Talk:Thomas Paine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old discussions

what was your stlye for writing?

Your kung fu style very good. -Kevin Mitnick

---

He died in Greenwich Village, New York, at 59 Gross Street in New York, New York.

Does this line sound stupid to others? --Sam

Can you make your sources, author, and other information a little more clearer? Because if people need to list a source for information it makes it very, very hard.

yea i kno this is what im looking for...and its not to be found...nice job on that 1 guys

---

Thomas Paine became infatuated with the French Revolution. He believed it would be like the American Revolution. He even wrote a book, The Age of Reason, in defense of the French Revolution. When he saw that the French Revolution resulted in open hostility to Christianity, and the American Revolution resulted in being established in accordance with Christian Principles, Paine recanted his book:
"I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone."

His last words were: "I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God." - Thomas Paine - Davjohn 02:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some of that is true; much is not. Paine, of course, would roll over in his grave if heard you assert the American Revolution was based on Christian principles, but we'll leave that aside... It was Paine's Rights of Man that was written in defense of the early French Revolution; The Age of Reason was an attack on the ways in which religious traditions were used to buttress corrupt monarchical governments. As the French Revolution veered toward anarchy, he condemned its "avidity to punish" and its abuses of power. He was arrested on 28 December 1793 at the height of the terror and held in the Luxembourg Prision where he spent thirteen months until James Monroe was able to secure his release after the downfall of Robespierre. Paine's detractors have claimed that he recanted The Age of Reason on his deathbed, but it's a made-up story. The words "I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good, and I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my creator God." are the last words of his last will and testament, not his actual last words. Robert Ingersoll, in 1877, gave this version of Paine's passing: "he died as he had lived. Some ministers were impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness of hypocrisy, called that they might enjoy the agonies of a dying friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few embers of expiring life blown into flame by the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both. His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold hand of death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dull ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that subject." These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine." The pious lie that Paine recanted anything is first found ten years after his death, in a story perpetrated by a Quaker, Mary Roscoe, afterwards Mary Hinsdale, a servant of Mr. Willet Hicks, who lived near the house where Paine died. When questioned, she would not verify that the recantation had occurred. -- Binky 04:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gouvernor Morris

I recall (but I have no source) that when Paine was in prison in France under sentence of death the U.S. government did little or nothing on his behalf, and that it was generally believed that George Washington was happy as not to be rid of a man he considered far too radical. Does anyone have sources for this? Or refutation of it? If it's true it certainly belongs in the article; even if false, I believe the story is widespread enough that a refutation of it might belong in the article. -- Jmabel 05:38, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

See note at bottom under #accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 3 Sept 2005

The American ambassador, Gouverneur Morris, was distinctly tepid about getting Paine's release, but Morris's biographers discount Paine's accusation that he'd actually connived at Paine's imprisonment. --Linden Salter 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See this link and search on "Washington" for the version from the collected edition of Paine's works. Failure to affirm Paine's citizenship vigorously would have been sufficient, in 1793, to have Paine imprisoned as an enemy alien; Morris does not need to have done anything much to have earned this description, merely failed to act.

The Federalists are generally getting fairly unscrupulous apologias for biographies these days; which one are you reading? Septentrionalis 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misc note to dead link

Note to self: http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/roots_paines_radicalism.htm. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article

I cut the following recent addition:

After his death in New York City on June 8, 1809 the newspapers read, 'He had lived long, did some good and much harm', which time judged to be an unworthy epitaph.

"...the newspapers..." is not exactly a citation. Either this is a quotation from some particular paper or it is useless. The resto of this is just POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"At Paine's death most U.S. newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: “He had lived long, did some good and much harm.” —Encyclopaedia Britannica, Philip S. Foner. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great, that would be worth adding. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am going to change "east Brooklyn" to "Eastern England" as that is where Thetford is. I don't know how that crept in.

• Thomas Paine is also the name of a play by Nazi dramatist Hanns Johst. = I removed this line from "External links". What does it mean? I followed the link to the writer and a link there brought me back here! I learned nothing about what this man wrote about Paine, who published it or when, or even whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Until someone comes up with something more this is just an insult to the article about Paine and it should remain here. MPLX/MH 02:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another cut: 'According to Perkins & Perkins, on their book "The American Tradition in Literature" Shorter Edition in One Volume, tenth edition, Thomas Paine is considered to be a "Great Commoner of Mankind".' Why is this relevant? Neither a notably important work (it's an anthology, right?) nor a particlularly deep comment. Doesn't seem to me to add anything much to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

William Cobbett

This was written to my talk page. Since I'm not the main author of this article—nothing like it— I thought it would be more useful to put the note here:

Hi Jmabel - I am new to this but I just read the newly published book "The life and adventures of William Cobbett". It gives a lot of background on Thomas Paine which you might like to use, especially his dissappointment about being left to rot in a french jail with no help from the USA. As you know it was Cobbett who felt the need to give Paine a more fitting resting place. User:Prluckett 18 July 2005

Material deleted with inadequate explanation

An anon deleted these paragraphs, with the edit comment "spurious content, NPOV"

Paine was a deist and a fervent critic of organized religion, which led to his being socially ostracized for much of his life. He published an early anti-slavery tract and was co-editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine. A republican, Paine became an articulate spokesman for the American independence movement.

Paine is said to have been tarred and feathered in New Jersey, but no proof exists of this. His unorthodox and unpopular opinions led to the circulation – first by the British (during the time of the American Revolution) and later by his political opponents on both sides of the Atlantic; of scurrilous tales about Paine.

These aren't my paragraphs and I can't speak to the accuracy of everything in them.

But there's nothing "spurious" or non-neutral about the statements that he was "a deist and a fervent critic of organized religion." I've replaced them with direct quotations from Age of Reason which allow him to make that point in his own words.

I rather suspect the "early anti-slavery tract" and "co-editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine" are factual too, but don't personally have citations at hand to back these up and reinsert them. I hope someone else will look into this. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here's your anti-slavery tract [1]. Here's 2 cites for Pennsylvania magazine: [2], [3]. Any reason not to restore? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • By all means, restore. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The title is simply "Age of Reason"

The title of Paine's book on religion is simply Age of Reason. It is not The Age of Reason. One can refer to it "the Age of Reason," just as St. Augustine wrote a book called Confessions which is often referred to as "the Confessions." The Age of Reason ought to be moved to Age of Reason but I'm not sure how to handle the problem of Age of Reason already being a dab page. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe I shouldn't be so dogmatic. The page images an 1889 edition at

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/ageofreason.htm

certainly show it as The Age of Reason.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be calling it "Age of Reason" although the title is prefixed a couple of times by a LOWER-case article, "the Age of Reason." Random Web references seem to show a mix. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't... I was wrong.

In response to a query on this, a reference librarian at UW-Madison writes:

"According to the title page of the 1794 edition, it's The Age of Reason (you can look at this by searching MadCat for "age of reason"--I looked at an electronic facsimile." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this text with the repeated wording really correct?

The article contains the following text which I have copied here and added parenthetical marks designating (First instance) and (Duplicate) that looks to me to be a pasting error. Can someone with a source for the quote correct it or mark it as sic or some such?

He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:

How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true (First instance begins)Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.(First instance ends) (Duplicate begins)Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.(Duplicate ends)

And, never mind, I found a source at:

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html

CHAPTER XIII

Paragraph 8

so I am removing the obviously duplicated text.

Liberalism

Links to liberalism in this article were recently replaced by links to classical liberalism. I think this is wrong, and am reverting. While there is a certain period -- basicially the mid-to-late 19th century -- where it is important to distinguish classical liberals from those who went with John Stuart Mill along the path to modern liberalism / new liberalism, Paine is far before that time. The only justification for calling someone in that period a classical liberal would be if, like Adam Smith their main focus was laissez faire economics (and even Smith, if you read, was not nearly as narrowly focused that way as someone like Hayek was years later). Paine was by no means primarily economic in focus: he was far more focused on social matters and even (anti-)theological ones than economics. All liberals -- be they German economic free-marketers or American near-social-democrats -- today see Paine as an intellectual ancestor. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

In the article Paine is portrayed as though he and Washington were buddies. He referred to Washington as a traitor to his country who would have sold out had Benedict Arnold not beaten him to it. Essentially he commited political suicide but there is no mention of this. freestylefrappe 18:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page copies (I believe correctly) the prefaces to Foner's collected edition of Paine's works. Search on "Washington" for the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 4 Sept 2005

Good find! It seems to me that this certainly belongs in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good find..but not sure if we should incorporate all of it on to this page. I think a general overview here with links to other pages on the letters would make sense. Any thoughts? freestylefrappe 21:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oh by all means, summarize down to the narrative; the Letter to Washington itself may not be online, and in any case evidences only Paine's view, formed in prison at 3000 miles from Philadelphia. Septentrionalis 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a {{dubious}} tag on Paine's influence on radicalism. I don't see it explained here; and I agree with the text. Unless I'm missing something, I move to strike the tag. Septentrionalis 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe sent me a note, claiming that it refers to the Washington matter in the preceeding sentence, and the (valid) complaint at the head of this section is the talk page notice. I have added a few sentences on Paine v. Morris and Washington, and hope Frappe will be bold enough to add more if he wants it. Septentrionalis 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Style Wars

Some misguided editors have begun a style war on this page over Anglo-American usage. This is contrary to express policy, and has been justified on nationalist grounds.

