The Articles of Confederation: A Reaction to Thomas Paine's Common Sense

In January 1776, Thomas Paine published a pamphlet explaining in great detail how the American colonists were being abused by imperialist England in their present state of dependence. The pamphlet, Common Sense, was intended to provide a rational basis for inciting Americans to declare their independence from England. With America's Declaration of Independence occurring six months later, the Revolutionary war showed Americans how necessary it was to have a "league of friendship" among the states for the purpose of the common good. However, Paine had clearly noted the flaws of an overbearing central government, as in the case of England, so the states were weary to approve of a pact that would diminish the power of their local governments. As a direct result of the caution inflamed by Common Sense, the thirteen states eventually approved the Articles of Confederation in 1781-a national constitution with a weak federal government, purposefully designed to avoid the tyranny once experienced under British rule.

Previous examples of tyranny cited by Paine gave Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the main writer of the Articles of Confederation, inspiration for taking preventative measures against such acts occurring in America's government. Paine railed Parliament for having previously passed a series of laws limiting America's economic freedoms- clear evidence to all that England was set on strengthening their mercantilist policies. The Stamp Act, passed by Parliament in 1765, levied a tax on all printed materials in the Colonies. For Britain this meant recouping the costs of the French and Indian War, but for the Colonists this was just an intrusion on their economic freedoms. "The Stamp Act could not be enforced; the ports were full of smugglers; the British troops, sent as garrisons to various places, had quarrels and fights with the people; contraband goods were sold openly in the shops; the courts were flouted by the populace" (Woodward, 73). Rioting, boycotting, and the forming of a Stamp Act Congress led to the Stamp Act being repealed, but Britain asserted its right to tax the Colonies in the Declaratory Act of 1766. It followed with the Townshend Acts, the Tea Tax, and the Intolerable Acts, spurring the convening of the First Continental Congress in 1774. The Colonies were beginning to pay attention to their mercantilist mother-country's lack of concern for their well-being. Under the Navigation Act, British mercantilism was at its strongest. "The Dutch were, for instance, large consumers of American tobacco. But the Navigation Act-imposed by the British on the Colonies-forbade the shipping of the tobacco leaf direct from Virginia to Holland" (Woodward, 71). Instead of direct trading with non-British countries, the tobacco had to be first sold to an English merchant, shipped to England, unloaded, resold to a Dutch distributor, reloaded, and finally shipped to Holland. As a result, the English middlemen profited and the Colonies suffered. The same principle functioned in reverse; the colonies could not purchase goods directly from Europe, but had to purchase them at a ridiculous markup from British merchants. ". . .Colonial purchasers were paying from 25 to 40 per cent more for manufactured articles than they would have had to pay if the goods could have been bought in a free market" (Woodward, 72).

Paine's protesting against such taxation led to the severe limitation of federal taxing power under the Articles of Confederation. In Article VIII, it is written: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint." "No power to lay taxes was bestowed on Congress, and no power to regulate commerce, the two things about which there had been so much dispute in the preceding decade" (Levy, 53). As a result, Congress could not receive any consistent form of revenue; it could only ask the states for contributions to the national fund.

Another theme of Common Sense that influenced the writing of the Articles of Confederation is the impending danger that exists with a standing army. England filled the Colonies with soldiers to "secure the peace." The situation in Boston was difficult: "Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it, in their present situation they are prisoners without the hope of redemption. . ." (22) The quartering of soldiers in Boston was even more evidence that Britain would not allow America to grow up.

John Dickinson, a militia-man himself, believed strongly in the ability of state militias rather than a national army to collectively provide for the common defense. Practically, however, this did not work. Since the national government had no powers of enforcement in commanding local militias, it was unable to organize any sort of defense against the encroachments of the British and Spanish on the borders of America. It was hard to do anything effectively as long as the individual states could not be relied on to fulfill their obligations (Levy, 57).

The lack of power on the part of the federal government was manifested thoroughly in Shays Rebellion in January 1787. Daniel Shays led 1200 people to seize a national weapons arsenal, protesting the foreclosure of many farms due to payments demanded by the states for debts. The Articles of Confederation, in reaction to Paine's concerns of a strong federal government, could not even allow for the federal government to protect its own arsenal.

