feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/novelguide/Common Sense/section_3_part_0.txt
feat_book_id: Common Sense.chapter 2
feat_summary_id: chapter 2
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapter 2", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210212220739/https://www.novelguide.com/common-sense/summaries/chap2", "summary": "of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Paine goes into more detail on arguments against monarchy. First of all, men were originally equal in creation. The idea of social order came later, especially the idea of a king and his subjects. According to the Bible, there were no kings in the beginning. Monarchy was an idea introduced to the Jews by heathens. It was originally a sin for the Jews because the Lord was king. Paine goes into a long passage on Biblical history, citing the example of Samuel, whom the people begged to be king and to appoint an heir, but he refused because a king made slaves of his subjects, took their goods, and took the place of God. On top of this evil is added hereditary succession, in which one family is set up in preference to others. England has had a few good kings, says the author, but they had no divinity. There are wars over succession and usurpation of thrones. Kingship is thus a parallel of original sin. The men of England are not so proud of their king as of their republicanism--the idea of equality of all before the law.", "analysis": "Commentary on Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Paine makes the subject of monarchy a major consideration in his argument for separation from England. He taps into the glamour of these new radical ideas that were breathtaking to liberals of the day, not only in America, but in Europe. America was seen as the stage where this new philosophy of equality could be tested and played out. Many Europeans were sympathetic to the abolition of monarchy, which seemed to have led to so many wars and inequality of opportunity. Paine points out that the primary job of monarchs is to make war to increase territory and to hand out posts and privileges to secure their position. This does not serve the people or make sense in a rational age. England has always prided itself on being modern, but Paine tries to make Britain look incompetently out of date by adhering to monarchy."}
text: 
  MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the
  equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the
  distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted
  for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names
  of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but
  seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and though avarice will
  preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him
  too timorous to be wealthy.
  
  But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly
  natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
  distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the
  distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but
  how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and
  distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and
  whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
  
  In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture
  chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there
  were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
  confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this
  last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe.
  Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of
  the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes
  away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
  
  Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
  Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was
  the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the
  promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their
  deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by
  doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of
  sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is
  crumbling into dust!
  
  As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
  justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be
  defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty,
  as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves
  of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have
  been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
  undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their
  governments yet to form. "RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE
  CAESAR'S" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support
  of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a
  king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
  
  Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of
  the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a
  king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary
  cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic
  administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had
  none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that
  title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the
  idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not
  wonder, that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should
  disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the
  prerogative of heaven.
  
  Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for
  which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of
  that transaction is worth attending to.
  
  The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon
  marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine
  interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate with success,
  and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him
  a king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US, THOU AND THY SON AND THY SON'S
  SON. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only,
  but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied,
  I WILL NOT RULE OVER YOU, NEITHER SHALL MY SON RULE OVER YOU. THE
  LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon
  doth not DECLINE the honor, but denieth their right to give it;
  neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his
  thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with
  disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.
  
  About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into
  the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous
  customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but
  so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons,
  who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt
  and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, BEHOLD THOU ART OLD, AND THY
  SONS WALK NOT IN THY WAYS, NOW MAKE US A KING TO JUDGE US LIKE ALL
  THE OTHER NATIONS. And here we cannot but observe that their motives
  were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other nations, i. e.
  the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much UNLIKE
  them as possible. BUT THE THING DISPLEASED SAMUEL WHEN THEY SAID,
  GIVE US A KING TO JUDGE US; AND SAMUEL PRAYED UNTO THE LORD, AND THE
  LORD SAID UNTO SAMUEL, HEARKEN UNTO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL
  THAT THEY SAY UNTO THEE, FOR THEY HAVE NOT REJECTED THEE, BUT THEY
  HAVE REJECTED ME, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. ACCORDING TO
  ALL THE WORKS WHICH THEY HAVE DONE SINCE THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM
  UP OUT OF EGYPT, EVEN UNTO THIS DAY; WHEREWITH THEY HAVE FORSAKEN ME
  AND SERVED OTHER GODS; SO DO THEY ALSO UNTO THEE. NOW THEREFORE
  HEARKEN UNTO THEIR VOICE, HOWBEIT, PROTEST SOLEMNLY UNTO THEM AND
  SHEW THEM THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER THEM, I. E.
  not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of
  the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And
  notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners,
  the character is still in fashion. AND SAMUEL TOLD ALL THE WORDS OF
  THE LORD UNTO THE PEOPLE, THAT ASKED OF HIM A KING. AND HE SAID, THIS
  SHALL BE THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER YOU; HE WILL
  TAKE YOUR SONS AND APPOINT THEM FOR HIMSELF, FOR HIS CHARIOTS, AND TO
  BE HIS HORSEMEN, AND SOME SHALL RUN BEFORE HIS CHARIOTS (this
  description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) AND HE
  WILL APPOINT HIM CAPTAINS OVER THOUSANDS AND CAPTAINS OVER FIFTIES,
  AND WILL SET THEM TO EAR HIS GROUND AND TO READ HIS HARVEST, AND TO
  MAKE HIS INSTRUMENTS OF WAR, AND INSTRUMENTS OF HIS CHARIOTS; AND HE
  WILL TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO BE CONFECTIONARIES, AND TO BE COOKS AND
  TO BE BAKERS (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the
  oppression of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR FIELDS AND YOUR OLIVE
  YARDS, EVEN THE BEST OF THEM, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS SERVANTS; AND HE
  WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR FEED, AND OF YOUR VINEYARDS, AND GIVE
  THEM TO HIS OFFICERS AND TO HIS SERVANTS (by which we see that
  bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings)
  AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR MEN SERVANTS, AND YOUR MAID
  SERVANTS, AND YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN AND YOUR ASSES, AND PUT THEM
  TO HIS WORK; AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR SHEEP, AND YE SHALL
  BE HIS SERVANTS, AND YE SHALL CRY OUT IN THAT DAY BECAUSE OF YOUR
  KING WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN
  THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do
  the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either
  sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the
  high encomium given of David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A
  KING, but only as a MAN after God's own heart. NEVERTHELESS THE
  PEOPLE REFUSED TO OBEY THE VOICE OF SAMUEL, AND THEY SAID, NAY, BUT
  WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER US, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE ALL THE NATIONS, AND
  THAT OUR KING MAY JUDGE US, AND GO OUT BEFORE US, AND FIGHT OUR
  BATTLES. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he
  set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and
  seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I WILL CALL
  UNTO THE LORD, AND HE SHALL SEND THUNDER AND RAIN (which then was a
  punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) THAT YE MAY PERCEIVE
  AND SEE THAT YOUR WICKEDNESS IS GREAT WHICH YE HAVE DONE IN THE SIGHT
  OF THE LORD, IN ASKING YOU A KING. SO SAMUEL CALLED UNTO THE LORD,
  AND THE LORD SENT THUNDER AND RAIN THAT DAY, AND ALL THE PEOPLE
  GREATLY FEARED THE LORD AND SAMUEL. AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO
  SAMUEL, PRAY FOR THY SERVANTS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD THAT WE DIE NOT,
  FOR WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These
  portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no
  equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his
  protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is
  false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
  king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the
  public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the
  Popery of government.
  