My philosophy on this, as on other sterile edit wars (with which all of us are all too familiar) is that they should go away and leave this article alone. In this case, this happens to mean the English usage defence, which I do not myself favor (note spelling). But I think it more important that this class of incivility be squashed immediately, than that my own choice of usage prevail. Septentrionalis 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about one of the founding fathers of the United States and it has long been in American English. Per the guideline on national varieties of English, it should stay that way. I don't see any point to the "straw poll" below. I'm sure this can be worked out through a little discussion and by following the existing relevant guidelines. Jonathunder 18:20, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

What Americanisms do you see in the present text? I see no defense in the claim that Paine (of all men) is peculiarly American - and it is my duty, as an American citizen and a Wikipedian, to oppose American nationalism at least as strongly as other varieties. Septentrionalis 18:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't nationalism; please assume good faith. In other articles I have argued against changing to AE. Here I argue against changing from it. The subject of the article emigrated to the United States and is identified with the it. I looked at the history of the article and it seems that from the first appearance of where there might be differences in style, this article followed AE conventions. The dates were written in typical AE style in the earliest non-stub versions of the article, for example. Jonathunder 18:40, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I don't think Jonathunder is arguing in bad faith; I think he's using an invalid argument. I see no reason why George Washington has to be written in the American language; and Paine is much more English than Washington. (I had not considered dates as marking dialect; there are several examples of American dates in Anglicized text in WP. The British norm may be shifting.) Septentrionalis 19:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

Go away

• And the sooner the better. Septentrionalis 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Jmabel | Talk 04:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC). Paine is probably more American than British, but so what? Warring over this on topics that aren't clearly American or clearly not is just an invitation to an endless edit war that does nothing to improve the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know which way the article is currently written. It doesn't matter. Whichever way it is now, it should stay that way. This is just contention for the sake of contention. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't an edit war, certainly not an endless one, and I don't believe there was contention for the sake of contention on the part of anyone. Three editors made one change each, and then we had a discussion. If you want to see an edit war, by the way, see the history and talk page of Aluminium. Incidently, I argued there against changing things to an American spelling. I agree here, too, that the article should continue at the style it has always had, which happens to be AE. I'll drop my note here, as an endorsement of the wish that any bad feeling would go away (I certainly hold none), but I don't wish for any editors to go away. I've had this article on my watchlist since contributing to it a long time ago, and I welcome more eyes. Kind regards. Jonathunder 20:45, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • The argument should go away; not the editors. Septentrionalis 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In case nobody has noticed, I reworded a couple of sentences to avoid use of a word which has different British and American spellings. I am avoiding scrutinizing this article for any other transatlantic style issues and I hope others will do likewise. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Odd removal

Removed anonymously and without comment: "His sister Elizabeth died in infancy." No specific citation, so I hesitate to restore it, but it's been there for a long time, unchallenged, and I strongly suspect it is true. If someone else can restore, with citation, that would be great. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

One anon vandalized, the next took out the vandalism without reverting. I don't think this actually constitutes a challenge to the maltreated statement, so thissource should do it (search on Elizabeth). Unless somebody wants me to, I'm not going to bother to find the book cited. Septentrionalis 17:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why does this article have such persistent vandalism? What is it about this article? - Tεxτurε 21:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. Some history articles that you wouldn't think would be vandal magnets just seem to be. It's the main reason I've always kept this one on my watchlist. Jonathunder 22:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles related to the French Revolution all seem to be vandal magnets. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I should vandalize it myself or I'm missing out on something! ("If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" "But, Mommmmm!") - Tεxτurε 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Freemason: does it matter?

I notice that (like Lafayette and some others) Paine has recently been added to Category:Freemasons. I question the usefulness of this. Are we going to add as categories all organizations of which people were members? I have to wonder if this is coming from the same person who, a month or so ago, added somewhat conspiratorial comments about Freemasons in this era, then, when challenged, removed his own comments from the talk pages. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Several of George III's sons were Grand Masters. If we included them in the cat, maybe it would stop being fun. Is this the same user who speculated on Freemasonry in Inalienable rights? Septentrionalis 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Not openly so, but I have to suspect that it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

How many copies

"As many as half a million copies" was recently changed to "About 120,000 copies". I suspect sources disagree, and multiple estimates, with citation, would be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard 200,000 from the Norton Anthology. -- Chris is me 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have edition and page number, the Norton Anthology would certainly be citable on this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine

The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine: Politically passionate Mark Steel takes a look at the eighteenth century idealist Thomas Paine.

I don't know how long the link will last but you might find this interesting - Steel is a comedian but his 'lectures' are usually pretty factually accurate. The Listen again link should be OK for a few days anyway.

Listen again: Monday - The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine (scroll down to near the bottom of the page)

It's a streaming audio file (actually a half-hour BBC radio programme) and you'll need RealPlayer to listen to it. There's a couple of minutes of the previous programme and some trailers at the beginning of the file so just use fast-forward.

Ian Dunster 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Statue of gold

This edit reverses the sense of a sentence, so that it is Paine saying in 1800 that there should be a statue in gold of Napoleon in every city of the world, rather than vice versa. Since either is imaginable, and there is no citation, I don't have any idea which is correct. Does someone have a citation? (In this case, a web citation really won't do, it is too likely to be taken from us.) If not, perhaps we should remove the statement until it is verified. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since other experienced contributors have been reversing this, and only anonymous IPs keep re-adding it, I will assume that the old version, Napoleon saying there should be a statue of Paine, is the correct one. A citation would still be nice. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't say as I really have a source for this statement, however I have added this page to my watchlist and hence I have taken it upon myself to revert what I have deemed to be vandalism. Perhaps I have reverted too much information or I have gotten the truth backwards somehow. However recently there has been some vandalism to the page from anonymous IPs and in general I don't trust them. So honestly I don't know. Sorry if I'm not that much help, but I'm really more of a vandal fighter. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the claim entirely until someone can provide a source. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

hi - i really think i might be worth mentioning the thomas paine bust at leicester secular hall but i'm unsure of where and how. any takers? [4]Jammus 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is important enough to belong in the article, it would belong inthe Legacy section. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Monuments?

The "legacy" section states that "There is a museum in New Rochelle, New York, in his honour and a statue of him stands in King Street in Thetford, Norfolk, his place of birth. The statue holds a quill and his book, The Rights Of Man. The book is upside down." But what about any other monuments or statues or anything. Any in DC? It seems he gets a lot less recognition than most of the other "founding fathers." Generic69 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO he remains a dangerous revolutionary in the eyes of the establishment, best kept out of sight. Jefferson was bad enough, but Tom Paine... my goodness, what do you think would happen to any high school teacher who asked his pupils to read Age of Reason? But he needs no monuments, the United States itself is monument enough. Just my $0.02... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Second image is NOT Thomas Paine

Instead, it is General William Moultrie, as shown here: Winsor Hill Site. My aunt was doing photo research for a book about Mr. Paine when she discovered this mistake. I am in the process of removing the picture from this article.

Yikes... this picture has been on here since 2004.

Here is my aunt's research on the topic:

This is NOT Thomas Paine.

I really thought it didn't look like him and since there was no source for the image I went to the man at the Thomas Paine Cottage. What a great history expert!

His comments: Paine served only a few months in the PA. militia. Artwork is of a man in general's garb and also dressed in boots. Thomas Paine was not an officer nor was he a gentleman so the boots would be unlikely. After much conversation he mentioned General Moultrie from the Revolutionary War.

Sure enough--I found the image of General Moultrie at Mary Evans Picture Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcr13 (talk • contribs) 20 January 2006

Lewes Inconsistencies

I was brought to this article (Thomas Paine) via the article on Lewes, England, which I've noticed contains - in its History section - some (less-than-flattering) details on Paine that are curiously absent from the Paine article itself (especially noticeable considering that more than half of the paragraph on Paine is not about his time in Lewes...). Because I cannot speak for the accuracy of those comments, I've opted not to make any amendments on the Paine article. Somebody who does know about this, though, should look into it. Nitjan 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Change Comments

I change line 70 from

"There is no confirmed story about what happened to them after that, although down the years various people have claimed to own Paine's skull, or his right hand."

to

"There is no confirmed story about what happened to them after that, although down the years various people have claimed to own parts of Paine's remains such as his skull and right hand."

A comma should not be used with the coordinating conjuction "or" in this circumstance because it is not introducing an independant clause. Furthermore, I much prefer the sound of Paine's remains to the former wording. I hope that my editing will be accepted. On second thought, after reading the discussion over Paine, I make it clear that I intend no maliciousness with my change.

Just curious...

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll try anyway.

I'm writing an article on Thomas Paine and I'm not sure what to include in it, and a lot of the material I find online is not accurate. Most encyclopedia articles too are inaccurate or very tentative in what they say so that they don't show a certain point of view. I am trying to write an article that's very supportive of Paine's views, political, religious and others, and, again, am unsure of what material to use. I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping me with this by either posting here or contacting me from my site. I'm the senior editor, if you visit the site and don't figure that out.

Thanks a lot, and I hope someone responds to this!

You should probably start with what he himself wrote, which is here; for political views, the Rights of Man; for religious views: the Age of Reason.Septentrionalis 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

This article's very US-centric. What about the effect his work had on other revolutionaries such as Wolfe Tone? Njál 03:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you've got something citable to add, please do. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Paine's Tarnished Legacy

In the Legacy section there should be a reference to Paine's somewhat tarnished public image. I don't mean just while he was living and in his obituary, etc., but for example, Teddy Roosevelt once referred to him as a "filthy, little atheist." And his religious views often cause him to be unappreciated as a founding father. And while there is a reference to his influence on Lincoln and Edison, how about the thing about _Citizen Tom Paine_. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.125.5.83 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2006.

