on First Principles of
135, 137; advocates international Government, 92n.12, 93, 123
copyright, 99, 159; problem of his Dissertation on Government; the
citizenship, 109-14; criticizes Gou- affairs of the Bank; and Paper
verneur Morris, 101, 110; TP Money, 120
disenfranchised, 109-12; citizen of “Epitaph” for a pet crow, 2
Index 177
Toussaint-Louverture, 106
Trumbull, John, 67
Turgot, Anne-Robert-Jacques, 71
Walkes, Joseph, 56
Walpole, Horace, 3
Walras, Léon, 133
Ward, Elisha, 109
Warren, Joseph, 45, 46n.34
Washington, George, 1, 11, 23, 36,
40, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 56, 81, 83,
85, 88, 89, 94, 96, 98, 109, 110,
159
Watson, Richard, 16, 126
Wayne, Anthony, 47
Webster, Daniel, 44
Weishaupt, Adam, 38, 51
Whipple, Abraham, 45
Wilkes, John, 50
William of Normandy, 148
William of Orange, 148
Williams, Thomas, 125, 143
Wirt, William, 57n.70
Witherspoon, John, 36, 47
Wollstonecraft, Mary, 124
Wright, Joseph, 67
Wright, Patience, 67