  To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
  succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
  ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult
  and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals,
  no ONE by BIRTH could have a right to set up his own family in
  perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might
  deserve SOME decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his
  descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the
  strongest NATURAL proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings,
  is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so
  frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ASS FOR A
  LION.
  
  Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors
  than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have
  no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might
  say "We choose you for OUR head," they could not, without manifest
  injustice to their children, say "that your children and your
  children's children shall reign over OURS for ever." Because such
  an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
  succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most
  wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary
  right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once
  established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from
  superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the
  plunder of the rest.
  
  This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have
  had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could
  we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their
  first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than
  the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or
  pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among
  plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his
  depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their
  safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea
  of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a
  perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
  unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,
  hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take
  place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental;
  but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditionary
  history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a
  few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently
  timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the
  vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to
  threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for
  elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at
  first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as
  it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a
  convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
  
  England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but
  groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his
  senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very
  honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and
  establishing himself king of England against the consent of the
  natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It
  certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend
  much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any
  so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and
  lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb
  their devotion.
  
  Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?
  The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by
  election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it
  establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
  succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,
  neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention
  it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election,
  that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that
  the RIGHT of all future generations is taken away, by the act of
  the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a
  family of kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture
  but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all
  men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no
  other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all
  sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one
  all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty;
  as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the
  last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and
  privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary
  succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion!
  Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
  
  As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that
  William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
  contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English
  monarchy will not bear looking into.
  
  But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
  succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and
  wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens
  a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in
  it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to
  reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest
  of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the
  world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that
  they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and
  when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant
  and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
  
  Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the
  throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which
  time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every
  opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national
  misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity,
  enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the
  public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully
  with the follies either of age or infancy.
  
  The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of
  hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil
  wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the
  most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history
  of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned
  in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there
  have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars
  and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it
  makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand
  on.
  
  The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York
  and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years.
  Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought
  between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in
  his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war
  and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the
  ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to
  a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land;
  yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
  turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him.
  The parliament always following the strongest side.
  
  This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not
  entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families
  were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.
  
  In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that
  kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of
  government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood
  will attend it.
  
  If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in
  some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives
  without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw
  from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle
  round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and
  military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request
  for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before
  us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a
  judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know
  what IS his business.
  
  The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less
  business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a
  proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls
  it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name,
  because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places
  in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and
  eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in
  the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as
  monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names
  without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the
  monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen
  glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out
  of their own body--and it is easy to see that when republican virtue
  fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but
  because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed
  the commons?
  
  In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give
  away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and
  set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be
  allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped
  into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in
  the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
  
feat_summary_name: Chapter 2
target: of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Paine goes into more detail on arguments against monarchy. First of all, men were originally equal in creation. The idea of social order came later, especially the idea of a king and his subjects. According to the Bible, there were no kings in the beginning. Monarchy was an idea introduced to the Jews by heathens. It was originally a sin for the Jews because the Lord was king. Paine goes into a long passage on Biblical history, citing the example of Samuel, whom the people begged to be king and to appoint an heir, but he refused because a king made slaves of his subjects, took their goods, and took the place of God. On top of this evil is added hereditary succession, in which one family is set up in preference to others. England has had a few good kings, says the author, but they had no divinity. There are wars over succession and usurpation of thrones. Kingship is thus a parallel of original sin. The men of England are not so proud of their king as of their republicanism--the idea of equality of all before the law.
feat_summary_analysis: Commentary on Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Paine makes the subject of monarchy a major consideration in his argument for separation from England. He taps into the glamour of these new radical ideas that were breathtaking to liberals of the day, not only in America, but in Europe. America was seen as the stage where this new philosophy of equality could be tested and played out. Many Europeans were sympathetic to the abolition of monarchy, which seemed to have led to so many wars and inequality of opportunity. Paine points out that the primary job of monarchs is to make war to increase territory and to hand out posts and privileges to secure their position. This does not serve the people or make sense in a rational age. England has always prided itself on being modern, but Paine tries to make Britain look incompetently out of date by adhering to monarchy.