The TR quote should be in, if it's citable. What do you mean by "the thing about _Citizen Tom Paine_"? That is the name of a play and novel by Howard Fast; is that what you are alluding to? - Jmabel | Talk 08:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the controversy that ensued after the author, Fast, was blacklisted during the witch hunting era.

Off-topic here, I think, but Fast should be in the Further Reading and linked to there; Paine was not the primary cause of the blacklist. Septentrionalis 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Attribution

Thomas Paine is widely quoted as having said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

Did he actually say it?

For the life of me I can't find it. It seems to be attributed to him but no one bothers to cite which of his writings it came from. --Spark17 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agrarian Justice, date published.

In the article, under the section of his Biography, part French Revolution, it is stated, "Paine published his last great pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, in the winter of 1795-1796." According to my copy of Paine's collected writings, as published by the Library of America, sixth printing, the pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, was written in the winter of 1795-1796, however, not being published until Spring of 1797. Can anyone confirm the current Wiki on Paine as being correct in regards to this manner? Not One Of Us 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says it was published in Jan-Feb 1796 here and here (says winter of 1795-1796). However, Wikisource says 1797. --Sparkhurst 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I gather. Paine wrote Agrarian Justice in 1795 and originally published it in 1796 (Jan/Feb). However, he was in France up until 1802, so the assumption here is it was first published in French. It wasn't published in English until 1797, apparently.

"1795 Thomas Paine wrote his pamphlet, "Agrarian Justice," (published in English in 1797) in which he proposed a social insurance program for the nations of Europe and potentially for the young American Republic." [5]

I will restore the section to what it was originally. I don't really think it is necessary to note it wasn't published in English until 1797, though Wikisource might be a good place to note this. --Sparkhurst 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reading removed

Do we really want to remove all of this? There were links to entire book-length biographies online; information on major (paper) biographies of Paine; Edison's essay on Paine. Given that this article almost completely lacks explicit references, some of these were presumably the implicit references, and others were the works one should use to reference it decently. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question is entirely fair. The citing sources style guide appears to suggest sections in the following order: article text, references, further reading, see also, external links. I have added a reference section, the unreferenced template tag, and reinstated the further reading section. JonathanFreed 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, the large number of items in Further Reading encourages others to add more, as was done today by Markwilensky. Though I reinstated the further reading section that I previously removed, I'm not sure that its restoration was the best way to handle this article's lack of references. Thoughts? Unless the further reading is by Paine himself or by a scholar who is widely recognized for his writing on Paine, I don't think it should be in the further reading section. JonathanFreed 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Paine's letter to Washington

I have a couple thoughts to contribute. It says in the article, "Paine thought that George Washington had abandoned him, and was to quarrel with him for the rest of his life." That is what Paine thought and he wrote Washington a letter, which I added to the article. However, did he really quarrel with him for the rest of his life? Also, the article says, "Derided by the public and abandoned by his friends on account of his religious views," though I'm sure his letter to Washington played a good part in his being derided by the public too. --Sparkhurst 06:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The intended sense is, of course, the rest of Washington's life; i.e. until 1799. I don't see how to clarify without being clumsy. As for the other, it is likely to be Federalist historiography. Septentrionalis 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"…the rest of Washington's life"? "…the rest of the latter's life"? - Jmabel | Talk 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - "Adams and Liberty"

Thomas Paine, a radical pamphleteer, is the writer of Boston patriotic song, "Adams and Liberty" (1798), in support of John Adams

I have reason to doubt this. Paine was in France at the time and was critical of the Federalist Party to which Adams belonged. Also, Adams had some disparaging things to say about Paine at the time, such as, "I am willing you should call this the Age of Frivolity as you do, and would not object if you had named it the Age of Folly, Vice, Frenzy, Brutality, Daemons, Buonaparte, Tom Paine, or the Age of the Burning Brand from the Bottomless Pit, or anything but the Age of Reason. I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. There can be no severer satyr on the age. For such a mongrel between pig and puppy, begotten by a wild boar on a bitch wolf, never before in any age of the world was suffered by the poltroonery of mankind, to run through such a career of mischief. Call it then the Age of Paine."

If a source refuting my suspicion presents itself, feel free to re-add it. --24.152.194.96 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This site says Robert Treat Paine, who is far more likely. Septentrionalis 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Minarchists

I notice that Paine was recently added to Category:Minarchists. I'm not necessarily saying that is wrong, but there is nothing in the article that really bears it out. - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it's wrong. The reason an article is in a given category should be obvious to readers of the article. If it's not obvious to a major editor, it needs more jusitification in the text (which would involve citing actual sources). Septentrionalis 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

chess legend

i play chess, and i read a "legend" in a book called 2010: chess oddities that thomas paine was sentenced to guillotine during the french revolution. his wife went to a cafe frequented by the commissioner himself and beat him in a game of chess. she asked for stakes - paine's life - if she won again. she proceeded to defeat robespierre a second time and paine was spared.

any truth to this statement or is it only a legend? Andrewb1 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say extremely unlikely. As in "it is extremely unlikely that the moon is made of green cheese", not merely as in "it is extremely unlikely that Elvis Presley is alive and well." - Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Paine wasn't married at the time. His first wife died in 1760 and he and his second wife were legally separated prior to his move to America in 1774. Paine avoiding the guillotine is attributed to the quick-thinking of his cellmates. --207.69.138.134 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberal POV

Its had to believe someone read anything Paine wrote could claim he supported Liberalism. All Liberal agendas are 180 degs from Common sence.LOL.

Liberals are bitter Enemies of the Rights of man. Liberals do not think people even have the right to educate thier own childern . Liberals think they have more rights to the minds of childern then their actual do parents. Paine would be rolling over in his grave to be included with a group that thinks they have the right to totaly control the thinking of a population. This artical needs to reflect this.

I think it depends upon how you define the word Liberal.

But it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about this point if you insist upon remaining anonymous. – Agendum 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(To the author of the anonymous remark:) I usually avoid ad hominem responses, but here I am left only with a choice among presuming ignorance, dishonesty, or madness. I'll give you the relative credit of assuming you to be ignorant, which is no shame in and of itself, but is when combined with arrogance.

I suggest that you read either our article Liberalism or almost any other work on the history of liberalism. The very concept of "rights of man" arose hand-in-hand with liberalism. Claiming that liberals have no interest in the rights of man is like claiming that conservatives have no regard for the opinions of the past or that socialists care only about preserving the wealth of a small elite. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(To Agendum:) No, it really doesn't matter how you define the word Liberal, assuming you use a definition that has any connection to some normal meaning of the word. In fact, the third sentence won't even parse unless you substitut different words for at least some of the ones written. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see how someone might sense a socialist bent to this article. --Sparkhurst 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

controversy

Well, he never self-identified as American! --Cromwells Legacy 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paine wasn't an American --- he was never granted US citizenship --- indeed, he wasn't allowed to vote in USA for this very reason. - JA

So why does the article say "Paine protested that he was a citizen of America…"? Is that inaccurate? Was he lying? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems he was allowed to vote.

He petitioned Congress on the matter; after much prodding by Washington, that body granted him $3,000, and the state of Pennsylvania gave him an additional £500, but the biggest gift of all came from the New York Senate: a 300-acre farm in New Rochelle abandoned by its Tory owner. Paine, no farmer in talent or inclination, wanted to immediately sell this property, but couldn’t without looking churlish. Instead, he rented it out to a tenant, used the proceeds to pay off his debts, and built a stable for his good horse, Button. Since this gift meant he now owned more than £50 of property, Thomas Paine, for the first time in his life, was allowed to vote. [6]

--Sparkhurst 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't blind revert!

Don't blind revert, such edit as this one isn't helpful at all :) . --Cromwells Legacy 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paine the Civil Engineer?

I recall from a class in the history of technology decades ago that one of our texts held that Paine claimed the invention of the cast iron voussoir (an element of an arch bridge), a notable if minor steppingstone in the history of Civil Engineeering and materials science. Any truth to that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junckerg (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006.

Recent edits

I notice several recent edits that simply remove information. Several of them I will simply fix, but one appears to be a substantive disagreement, so I'd like to discuss it rather than unilaterally revert.

"An advocate of liberalism" was recently changed to "An advocate of republicanism" (and several similar changes were made elsewhere in the article). While he was certainly a republican, he is probably more notable as a liberal: his liberal views encompassed his republicanism. I don't necessarily mind the addition, but the deletion should be restored. Paines views on religion were part and parcel of Enlightenment thinking; his views on natural justice place him firmly in a liberal tradition that arguably began with the School of Salamanca; his views on taxation are encompassed by liberalism, but not by republicanism; his abolitionism represented a deeply liberal position, rejected by most American republicans of the time.

