reasoning for preserving imperialistic ties. Though Paine structures his pamphlet to appear as if he is merely deducing logic and practicalities, his essay is anything but “common sense.” Paine utilizes emotional sentiments to propel his argument from one of pure logic to that of provocative pathos, in turn strengthening his assertions and inflaming the common people to take action against England. As one analyzes Paine’s use of pathos, it becomes apparent that his emotional appeal is often hidden, nearly inconspicuous. Paine forgoes traditional connotative language and scathing remarks for more subtle rhetorical techniques, conveying emotion through logical fallacies. For example, when arguing that the hereditary succession of the monarchy is unjust, Paine explains “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… it unanswerable follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels” (Paine 14). Comparing the monarchy to the story of Adam and Eve is a false analogy; though sin and power may sometimes be correlated, the inheritance of both is not. Nevertheless, the mere association of the monarchy with sin inspires negative emotions within the reader, provoking them to believe the monarchy as shameful and disgraceful. Similarly, when explaining the monarchy’s origin, Paine uses the ad hominem fallacy, attacking the origin of the monarchy rather than the principle itself. Paine states the “Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens… 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” (Paine 9). Is every concept that comes from heathens immoral? No. Does the monarchy’s heathen origin mean the concept is immoral? No. Is this argument even logical? No. But is it effective? Yes. Once again, by merely associating the monarchy with a hatred figure or group, Paine redirects anger and disgust to England, prompting the reader to resent the country’s government, even with the egregious flaws in logic. Negative emotion, however, is not Paine’s only appeal to pathos.
He juxtaposes hatred of the king with pride and hope for a new, united future free from the grasp of England's tyranny. These positive emotions are once again intertwined with fallacy. For example, when Paine states “The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors” (Paine 28), he is actually asserting a non sequitur argument. Paine assumes because Congressmen will have experience in politics, they will be effective leaders, a broad statement which corrupt politicians have proven wrong throughout history. Nevertheless, when presented with the overwhelmingly negative connotated monarchy, such a phrase instead inspires hope and optimism. The idea of a useful leader, even a flawed one, overjoys the audience. Paine further capitalizes on this juxtaposition between the negative monarchy and glorified democracy in his pamphlet’s closing, purposely using false dichotomy to emphasise the divide between good and bad. In the final passage of his writing, Paine asserts “Independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us together… our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy” (Paine 46), a statement that pits the calm emotions of unity and security against those of England’s instability and war. Though there are many other options to unite the nation, Paine reduces his argument to two, …show more content…
heavily connotative choices. He purposely ends his essay with this statement to completely separate the emotions surrounding England and America, galvanizing the people toward one extreme. It is this subtle galvanization, this inconspicuous exaggeration of emotion, that makes Paine’s writing so provocative.
Paine manipulates his audience into believing they are merely being seduced by logic, when in reality he subtly toys with their emotions to provoke outrage and hope. This strategy is purposeful, meant to avoid one of the common pitfalls of eighteenth century writing. This pamphlet is meant to appeal to the common people, a group which, at the time, was inundated with flaming, and often off putting, rhetoric. By stylizing his argument to appear logical, he avoids the commoner’s automatic disgust at radical oratory while still imparting an emotional message. Paine’s manipulation of the reader’s emotions may seem unscrupulous, however no one can deny it’s extremely effective. Though his pamphlet may be named “Common Sense”, it’s anything but pure
logic.