Now then. It’s been an unjustifiably long time since I last post. My sincere apologies. Truly. So last time I finished up Paine’s first segment, “On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” This section covered what Paine saw as the distinction between society and government (the first works positively uniting us by our affections, the second negatively by restraining our vices), what he felt was the natural reason for developing a government (to pick up the slack when morals and virtuous affection fail), and the basic purpose of that government (to provide security and freedom in the best possible way). Paine used a hypothetical colony to communicate these ideas of government, and at the end introduced his criticisms of the constitution of England (that it merged tyranny--hereditary aristocracy and monarchy--with republicanism--the house of commons). Here, he introduced his opposition to hereditary leadership because it is inherently flawed: it creates an unnatural divide by guaranteeing leadership based solely on birthright to those who are in many ways least qualified to lead due to their inherent “otherness” based on that birthright segregation.
Section two will be Paine’s detailed argument against the hereditary monarchy. “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession” begins by asserting the equality of mankind in the original order of creation. (1) Paine asserts that the distinction of “king” and “subject” is one for which there is neither natural nor religious reason. Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad those “of heaven” (religion), but the elevation of one man or group of men above the others is something entirely other. It is at this point that Paine makes an assertion that seems to be contradicted by the very source text from which he so heavily draws. Paine states: “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.” I did consider that perhaps Paine had a narrow view of history, or a limited availability of sources. Neither of these things would seem to be the case, though, nor does either of these things account for his sloppy scholarship of the Old Testament (OT) itself. He does refer to contemporary Holland as an example of a land at peace minus a monarchy, and he does limit his reference of non-monarchial peace in the OT to the ancient patriarchs. This seems to actively ignore the story of Jacob’s sons and Shechem and the Hebrew conquering of Canaan. (2) Paine then continues on to actively ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the devil. That certainly seems a harsh attribution, but considering his purpose and audience, what better way to argue against the monarchy than to point out it’s non-Hebrew origins (“heathen” being the word he uses) as an argument to support the monarchy being of infernal rather than heavenly origins? Certainly, the Hebrews justify their desire for a king to the prophet Samuel by noting “all the nations” have kings. Nevertheless, God himself tells Abraham in Genesis 17:6, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I make you into nations, and kings shall from from you.” This certainly implies that future kinds were a part of not a flouting of God’s plan. At this point, he accuses the monarchial governments of overlooking anti-monarchial scriptures. He’s going to base significant points of his argument on these scriptures he considers to be anti-monarchial.
From here, Paine outlines the development of Hebrew government from the elders to the judges to, finally, the anointing of Saul as king. To me, this becomes his weakest argument against the monarchy. He makes much (indeed several pages) of this history of Israel and God’s apparent disapproval of their desire for a king (“They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”), highlighting all the negative consequences that Samuel outlines will come as a result of having a king. (3) To Paine, all of this speaks ill of all monarchies rather than merely a criticism of a nation called out by their own record to serve God and be ruled by Him. I think it is a bit reaching to apply this perspective to a nation that is not Ancient Israel. In appealing to scripture, I think Paine undoes himself a bit. Scripture is silent on the good or ill of any particular form of government outside of the theocracy of Ancient Israel. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, part of God’s promise to and covenant with Abraham was that he would be the ancestor of kings. That in itself does seem to indicate that some form of monarchy was the intended plan. God’s correction of Israel’s call for a king would seem to be with their desire for a king like the other nations rather than a king God would choose for them. (4) It seems that Paine here falls victim to his zealotry by using irrelevant OT passages to support his point. His arguments founded on the principles of natural civic evolution and human equality are far stronger.
Paine now adds to the “evil” of monarchy, the “evil” of hereditary succession. It is here that his argument does grow stronger. Paine begins by reviewing his point that all men were originally equal, that it is not a natural point of birth to be set up in authority over others. He makes two strong points here: one, that while a man might “himself deserve SOME decent degree of honours of his contemporaries,” there is now reason to believe his descendants will; and two, a man’s public honors are bestowed on him by others and the “givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity.” In other words, a man may deserve to be elevated above his peers, but there is o justification for automatically elevating his children. Likewise, those who choose to elevate this man do not have the right to elevate his descendants above their own progeny for generations. This effectively removes the right of their own descendants to elevate those they choose. The givers of honors “could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, ‘that your children and your children’s children shall reign over OURS forever.’” (5)
Paine again uses the example of Saul in his addressing of hereditary succession when he examines how kings come to be. “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.” This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but doesn’t seem to be reflected by historical application. He attempts to defend this point by noting that Saul was appointed by lot and stating that “the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction that there was any intention it ever should be.” This again seems to show sloppy scholarship of his own source text. No mention is made of transferring the crown to another until Saul’s direct disobedience and unrepentance in I Samuel 15. It is there, after Saul has been king for years, that Samuel tells him the kingdom has been ripped from his family and will be given to another. Paine’s own text appears to argue against the point he is using it to make.
Paine continues his point noting that crowing a first king by election also tends to establish the right of succeeding generations to elect their own king at such times as necessary, unless said election appointed an entire family rather than an individual to the throne. His third answer of usurpation is merely noted as indefensible for establishing a monarchy, barbs are aimed at William the Conqueror again, and the “antiquity of the English monarchy” rejected on that basis. While it may be ugly to accept that a monarchy is granted by right of conquer (“usurpation”), it is a long-established tradition. Paine could certainly have taken more time to establish here why it is unnatural even while long-standing. Thus, it seems to me that Paine uses a poor defense for one of his strongest arguments regarding the nature of the establishment of kings and fails to firmly establish another.