Actually, gradual emancipation was widely regarded as at least inevitable (and probably desirable) in 1776; Washington, Patrick Henry, and Henry Laurens can be quoted in that sense, and all the northern states enacted it by 1804, most of them earlier. The Constitution, and the cotton gin, produced a retraction, but Paine was in France by then. Septentrionalis 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the argument for removing the words "liberal" and "liberalism" from the article? - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it can be found in this misspelt comment; I do not think it more than partisan spleen. Septentrionalis 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In short, it is from someone who does not even know the meaning of the term as it applies to Paine's era. Clearly this should be reversed. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Parents' surname

We seem to keep going back and forth on his parents' surnames. I seem to remember from school decades ago that they used "Pain", not "Paine"; does someone have something citable one way or the other? - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it matters that much. There was no such thing as standardisation of spelling of family names until later in the nineteenth century, with the advent of printed directories, etc. Unless you want to go with common usage, in which case the DNB has 'Joseph Paine', whereas the new Oxford DNB (2004-06) has 'Pain'. I think the latter is likely to be the common spelling in less well-educated Norfolk in the early 1700s. But you choose.... – Agendum 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Participation in the American Revolution

I have read that Paine enlisted in the Continental Army and fought against the British. The article does not mention this. --213.140.21.227 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A note on his last name

He was born Thomas Pain and thus his parents last name was Pain. He started spelling it Paine once he revealed himself to be "the Englishman" who wrote Common Sense. [7] --Sparkhurst 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I came across this:

In the church register of Euston Parish, near Thetford, England, occurs this entry: "1734. Joseph Pain and Frances Cocke were married June 20th." These were the parents of Thomas Paine. The present rector of Euston Church, Lord Charles Fitz Roy, tells me that the name is there plainly "Pain," but in the Thetford town-records of that time it is officially entered "Joseph Paine." [8]

--Sparkhurst 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Did he have a middle name, and does anyone know it? --65.103.137.45 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most unlikely. Middle names were uncommon, among ordinary people in England, until the second half of the nineteenth century, when they became quite fashionable.

• As to this discussion about the spelling of his surname, it's utterly irrelevant, bearing in mind that most people were illiterate until a century later. In a non-literate society, it's the pronunciation that's important, not the spelling. Spelling of a name could change many times during the course of a lifetime, depending on which literate person (usually a priest) happened to transcribe it. Kahuzi 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see people are getting worked up about the "correct" spelling again.

As stated above - names were spelt however the writer felt they should be, nothing was legally "correct" or "incorrect", until the official UK Births, Marriages and Deaths register in 1837.
Although slightly earlier, the most studied example is probably Shakespeare, whose name was spelt 20 ways during his lifetime - 14 of these in literary works about him after he was established, not just by semi-literate clerks, or whilst he was young and unknown. See [9]

As Joseph, his father, spelt his name as both Pain and Paine (see above), Thomas would be very likely to do the same - A J Ayer's assertion that it changed when he emigrated, has been refuted (see article) - but I suppose we have to keep both statements as they are "verifiable", in Wiki terms, and to explain the contradiction. I will trim this in the article
I don't think we need a long explanation, as it only matters when people try to infer things from the difference in spelling (As the article on Shakespeare above debunks)
Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a reliable source to support your comments (I don't see any given above). Tedickey (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tedickey - what part is unsourced?
That Thomas's father was called both Pain and Paine is sourced above.
The debunking of Ayers assertion that he changed his name on emigration is sourced on the article page.
That names were spelt (or spelled) how people thought they should be, is in most geneological books and web-sites
To pick the first example on a Google search for "different" + "spelling" + "surnames" (329,000 matches) gives:-

Surname spelling has evolved over centuries and until the 20th century, the spelling of a surname was not fixed. Before then, it was not unusual to see the same person's surname spelled in different ways from record to record. In the 1800's and before, when many people were illiterate, names were written by clerks, officials, and priests as they heard the name pronounced. This lead to different spellings for the same name. [10]

There is even a legal doctrine Idem sonans to cover such multiple spellings that sound the same.
All spellings were vague at this time - although Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755, it was extremely expensive and took time to become adopted.
I am not sure what else you would like sourced? Please let me know.
Arjayay (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire discussion regarding evolution of spelling is poorly sourced, since you're mixing comments regarding events that stretch over more than a 150 years, apply to different people. A good source would make points specifically about Thomas Paine, and not drag in random talk-page discussion of Shakespeare. Tedickey (talk)

Aah - I understand.
I only brought in Shakespeare, because this is probably the best known and researched example of multiple spellings, and debunks the idea that the different spellings of his name were for a reason.
Personally, I don't understand why people have such a problem accepting that words, including names, have only had "fixed" spellings in the very recent past, as in American and British English spelling differences.
I am unaware that anyone has researched Pain(e), (there may be Paynes as well), since these varations are absolutely standard for the era.
Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

After ". . . has been refuted", you note "(see article)", but I didn't see a definitive source. Is there anything showing that the Tom Paine in the UK Archives is the same Tom Paine of historical note? How common was the name back then? Could this have been a different Tom Paine? How can one be certain? Just curious.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The archives contain letters from Thomas Paine from 1769-1772 regarding the adjoining dissenters meeting house, Bull House and Samuel and Mrs Ollive - originally his landlords (as mentioned in one of the letters), and after he married Elizabeth, his parents-in-law.
You ask "could this have been a different Tom Paine?" - well I suppose there could have been a Tom Paine and a Tom Pain living in the same house at the same time, the one with the e writing the letters, and the one without the e marrying the landlords' daughter (and then adding an e to his surname shortly after) - but if we believe that, which one was born in Thetford?, and which one (rather appropriately) wrote "Common Sense"?
Arjayay (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, as you have obviously surmised. I'm always a little suspicious of such archives. They don't seem to be very well put together, hard to read and in sore need of clarification. However, I must bow to those with superior knowledge on the subject.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy of his Recanting

There are quite a few fundamentalist Christians that believe that Thomas Paine recanted his beliefs on his deathbed and converted to Christianity. Since this is such a wide-spread urban legend, I think maybe it should breifly be mentioned. Just a thought...

Any links or sources? --Sparkhurst 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/vindication_of_thomas_paine.html Byronarnold 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read that this recanting was proved false at some point in Christpopher Hitchen's biography of Paine, but I am unsure of a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorkmid24 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Keane's biography of Paine details efforts to visit him and solicit a deathbed recantation. In fact, Keane presents Paine's final words as a reply to someone who asked him, one last time, if he wished to believe that Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for the sins of mankind, whereupon Paine replied, "I have no wish to believe on that subject." The book's title is Thomas Paine, A Political Life (1995).Desertpapa (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens does not attempt to "prove false" any claims of recantation. Rather, on page 140, he says that Paine first told the two ministers, "Let me have none of your Popish stuff. Get away with you; good morning, good morning." According to Hitchens, when they asked again, his final reply was "I have no wish to believe on that subject." Hitchens does not cite his source for this material, which is pretty typical of the book: 145 pages, ~70 citations. TPaineTX (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Proper place of para on Paine the inventor

The following paragraph was, in my opinion, misplaced at the end of the Early Life section. I moved it (minus the struck out part) to the bottom of the American Revolution section since the reason he went back to Europe was to seek a patent for his bridge.

Paine was also an inventor, receiving a patent in Europe for the single-span iron bridge. He developed a smokeless candle, and worked with John Fitch on the early development of steam engines. This aptitude for invention, coupled with his originality of thought, found him an advocate more than a century later in Edison who championed Paine and helped rescue him from his relative obscurity.

Any suggestions as to the best placement of this paragraph? --Sparkhurst 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely muddled situation.The current version reads as follows: 'Moreover, Thomas Paine was an inventor, who received a European patent for a single-span iron bridge; developed a smoke-less candle,[6][7] and worked with inventor John Fitch in developing steam engines. Mechanical aptitude and intellectual originality made him saint of Thomas Edison's devotion.'

Firstly, the entry is on the wrong place. It should be at the end of the American Revolution section. To quote 'Building Rainbows' which forms Chapter 9 of John Keane's biography: 'Tom Paine's fascination with bridges soon decided his plans to return to Europe. During a bout of restlessness towards the end of 1785, he dreamed of designing and erecting a single-span three-hundred foot wooden bridge across the Harlem River in New York.' Paine loved the modernism of bridges and also their symbolism and constructing a bridge became an obsession. He employed another English emigre John Hall to help him build prototypes, first in wood then in iron. Hall was a steam-engine specialist who attracted many visitors including steamboat pioneer John Fitch. Paine was present at their meeting and suggested 'a way to simplify his apparatus greatly'.(That is the limit of their involvement it seems. Source:Keane's Notes p586, from 'recently discovered' John Hall's Diaries). In brief, Paine failed to get his bridge built in America, took his prototypes and plans to France with view to getting it built on the Seine, failed there, took it to England where he took out a patent, largely based on ideas he'd picked up in France. Then to England, where he did manage to get a section of iron bridge built, which was shipped to London and exhibited at a showground but again failed to find backers and the bridge that he dreamed of was never built.

Keane's book contains two anonymous sketches of a Paine-style bridge for the River Wear, near Sunderland, late 1791 (Courtesy John Soames Museum) There should be a separate section entitled Tom Paine's Bridge with a more detailed and referenced version of the above with the pictures mentioned. Am happy to write this and get permission for pictures if someone can actually post up for me the finished piece (sorry, am newbie).

The 'smoke-less candle' need better referencing. Ref 7 is weak and Ref 6 is a comment in passing that I cannot back up with authoratative sources. As for Edison's championing of Paine, this is already in the Legacy section, in which Edison eulogises Paine for the political and theological thoughts, not for his inventive genius.

Apologies for the length of this comment.Need some help to sort this out. jaymay1--Jaymay1 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Last years

Obviously more needs to be added to the section as it stands now. Here is a paragraph I quickly wrote which could serve as a start, I suppose.

Paine returned to America during the early stages of the Second Great Awakening and a time of great political partisanship. The Age of Reason gave ample excuse for the religiously devout to hate him and the Federalists attacked him for his ideas of government stated in Common Sense, for his association with the French Revolution, and for his friendship with President Jefferson. Also still fresh in the minds of the public was his Letter to Washington, published six years prior to his return.