The Articles also had no executive branch, in order that the presidency would not become a dictatorship. Paine argued that the mere tradition of having a monarchy was not reason enough to keep having it. Reason over tradition was his argument-a break from superstition. "Time makes more converts than reason," which is why people had supported the monarchy in America for so long (8). The Enlightenment's rebellion against absolutism encouraged Paine to fight the idea of divine right, popular among many at the time. The mere existence of an elected Congress and no president insured that the national government would not become the puppet of one man.

Paine compares the king to a pope, sure to generate a negative reaction among many toward the monarchy. "For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government" (15). The authority of one man over many seems such a ridiculous notion to Paine. The idea of a monarchy was also ludicrous to Paine because the position of a king does not by nature require any amount of wisdom. It is merely hereditary. ". . . [T]he public becomes a prey to every miscreant who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy" (17). Old and young kings could be easily manipulated, and authority for life was a dangerous allowance. He also argued, "In the point of right and good order, it is something very ridiculous that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people older and wiser than himself, 'I forbid this or that act of yours to be law' " (25). Paine saw no reason that one man should have such a power. Neither did the Articles of Confederation.

Paine's philosophy of government itself was highly influential upon the writers of the Articles of Confederation. "Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices" (8). The role of government is that of a punisher, a necessary evil imposed by the people in order to keep order. "Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others" (9). Paine distrusts the nature of man, and as a result does not trust one man to rule a nation. He also insists that a government must be simple in order to be effective. ". . .[T]he more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered. . ." (10) A simple government means one that is ordered, close to the people, and committed to protect the security of its citizens.

In the Articles, the interests of the people were thus best represented at a local level, since it was much closer to the people than a strong central government. "Furthermore, there was the age-old feeling that government is inevitably the enemy of man and not his servant. We cannot neglect the effect of the long struggle in history to curb government lest it act the tyrant" (Levy, 56) This "necessary evil" philosophy of Paine encourages such a minimalistic approach to government.

To Paine, the Constitution of England was a problem because it was entirely too complicated, and thus resulted in an inefficient government. "But the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine" (10). It entrusts too much power to a king, who is by nature shut off from the world in his palace.

Alternatively, Paine proposed a much more efficient and direct form of government based on equality and subjection of all to law. "Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority; perfect equality affords no temptation" (26). "Paine outlined in Common Sense his plan for a representative government, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government planned by Paine is what we now know as the modern democratic Republic" (Van der Weyde, 33). He proposed the assemblies be annual, with a president only. This representation would be subject to the authority of a Continental Congress (27). And most importantly, there would be no king to abuse his power. Paine proclaimed, "But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, he reigns above. . ." (28). In America law would be king, unlike absolute governments where the king is law.

Though the Articles of Confederation were obviously not perfect in their implementation of Paine's democratic ideals, they represented the first step toward a government more representative of the people. With each state receiving one vote, a majority vote was required to pass an important law; a unanimous vote was required in order to pass an amendment. This made it hard to get much done, of course, but the sole intent was so that each state could protect its own interests from being invaded.

Paine encouraged revolution immediately, stating that waiting any longer could leave the door open for a tyrannical revolution. "Tis not in numbers but in unity that our great strength lies. . . no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, is able to do any thing" (30). This is reminiscent of the "unite or die" mandate given by Benjamin Franklin years earlier, encouraging the Colonists that they can indeed win their independence if they work together. He declared that there was no longer any going back; no reconciliation was possible at this point. "Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us" (32).

Paine's call for unification was extremely successful during the Revolutionary War, but was later overshadowed by the state's own individual interests since there were no longer any causes uniting all thirteen of the colonies. However, the influence of Common Sense is certainly evident in the writing of the Articles of Confederation, with both being an obvious reaction against the tyranny of an overbearing government.

Works Cited

The Constitution of the United States of America, With the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. New York: David McKay Co, 1978.

Jensen, Merrill. The Articles of Confederation: An interpretation of the social constitutional history of the American Revolution 1774-1781. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1966.

Kenyon, Cecilia M. The Antifederalists. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1966.

Levy, Leonard W. Essays on the Making of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

McDonald, Forrest and Ellen Shapiro McDonald. Confederation and Constitution, 1781-1789. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Paine, Thomas. Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everybody's Vacation Publishing Co, 1945.

Van der Weyde, William M. The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Volume 1. New York: Thomas Paine National Historical Association, 1925.

Woodward, W.E. Thomas Paine: America's Godfather. New York: E.P. Dutton &Company, 1945.