He is soon to redeem himself somewhat with a significant argument against hereditary succession, one that would seem to apply to an aristocracy across the board. Naming hereditary succession as not merely absurd but “evil,” Paine begins to establish that its very nature leads to oppression. Firstly, “Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and other to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance.” Certainly the run of history indicates that seats of authority conferred upon by birth alone lend a path of arrogance and ugliness to those so born. Granted, it is a problem that can be combated on an individual basis, but in general, I think Paine is correct in pointing out that hereditary position lends itself to the oppression of those born to be ruled. Secondly, hereditary position inevitably lends itself to certain times when a minor or one aged and infirm is in possession of the throne. “In both these cases the public becomes prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies of either age or infancy.” Again, a wise regent will tend to alleviate this problem on a case by case basis, yet one can see that this problem is innate to the nature of a hereditary monarchy. Now, a thing that Paine did not see, for reasons well understood upon examination of his time period, was that a monarchy can certainly be tempered by the presence of a strong, balanced parliament. During Paine’s lifetime the flaws and corruption of the English Parliament were infamous, so it is understandable that he could not see a path toward using Parliament to provide a check and balance to the monarchy. Then again, based on earlier segments that we’ve examined, Paine would see the need for a strong parliament an argument against the very nature of the monarchy. As I quoted before, “HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK?” The historical argument for the monarchy has been some form of divine right; and as he logically points out, if that is indeed the foundation of the monarchy, why on earth would it need a check and balance? And if it needs a check and balance, why then is the monarchy the unquestioned authority? I have no argument for that logic, and certainly we have seen the minimization of the political power of the monarchy in England as Parliament has established itself as a strong governing authority. Or as Paine puts it farther along in this section, “The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.”
The remainder of this section Paine devotes to pointing out the bloody civil war fought in England over the throne and noting how the development of a parliament in England did indeed remove matters of governance from the king over time. He asserts that the problems present in parliament, the weakness of the constitution, are the fault of the very presence of a monarchy. Looking at modern England, I would say that Paine’s statement is hyperbolic but contains a kernel of truth. There do continue to be inequities in the application of legal and social justice in England that directly relate to the continued presence of a titled class. Nevertheless, her constitution and parliament were strengthened and reformed while still under the power and presence of a monarchy. Again, Paine knows he is best served by presenting the most directly black and white argument to his audience at a time when many were frustrated by divided loyalties and unsure what side of the fence on which to step down. Overall, I feel that Paine’s practical arguments against hereditary monarchy are strongest. His attempt to defend an anti-monarchial stance using the Old Testament does not serve him well upon examination as that very text argues against him. Thus, while it can be understood that he felt the need to present a biblically based argument to his audience, it is flimsy and fails to stand the test of time.
And there we end our examination of “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.” Paine will next address “Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs,” wherein he will show his audience where their soon-to-be nation stands. I took a lot of notes in that section, so prepare for a couple of posts. haha
(1) This, I suppose, would be the place to note Paine’s adherence to the scriptural literacy. He will be founding the development of several of his arguments on the Old Testament. In an effort to prevent any type of apologetic derailing, let’s all agree to accept that Paine viewed the Old Testament as a reliable source of, at least, Hebrew national history and accepted that the universe was a product of some form of creation (as even the most secular of our founders did). I will note that an evolutionary perspective certainly does not negate the prospect of mankind being originally equal until some later point in his development spurred the development of social classes and monarchies. Further, as it is typically considered historical fact that Saul was the first king of Ancient Israel, and that prior to Saul, Israel was governed as a nearly pure Theocracy, I will be approaching his arguments as founded truth. Granted, Paine makes an argument based on what God indicated His preferences were, and this argument will have less weight with those of my readers who are neither Christian nor even Deist, but in order to continue to point here--addressing Paine’s actual arguments and statements on their own merit--I’m going to work through it on Paine’s assumptions: the Judeo-Christian God is true, and the circumstances of His expression and involvement in the anointing of Saul are accurate. Any other approach to Paine’s points is for another day. Paine saw the world a certain way, and his arguments should be seen and addressed the way he saw them.
(2) Granted, Shechem was a prince of a city. That said, Jacob at that point could also be considered a nomadic king based on the same leadership code that made Shechem’s father, Hamor, a king. Further, the argument could be made that Joshua and the Hebrews were fighting against tribal kings when they conquered Canaan, there seems to be no logical justification for assigning that series of battles to the “pride of kings.” Historically speaking, unless all tribal leaders are granted the title “king,” Paine’s argument here just doesn’t work. Tribal conflict is old. Perhaps Paine’s definition of king is, in fact, quite that broad, but that would end up making the term meaningless, I would think.
(3) The point is never proven that a non-monarchial government would not also have some of those necessary “ills,” such as taxes and a draft.
(4) This is evidenced by His instruction to Samuel later to anoint David as His choice for king after Saul. David, in fact, is later referred to as a man after God’s own heart. This turn of events does seem to argue against Paine’s insistence that God Himself is and was anti-monarchial.
Amongst his argument against hereditary succession, Paine takes some several paragraphs to rail against William the Conqueror. This seems a bit out of place to me since he established monarchy not by hereditary or divine right, but by the right of the conqueror. It seems as though Paine is venting bitter dislike here rather than defending a reasonable argument. /random address of random rabbit trail.