--Sparkhurst 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Tom Paine's Life ever been put into a movie?

Has there ever been made a biopic, a movie based on the Life of Thomas Paine? Thanks in adavance for the answer. 81.173.227.133 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)-- Robert

In short, no, there is no such movie

Richard Attenborough and Trevor Griffiths have been trying to make a movie since 1995, I seem to recall some test shots being taken in Thetford and Kings Lynn about 1997. In fact Trevor Griffiths has even published the script of the proposed screenplay [11]. I understand that a major problem is condensing so much history into a sensible length film, without making it too superficial - It probably needs a trilogy?

Arjayay (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Trevor Griffith adapted his script into two 90 minute radio plays for BBC Radio 4 in the Saturday Play slot:Common Sense(transmitted 26 July 2008);Age of Reason (2 August 2008)[12]. Both featured Jonathan Price as Paine.

jaymay1--Jaymay1 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Paine's remains

I'm curious - in "The Thomas Paine Reader" (Penguin, 1987) it says on p.27 that Paine's body was washed overboard on Cobbett's voyage home. Nothing about the bones still being in Cobbett's possession. On the wikipedia Cobbett page, it also says something about 'losing' the bones, but then goes with the 'still in his possessions' story. Anyone got any further information on this? 82.6.104.229 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The life of Thomas Paine (Moncure Conway Putnam 1892) which is the earliest full account of his life I've found so far says that the remains did arrive in Liverpool (on Novermber 21 1819) and even that the Bolton town crier was sent to jail for 9 weeks for announcing their arrival. It says that in 1836 the remains were passed into a receiver but when the Lord Chancellor refused to count them as an asset they sat for a while and by 1849 when the coffin they WERE in was in the possession of J. Chennell of Guildford it was empty. He does mention that a Unitarian Reverend Ainslie claimed he owned the skull and right hand of Thomas Paine but that he wouldn't answer any more questions. Other then that its just left as a mystery about where they went. He seems very certain that they neither washed ashore or are still in Cobbett's possession, unless of course he got them back down the road. Jamesofur 10:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Current account of Tom Paine's remains woefully inaccurate and out of date. The prime source for information now is The Trouble With Tom: The Strange Afterlife of THOMAS PAINE by Paul Collins [Bloomsbury. 2005. ISBN 0 7475 7768 4]. Collins tracked down every rumour and sighting and actually travelled to the sites concerned. His research supersedes all previous accounts. [Am newbie. Could someone amend existing entry and William Cobbett entry.) jaymay1--Jaymay1 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

I have uploaded a diagram representing the constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense. I request comments here in the hope of improving it before it is included in the Common Sense article.

Constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense

-- Mathieugp 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the diagram in the Common Sense article a few minutes ago. Discussions on it should should be conducted in the talk page of that article. -- Mathieugp 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

bibliography

1. 1995. Collected Writings, Eric Foner, ed. The Library of America. ISBN 1-883011-03-5
2. 1998. Rights of Man, Common Sense, and Other Political Writings, ed. by Mark Philp. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283557-2.
3. 1976. Common Sense, Issac Kramnick, ed.
4. 1948. The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine, 2 vols. Edited by Philip S. Foner.

This section of the bibliography looks dubious to me. Surely the focus shouldn't be on the recent editions of his works, but rather on when they were first published...Zigzig20s 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is of course nice to know original publication information, but the bibliography is supposed to be a verification and research tool. Not many people have access to Paine originals and to include standard editions of his works, edited by major scholars in the field who have written on Paine, is the accepted practice in both the scholarly world and on wikipedia. I would prefer that the editors quote from easily accessible versions of Paine (in print) than from archived first editions that only very few people have access. A separate section detailing Paine's works and the first edition publication information might be more appropriate to assuage your concerns. Awadewit 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Kramnick's book was re-published in 1995 and is popular in university's as a textbook. Eric and Phillip Foner (who i don't think are related but I'm not sure), the former is a contemporary 'expert' of sorts on Paine who has written alot on Paine. Phillip S. Foner's book is (i think) the only comprehensive collection of all of Paine's writings that focuses on "historically contextualizing' Paine's works. We should get rid of the Library database links that the public cannot access and replace them with reliable sources. Phillip Foner's book is in two volumes (I-II). --Savre (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fatal Logic Error

"At 19, Paine became a merchant seaman, serving a short time before returning to Great Britain in April 1759. There he set up a corset shop in Sandwich, Kent. In September of that year, Paine married Elizabth Ollive. His business collapsed soon after. His wife became pregnant, and, following a move to Margate, went into early labor and died along with her child"
+
"On 26 March 1771, at age 36, he married his landlord's daughter, Elizabeth Ollive."
=
Fatal Logic Error
Programmer8 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, simply a confusion between his first and his second wife. Emendavi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a math error

Born January 1737. In March 1771, he would be 34, not 36. Either the year of marriage or the age cited is incorrect. Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see what's happened here. People are confusing him going away to sea at 19 with him returning in 1759. There's no express connection other than an undefined "short time", which depending on your POV could be a few days to one or two years... or in this case three (age 34 @ 1771) to five (age 36)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Marxism

Why is Thomas Paine counted as a Marxist or member of the Marxist school? Would someone mind removing it if there is no answer?Homagetocatalonia 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Howard Fast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Link Request for Editor

The Thomas Paine Society

http://www.thomaspainesociety.org/

Thank you,

71.80.169.199 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Abolition article

The first article published in America advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was written by Paine. Titled "African Slavery in America", it appeared on March 8, 1775 in the Postscript to the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, more popularly known as The Pennsylvania Magazine, or American Museum.[12]

I'm currently reading Paine: Collected Writings by Eric Foner, and he suggests in the "chronology" section that the March 1775 article condemning slavery was NOT written by Paine. Foner states that "there is no evidence that Paine wrote [the] essay condemning slavery that appeard in the Pennsylvania Journal in march, although it is often attributed to him. This statement seems to contradict what is in the article. --CommonSense101 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

Who, or what, was impoverishing his parents (first sentence)? Or is "impoverished" supposed to be an adjective, and not a verb. Mulp 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Impoverished", even as an adjective, seems to imply a process by which they were reduced to a state of poverty. Maybe they were just "poor". Bluewave 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Education

The first 2 sentences of "Early Life":- link farmers with uneducated people; his parents religion with being impoverished; and infers Paine was uneducated, before admitting he went to school.
Paine attended Thetford Grammar School from 1744 to 1749, according to the schools web-site [13] and the plaque on the school wall. The School was re-founded in 1566 but dates back to 1114.
Wikipedia's article on school states "Grammar school in the United States is used informally to refer to a primary school but in the United Kingdom means a school that selects entrants on their ability or aptitude"
Receiving an education until the age of 12 in the 1740's made Paine far more educated than most, as it was not until the Elementary Education Act 1870 that schooling to age 12 was a legal requirement, whilst attending the grammar school at all proves he had educated people around him.
Unless there is a justification for "uneducated" I suggest it is removed, and his schooling addedArjayay (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - it was not until the Elementary Education Act 1880 that education became compulsory, and then only from the ages of 5 to 10.

Arjayay (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Age at second marriage

If Paine was born in January 1737, he would be 35 years old in March 1771, not 36. Psykomakia 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he'd be 34. Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Paine, he lived life in the fast lane

Didn't he?--Ensto233 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure did. --Driscoll (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed.--Savre (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He was also a renegade, of his time and age. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Paine Cottage

The image at the bottom of the page isn't of Thomas Paine Cottage. I don't know what it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Paine the privateer, and legacy

I've amended the refertence to Paine's short career as a "merchant seaman" to a more accurate reference to his short career as a privateer. Its along time since I've read a biography so I used his reference to the experience in his writings as a citation....The biography I read mentioned that Paine saw action and was commended for valour, however as the present citation shows Paine was not proud of this episode of his life. He drew on it also for Common Sense without I think mentioning his personal connection. He says he went to sea at sixteen rather than nineteen, Ive left the age he enlisted vague until a source clarifies. From memory some other notable aspects of his life that deserve mention include his early opposition to slavery, writing a pamphlet denouncing the slave trade pretty much after landing in USA; and the allegations that as an excise officer he was "corrupt". The article does note that he kept a tobacco shop (a major smuggled commodity) and that he was sacked for a minor infraction but does not mention the alleged wider context of these facts. His relationship with Napoleon was also treated very briefly, the account I read had it that Napoleon wanted Paine to provide propaganda support for an invasion of England. It didn't happen but no fly on the wall of the meeting-room has clarified exactly why. Other matters of personality are not covered...some may argue that Paine's love of brandy and whores are not relevant, I'm inclined to think they are, I know a wikipedia article is necessarily sketchy but the personal details make it a colour sketch.

Bob Dylan wrote a fine song about Paine, its on Blood on the Tracks. He aslo appears in Childermass as a symbol I think of liberal humanism.

