Why Thomas Paine Rejected Monarchy as a Form of Government

Thomas Paine rejected monarchy and hereditary succession based on a scripture’s point of view. He argued that every man was of equal stature in order of creation. However, the very distinctions of poverty and wealth that men laid as foundations for human worth were used to cause oppression, “seldom or never the means of riches” (Paine, 1776). Paine associates his rejection with the understanding that in the early world, the absence of kings meant there were no wars. Due to pride, kings subject their people to confusion, often translating to war. Using Holand as an example, Paine shows the absence of a monarchy in the country allowed the people to live peacefully compared to the surrounding European countries that had kings for leadership.

No man should be exalted high above another, yet in so doing, men break the order of creation by justifying the rich-poor distinctions that account for what is a measure of greatness. What was familiar among the heathens in honoring their dead is what the Christians improved on in their living ones, honoring the kings. Man is fallible, and Paine argues there is no honor in upholding what is sinful (man) in such esteem as to render it with titles like kings and give them positions over others. If the notion of equal rights of nature should apply, then all men must remain complacent in acknowledging each other as the same.

Monarchies are evil, and above that, man has added another degrading element, hereditary succession. Claimed as a matter of right, hereditary succession “is an insult and imposition on posterity” (Paine, 1776). With the understanding that every man is equal, Paine (1776) rejects the knowledge that some should put their “family in perpetual preference over all others” and that nature does not approve of monarchies’ hereditary rights. Selecting some in favor of others and giving them authority in the form of leadership is an unjust, unwise, and unnatural compact that subjects the people to foolish and rogue governance (Paine, 1776). Once established, monarchies as a form of government eventually subject the people to submission through superstition, fear, and plunder with the king.

Another reason that makes Paine reject the idea of monarchy for government is founded on the understanding that through hereditary succession, a country is preserved from civil wars. He argues that if this were the case, the entire history of England would have been free of the bare-faced falsity and the scenes of blood that crippled it for generations. Monarchy and succession contests between the Lancaster and York houses resulted in “twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward” (Paine, 1776). Far beyond England, monarchies and hereditary successions have been associated with ashes and blood. Monarchies as forms of government represent what goes against the word of God.

In England, monarchs are neither general nor judge-based, which puzzles the people to know the role of the kings. The confusion associated with the role of the English king further makes Paine reject the notion that governments should be monarch-based. In its current state, the monarchy is filled with corruption that is eating away at the crown, and the virtue of the government is failing. The corruption associated with monarchies, or the failed versions, translates to failed virtues, which facilitate slavery among the people. In other words, the use of monarchies as a form of government poisons the republic, and the commons are engrossed.

Reference

Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense: For God’s sake, let us come to a final separation. Americainclass.org. Web.

Video Voice-over