Or so I wrote; actually the Paine song is on John Wesley Harding(album), As I Went Out One Morning. 203.87.64.23 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) John Wesley Harding (album) Can't do nothing right today, thoguht I was logged in, previous talk in this section is mine, Jeremy (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources that google finds. This one seems about as good as any (some of the ones I see have obvious flaws such as mismatches between age/date):

Common Sense and Related Writings

Tedickey (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to look at [14] which just went up. Of course there was ( I discover) another Thomas Paine who was a succesful privateer which confuses the issue. The 16/19 confusion seems to be because he first enlisted at 16 and was fetched back by his father, and enlisted on another privateer later. In any case his privateer experience is especially notable because he drew on it both directly and apaprently indirectly for a crucial part of Common Sense. Jeremy (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He worked aboard a ship called the 'Terrible'. He ran away from home at 13 and at 16 was a privateer. --Savre (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Guaranteed Minimum Income

Ive put a citation tag on this sentence: Paine's proposal is now deemed a form of basic Income Guarantee. The reason is in two parts (1) I understand that the Guaranteed Minimum Income is in the US a specific proposal with specific associations (2) Paine's actual proposal seems as much a fore-runner of Georgism, of socialism, or of the welfare state. Anyway, I don't doubt that Guaranteed Minimum Income people claim him as a forerunner but a citation is needed, and the weasel word "deemed" should be lost. And many others claim him as a forerunner, including anarchists. (I would personally call Paine, taken all for all, a forerunner of social democracy albeit with an individualist streak. What he "would have been" if he lived in our own time is an interesting but finally unanswerable question).

It should be noted too, btw, that Paine was an "illuminist" in that he believed that people were not born with immortal souls but could develop them in life, its in Age of Reason I'll chase up the reference sometime, a view also attributed to Gurdjieff and Lisa Simpson Jeremy (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Paine vs Godwin

See for example this Tedickey (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange insertion?

In the blockquote paragraph eulogizing Paine, when I bring up the page I see

"...but his convictions remained unshaken.YOUR MOM!! He was still a soldier..." But when I go to edit the page, the YOUR MOM!! doesn't show up in the text? How can that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.87.250 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

TOM PAINE DAY USA

June 8th 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Tom Paine's death. According to The Economist there is a movement to try and get a Tom Paine Day established in every State in America. See my blog entry on The Generalist [15]. There are to be celebrations also in the UK at Thetford and Lewes (post to come).For Tom Paine's time in Lewes see my blog post Paine in Lewes. It has better picture of Paine's house in Lewes which I would like to replace the existing pic with. Advice needed. This should form a final section of the Wikipedia entry. Happy to draft but need help creating entry as am newbie. Apologies. jaymay1--Jaymay1 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Plain truth"

There should be a reference for the little bit about his pamphlet being called "Plain truth" before "Common Sense". Here's one:

http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Paine_Thomas.html

(8th paragraph down)

Or is that considered unnecessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxamimae (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BROKEN PAGE IS BROKEN

someone plz fix it nao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.108.88 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

- Seconded. Minus the netspeak. Not sure how to fix it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.175.109 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

use of opinion-articles as sources

While "John Nichols" is well-known, he's known for expressing opinions. A reliable source for a historical comment would more likely be that of a historian (well-known of course). Tedickey (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, this should be easy to find. That he was ostracized for what was his most radical viewpoint isn't a stretch of the imagination. In any case, Paine's opposition to slavery is among the things he is best known for by history and deserves mention in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Life of Thomas Paine (1908) doesn't say this quite as expressly, but if you look at the bottom of page 92, it's the same sentiment. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Conway's a reasonable source (since he does often say where he gets his information from). Tedickey (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can mark this up as a secondary ref for the blog ref tomorrow. As far as the modern understanding of who does or who does not get invited to participate in an administration, I really think Nichols hits the nail on the head here, as far as why Paine didn't reap the spoils, as its leading voice, of the Colonist victory. But we can quibble about the verbiage. I don't know Mr. Nichols from Adam; I just ran across this and thought he made an interesting and probably obviously point. (That point being, that abolitionists during the early years of our Republic were treated much like Communists were treated centuries later during the Red Scare, as even parodied as such in the film C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America). Of course, per WP:TIND and per that America's first African-American president chose to cite this particular Founding Father in his inaugural speech, there will be copious source material on Mr. Paine in the next coming years anyway, and this will sort itself out. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Though he owned slaves, Jefferson, politically, took an anti-slavery stance. Lots of people did, and they were never abused like Thomas Paine was. There's an elephant in the room: Paine was an still is hated because he attacked the veracity of that collection of nonsense otherwise known as the Bible. TPaineTX (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, what is going on is pretty transparent. In this article, we've got Foner, et al. saying that the 1775 article was not written by Paine and that Paine's abolitionist stance is largely myth, and then we've got someone else adding that it was Paine's staunch abolitionism that was to blame for Paine being disliked. Which is it, exactly? Was he not an abolitionist, or was he? The statements asserting both sides are not even qualified with "some believe ..." -- to the contrary, about a month ago, I had to change "most scholars believe that Paine did not write the 1775 article" to a more accurate "Foner, et al.", and now we have another statement, this time completely unqualified, claiming the exact opposite... so not only are they completely contradictory and both nonsensical, it is not even stipulated that the statements are merely conjecture.

This is, of course, the work of theists, attempting to bury Paine as deep as they possibly can. When the subject is the abolitionist movement, Paine was not anti-slavery. When it comes to why Paine was treated so horribly, his anti-slavery stance provides cover for the real reason: his attack on the Bible.

Rather funny, isn't it, that one of the men in history who most resembles Jesus Christ is so universally hated by Christians? But then again, what do Christians actually know about Christianity? TPaineTX (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CornetJoyce puts it well in her response:

CornetJoyce said:

"Paine's fervent objections to slavery led to his exclusion from the inner circles of American power in the first years of the republic."

Nonsense. Objecting to slavery didn't hurt his friend Franklin, who chaired the antislavery society. It didn't hurt Jefferson, who chaired the committee that proposed to ban slavery in what was then the western territories, including Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. Nor did it hurt Paine: he was employed by the Congress.

"He died a pauper."

He died on his own farm, much scorned not because of his antislavery stance but rather his antichurch message.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/tom-griffin/2009/01/20/paines-crisis-and-obamas

To her list of Franklin and Jefferson, many more could be added, but those two are sufficient to disprove the "hated for his anti-slavery stance" assertion. TPaineTX (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I see to recall Franklin was shipped off to France where he could do no harm at some point. As for Jefferson... well, I mean, if I own and SUV and my President owns an SUV, but gives occasional lip service to global warming being a bad thing, but still drives his SUV around, I'm hardly going to feel threatened by that. I hope you don't think politicians 200 years ago are so different from today. If you think Jefferson felt real bad about slavery, and his mulatto children weren't the products of rape, I would like to sell you a bridge. Maybe even he shed a tear during the rapes, you never know. You'd like the bridge though -- it's near the "farm" in downtown Manhattan where a certain Mr. Paine is said to have passed away.... Kendrick7^talk -- 05:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't been following this article closely at all, but I've seen a source note that Paine wrote an angry, presumably open, letter to President Washington which raked him over the coals for not lifting a finger to get Paine released from death row in France, and this cost him the "hearts and minds" of the average American. But that still begs the question: why didn't the Washington administration do anything to help Paine get off death row? Again, his abolitionist views simply didn't win him a lot of friends, per Conway.

As for Evangelism's dispute with Paine, Ingersoll (1915 edition) on page 14 goes into some depth on the matter. But here he suggests this revisionism and disdain occurred after Paine was dead ("upon his grave"), not necessarily during his lifetime.

I've never heart the suggestion before ever that Paine wasn't an abolitionist; a Google book search for "Thomas Paine abolitionist" bares out that this is certainly the majority POV. Here, more fully, Ingersoll (1880, page 157) insists that it was early American Evangelism's diehard support for slavery that caused them to question Paine's religious loyalties at all. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The first part of Age of Reason came out prior to his arrest, which could easily explain why Washington & others did not seek to aid him while he was imprisoned in France. TPaineTX (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, hmmmm. I seem to have accidentally wandered into a minefield here. This reminds me why I have intellectually avoided the Enlightenment and doubly so the counter-Enlightenment (if that's the right term, no offense) my whole life: there's 5 sides to every story. Somewhere around here there's the real Paine, but almost ironically, the same freedoms he helped to usher in meant there were many people free to take liberties with who exactly they thought the man really was and what his message said. For the record, I agree with Colonel Ingersoll and by extension, Mr. Nichols (who I admit to never reading before yesterday). We all know that in the United States the teachings of Christ were used to justify the institution of slavery, and it would be unsurprising that abolitionists were thus painted as the enemies of Christ, and a certain view of Paine may have been pivotal to that task. It is likewise unsurprising that a certain brand of pseudo-scholarship tried to wishfully divine that: perhaps Paine, the nation's spiritual founder, was never in fact the author of any abolitionist tract, and in no way the Father of the movement. But fast forwarding to the modern age, for me, what Nichols said seemed to just click. But then again, landmines click too when you step on them. So I'll just run away now, and leave it to the experts to discern the state of scholarship on what a simple man with a simple message who lived and died and lived on in complicated times was actually all about.

I will add, though, that a street address in Greenwich Village is very unlikely to have been a farm in 1809, and so as our article stands, Paine does not appear to have died on a farm at all. But, there's the myth and the man so who really knows. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The "farm" on which he died was given to him in 1784, and it was 270-300 acres. Whether or not anything was planted on it is anybody's guess or at least unknown to me, but it was certainly not a small piece of land.

The writings that you have come across and now have some doubts about are very typical. Many figures in history are lied about, especially those who criticized religion or when it serves political interests to do so. Such work exists not only in the press, but also at universities. Just because someone's assertion sounds correct, that doesn't mean it is; it takes a lot of work sometimes to filter out opinions and lies from the truth.

Although I'm sure the anti-slavery position did not help Paine's reputation in the eyes of some people, I highly doubt it was the main cause of the abuse heaped upon him. We shouldn't forget things like the story of William Tyndale, who was burned alive in 1536 for translating the Bible, or the other crimes of religion detailed by Paine & Jefferson in their writings. The bottom line is that if you present a serious threat to the church, they will attack you even more mercilessly than a pro-slavery group. So who has (and had) the incentive to attack him so much? Well, the answer, in my opinion, is in his writings. His writings on slavery were nowhere near as extensive and well-circulated as his attack on the Bible.

As stated earlier, Paine's anti-slavery position merely provides a smokescreen for the real reason that he is still disregarded even to this day. The church usually does not make its attacks directly, preferring to obfuscate matters by making attacks from seemingly secular positions. In fact, to further complicate matters, it may very well be that Nichols is not even aware that his assertion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. He may actually believe that he is correct. TPaineTX (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a quote from Hichens' book:

The publishing history of The Age of Reason is even more interesting than the series of risks and chances that attended the birth of Rights of Man. In the spring of 1793, feeling himself increasingly threatened by the approach of Robespierre's police, Paine sat himself down in his lodgings in St. Denis to write an account of his attitude towards religion. A version of it -- which is to say, a version of of Part One of The Age of Reason -- was printed in Paris in March 1793, entitled Le Siecle de la Raison, ou Le Sens Commun des Droits de l'Homme...

As the year wore on, Paine evidently felt that he might have little time left in which to give his full opinion on the subject. He accordingly revised and extended the book, and was celebrating its completion in late December 1793 when the revolutionary cops banged on his door and took him away to the Luxembourg prison. He had just time to hand the manuscript to his American friend[,] Joel Barlow.

There is no doubt that Paine had long desired to explain why he was not a Christian. John Adams, who never trusted him, had been disconcerted in 1776 to hear him express a 'contempt of the Old Testament, and indeed of the Bible at large'.

In other words, he had, long before his December 1793 arrest, stated his position on the Bible. TPaineTX (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Paine "sainted" by Edison?

There was a comment on the article's edit page at the end of the 'Early Life' section that goes, "'Saint'? Surely not. You will need a well-documented quote in Thomas Edison's words to support this sentence; otherwise, this sentence should be deleted." To the commenter I would say that "saint" used here is merely an expression. The author obviously meant that Edison thought of Paine as a "highly virtuous person", and this does fall within the definition of "saint". If you still feel that a citation is necessary, the "Paul Israel" note will do the job, which you'll find on the Edison page as Note 23. Otherwise, please remove the "citation needed" note. Edison was profoundly influenced by Thomas Paine, and he defended Paine's memory against accusations that he (Paine) was an atheist. Paine was definitely most highly revered by Edison!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the Paul Israel citation. And since the word "saint" raises the issue of religious systemic bias, I reworded it to "most highly revered".  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding to article "reference" sections

To the person who added the following reference:

40. Paine Thomas (The Popular Encyclopedia (Blackie & Sons london Glasgow & Edinburgh 1875)

As you can see, the reference must be entered a certain way for it to work. If you'll let me know where in the article you want this to reference, I'll add it for you. Or you could read this and learn how do it yourself. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Stay-Maker

Stay-Maker = someone who makes corsets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corset please can this be explained in the job description, as Stay-maker is not used in common parlance, and should be defined, to enable complete understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.132.243 (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I polished the internal link stay-maker to [[Corsetmaker|stay-maker]]. That link now goes to the Wikipedia article, Corsetmaker, where the obsolescence of "stay-maker" is explained.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

References

13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Early life/school

I'm just passing through - not a Paine expert - but would like to query this: "He attended Thetford Grammar School (1744-1749) that selected pupils on ability, at a time when there was no compulsory education". Modern grammar schools in UK select pupils, but did they in the olden days? I have had a look round the internet and can't find anything about selecting pupils in those days. Grammar schools apparently taught pupils latin as opposed to the petty schools which provided basic english education. So unless anyone can find a source saying there was selection on ability in grammar schools in 18th century or in Thetford Grammar school I would suggest taking it out.131.111.164.218 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

Have I missed something or is there little mention about Thomas Paine's connection with Benjamin Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2x (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the book "Thomas Paine and the Promise of America", Paine met Franklin in 1774 when both of them were in London petitioning parliament. Page 28 states that Franklin encouraged Paine to emigrate to America then provided him with a letter of introduction, to be presented to Franklin's son-in-law, Richard Bache (an insurance underwriter in Philadelphia) and William Franklin (Royal governor of Ney Jersey). Page 34 states that Paine uses the letter to land the job of "editor" of a new publication named "Philadelphia Magazine" where he wrote many articles including the pamphlet "Common Sense" --Neilrieck (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"An important market town and coach stage-post"

User:Tedickey has asked for a citation for:- "Thetford, an important market town and coach stage-post"
I cannot find it expressed in these words, (but if I had it would be plagiarism)

Markets
Thetford had been an extremely important town, home of the monarchs of East Anglia and was seat of a bishopric, but the see had moved to Norwich and the town was in a slow decline by 1737, when Paine was born.

Thetford was the oldest Ancient Borough in Norfolk, receiving its Royal charter in 1573, compared to Norwich (1683), Lynn (1684) and Yarmouth in (1703) or nearby Bury St Edmunds (1606). The royal charter allowed the town to hold markets without needing other authority.

According to Alan Crosby (A History of Thetford: Philmore & Co Ltd, Chichester, Sussex 1986 (1st) ISBN 0 85033 604 X) "Thetford retained its status as the main market town for south-west Norfolk, and indeed the gradual decay of smaller markets such as Methwold and East Harling reinforced that particular role" (Crosby p58).

There are documentary references to markets for "butter, cheese, timber, meat, fish, corn, hay, leather and kiddier (smallwares), and this list is certainly not exhaustive." (Crosby p60) there were at least 3 market places in Thetford the Fyssh market, The Butter market and the Corn market, and in 1739 the Butter market was moved to the Market cross. (Crosby p83-4)

Coaching stage post
Paine pre-dated most turnpike roads in the county, (Thetford to Attleborough 1767, to Newmarket 1768, to Stoke Ferry 1770, to Bury St Edmunds 1792) (Crosby 110-111).

Long before the turnpike roads were built, Thetford was a major river crossing point. The pre-Roman Icknield Way passed through via the ford, whilst in Paine's time the main Norwich to London Road crossed via the Christopher Bridge (now the Town Bridge) (Crosby p44) The town lies about 30 miles from Norwich and 20 from Newmarket, a suitable distance for refreshment and changing horses.

White Hart Street, where Paine lived, was named after one of the coaching inns on this road. The White Hart no longer exists, but the Bell (1493) and the Kings Head, both coaching inns, are still in White Hart Street, whist a third coaching inn, The Anchor, stands immediately South West of the river, on the site of the earlier Christopher Inn (Crosby p69)

This is far too much to put in Paine's article, but IMHO can be summarised as "an important market town and coach stage-post"

Arjayay (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine (add the footnotes) Tedickey (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two festival links

As this is the bicentenary of Thomas Paine's death, Thetford, his birthplace, and Lewes, where he spent his last formative years before departure to America, are holding festivals.

Is it possible to acknowledge this on this page with the two festival links?

http://www.thomaspaineandlewes.com/

http://www.tompaine200.org.uk/index.html PPM200 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

In the section "rights of man," didn't Wollstonecraft publish a vindication of the rights of women and not man? Please delete this post if I am wrong or if it is corrected. Max Lipkin

Well, Max, she actually did both. A Vindication of the Rights of Men was first in 1790, and then she did A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. Isn't it interesting that she used the plural, "men", in the first, then used the singular, "woman", in the second work?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is not trivial, as the C18 used the singular and plural differently. In response to the OP, the first work was about the French Revolution, and was part of the so-called Pamphlet War or Revolution Controversy; the second was a rational argument for women's rights. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

English-American Pampleteer

An anonymous IP inserted the word American, which was deleted by another IP, and this deletion reverted by User:Tedickey. There has been no justification for any of these actions.

IMO it now sounds as if Paine was born with dual nationality - which he clearly wasn't.

The article states that he had honorary French citizenship, but, although Paine claimed to be a citizen of America (when in a French prison), his claim was not supported by the American Ambassador.

Given these two reasons, I propose that "American" is removed from in front of pamphleteer. Arjayay (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible to deny Thomas Paine's American nationality? Haven't you read anything by him? There can be no doubt as to Paine's patriotism nor his true nationality. He was more American than many in his era as well as many in today's time.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Paine was a British subject (citizen) whether he (or anyone else) liked it or not. This 're-nationing' of famous British personalities is rife on Wikipedia - half the famous 'Australians' and 'New Zealanders' on here were also British, and would have regarded themselves as such. For the record, both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would also qualify as British subjects for at least the early part of their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.238 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument isn't sound, Mr. Ellsworth. And not only have I read his works, but I've also read Paine's definitive biography. No one has denied or questioned his contributions and service to the fledgling Republic. However, what he wrote, and where his sentiments lay, do not equate to being a citizen. Lafayette and Von Steuben trained our colonial armies, and fought in service of the United States, but that doesn't make them American citizens by default (although it is true that Von Steuben did become an American citizen). Under your argument, Paine would also logically also be a Frenchman in addition to being American (and a Brit). Since you mention his writing as a basis for citizenship, he also penned longer treatises than Common Sense expressly for the French Revolution. He was born English, didn't arrive in the Colonies until he was nearly 30, and then returned to Europe 13 years after he arrived here. He lived the majority of his life before and aftyer he came here, in Europe. He is a national hero to the US, but he was still a British citizen. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In the most recent edit by an IP Paine's role as an "English-born American Patriot" was deleted from the lede. The "English-born" portion covers his British citizenship while "American Patriot" describes exactly what his role was during the Amercan Revolution. Can anyone make a serious argument that Paine was not an "American Patriot" during the American Revolution? Contrary to what has been said above, Paine was released from French custody based on his American citizenship. While Gouvernor Morris, a political foe of Paine, did not work for his release, his replacement James Monroe did. From Foner's biography of Paine (page 244) -- "... it was not until the arrival of the new American ambassador, James Monroe, who claimed Paine as a citizen of the United States, that he was released -- the "citizen of the world" saved by the principle of national citizenship." Since "citizen of the world" is a common reference to Paine (who had claims to American, British, and French citizenship) perhaps it would be better to ADD to the lede rather than excluding material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Paine as an English writer for which he is most renowned, English Inventor, Radical, and follower British deism, later called for reforms in his native England appealing to the people against the monarch - as he had done in English America in his pamphlet "Common Sense" he signed as an Englishman, supporting the colonies English America independence, as did many of his English contemporaries such as Richard Price and Edmund Burke who opposed the German-descended King of England employing "the hireling sword of German boors and vassals" to destroy the colonists' English liberties. The "Rights of Englishmen" were at stake.. Paine and many Englishmen supported their 'English brethren' against the monarch, reform itself would soon take place in England. 81.140.84.197 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph states that the opening paragraph should state a person’s nationality with the clarification that “In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.” Paine, if he had died on the trip from England to the Pennsylvania, would not have been notable enough to merit even a Wikipedia article.

Rather than comparing him to Burke, the appropriate comparison is with all those other British subjects like Washington, Henry, Jefferson, Adams, et al who made their mark on history in the colonial and revolutionary era in North America. Burke, unlike Paine, stayed in England, never held an American military position, never served as a state or Federal official in America, never participated actively in American politics, and was not subject to execution should the Americans have lost the war.

Of course prior to 1776 many patriots were arguing only for their “rights as Englishmen”. This changed once the goal became independence, and Paine became notable as an early and effective spokesperson for this cause. Anything of significance that he accomplished in regards to British reform occurred AFTER he had established his notability in America. To simply pass him off as “English” is extremely misleading, as the rest of the article and article lede clearly shows.

As a compromise, I have eliminated your addition of “English” to the first sentence without adding anything else back in. You have made it clear that it is YOUR opinion that everything he did, he did as an Englishman. Absent reliable sources that agree with you, making the claim in this article is nothing but Original Research on your part. The second sentence adequately describes his British ancestry and subsequent American role as a colonist and revolutionary. With legitimate claims to both British and American citizenship, plus his honorary French citizenship, there is no reason to overemphasize his “Englishness”. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly its not our right to compromise Paine being an English writer, i dont state opinions, that Paine was an English writer is factual, he stated so himself, and its that for which he is most renowned for in advocating his belief structure developed in England, notably as an Englishman 'Common sense', also his latter major works 'Rights of Man' published in London, 'Age of Reason' following in British deism. What Paine did as opposed to other Englishmen (such as Richard Price, Edmund Burke who also advocated the colonies independence against the German-descended monarch of England, defending English liberties), was at 37 to go to the colonies itself and therefore take a more active part. Your argument had Paine not crossed the Atlantic is futile, Emmeline Pankhurst in fighting for womens rights also went to America and gave many speechs most notably "Freedom or death" in 1913. That doesnt change her identity. Paine's was an age before Television, radio, internet.. there wasnt the means to communicate his belief structure without going directly to the source.81.140.84.197 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Paine, Pankhurst had established her notability before visiting America. Did you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph? Do you see how it applies to Paine? Do you need for me to elaborate on the difference between visiting a place and moving to a place with the intent to settle and fully integrating yourself into the politics and wars of the new nation that you help to create?

You repeat yourself regarding Burke and Price while failing to address the significant differences I provided. I think most folks can recognize the difference between “ go[ing] to the colonies itself and therefore take a more active part” and becoming a “Founding Father” of a new nation. And surely you are aware that Paine’s reasons for leaving England had very little to do with “defending English liberties” and almost everything to do with the failure of his career and marriage in England.

Your claim “that Paine was an English writer is factual” is, IMO wrong. I am aware of no reliable source that treats Paine’s career in the United States as that of a visiting Englishman. If that is, in fact, the case then we need a reliable source that says so.

The bottom line, which I raised before and you failed to respond to is why anything beyond this sentence “He lived and worked in Britain until age 37, when he emigrated to the British American colonies, in time to participate in the American Revolution” is required in order to address the nationality issues. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is, while he was officially awarded French citizenship in 1792, unlike Washington, Hamilton et al. (who were also granted honorary French citizenship), he was not already officially recognized as an American citizen. He is sometimes called a 'citizen of the world' in a few sources I've seen; but, If you can find something in a legitimate source to the contrary -- and I wish you luck in this endeavor (e.g. a legitimate source would be an accredited history book, public records, a published biography, a doctoral thesis), that explicitly states his official American citizenship, then we can factually say he had dual citizenship (or actually tri-citizenship given his nation of origin and recognition as a Frenchman). Until then, I'm not bothered what the lead paragraph says about him being English or British or whatever -- so long as we don't arbitrarily grant him what he doesn't have: the official status of being an American citizen. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how were "Washington and Hamiliton et al" "officially recognized" as American citizens? What actually happened is that there were millions of permanent residents in the 13 colonies before the Revolution, among them Thomas Paine and George Washington, and all these folks were considered citizens of the United States once there was a United States. There was no application requirement, no certification process, no Constitutional definition, and no waiting period that made any of these people's citizenship official.

I've shown you where Foner (I assume you recognize him as a reliable source) states that Paine claimed US citizenship and had that citizenship recognized by both an American Ambassador, acting in his official capacity, and the nation of France. I've read quite a number of biographies of Americans from Paine's era and I can't remember any of them in which the author "explicitly states his [the subject of the biography] official American citizenship. Are you denying that in 1770 George Washington was just as much a British subject as Thomas Paine? If not, why do you subject Paine to a different standard than Washington?

For practical purposes, if folks continue to insert "English" back into the sentence, we can include a sentence along the lines of "Paine was a citizen of England by birth, claimed and American citizenship, was granted honorary French citizenship, and has been referred to as a "citizen of the world." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PS The following seems to meet even your “explicit” standards. In the online version of Conway’s biography at [16], on page 209, the following is an excerpt from a letter from the Pennsylvania Council to the Pennsylvania General assembly:

"Arriving in America just before the war broke out, he [Paine] commenced his residence here, and became a citizen of this Commonwealth by taking the oath of allegiance at a very early period.”

With state citizenship leading to national citizenship, this makes it clear that there is an “official” recognition of Paine’s citizenship. Any discussion of Paine’s citizenship in the article MUST take this into account. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why were Paine's dates and places of birth & death removed from the Info-box?
As it now stands, nothing in the introduction/lede says that Paine was born in England - it could be inferred from the second sentence, but that jars with the end of the first sentence, referring to his being one of the "Founding Fathers of the United States".
As stated above, Paine was a British Citizen, (he was born when England was part of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801)), and an honorary French Citizen but, despite his appeal to the American Ambassador in Paris, was never recognized as an American Citizen.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), specifically states:-
The opening paragraph should give:
3 - Nationality
To comply with MOS Paine's nationality should, therefore, be in the first paragraph.
Arjayay (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Same question that I posed to Ryecatcher -- what "recognition" was required for United States citizenship for the millions of permanent residents of the colonies, like Paine, who were still in America after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution? In describing the requirements to be elected President, the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Can you explain why Paine was any less a citizen before adoption of the Constitution than Washington? Generally in writing wikipedia biographies, citizenship can be assumed based on birth. However there is an entire class of notable folks who attained United States citizenship by virtue of the success of the American Revolution. Paine was born in England and Hamilton was born in the British West Indies -- explain why one was a United States citizen and the other was not? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair question(s) Tom: When did the United States introduce the concept of citizenship? How did one achieve it? How did one prove that one had it? Was it Federal or on a state by state basis? Is there any documentation to show that Paine was an American citizen, notwithstanding that the US Ambassador refused to recognise him as such?

MOS actually refers to "nationality" not "citzenship" - which may be slightly less contentious? - (probably not).

What can we agree on? I suggest that
1) Paine's dates and places of birth & death are added back to the infobox (this is hardly contentious(?))
2) The first paragraph should state he was born in England (clearly a statement of fact)
3) That your proposal for the description "citizen of the world" is also included somehow in the introduction - do we have an original source?
Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the problem with the infobox is a technical one. His birth place and date are in the text when you open the edit window but the information doesn't come through when it's closed. I've added the birth information to the first paragraph. As far as "citizen of the world", Foner references this but there is also a scholarly book [17] and the BBC [18] that use the right up front. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PS Infobox fixed -- this [19] was the diff that screwed it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done with the info-box - you beat me by seconds - agree to the other changes
Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. With regards to citizenship and Article IV, Sec.1 (clause 5) of the US Constitution, on the matter of qualifications for the office, you've overlooked the second part of the clause: :neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Reasoning behind this, was there were still a fair number of newly US Citizens who were born outside of the colonies. Regardless, Paine did not fit the criteria, as (a) he arrived in 1774 and (b) returned to Europe in 1787 (not a resident of 14 years), besides that he left before 1788, which is when the Constitution was ratified.

2. While there is a laundry list of US Court opinions on citizenship (mainly with regards to issues of slavery), nothing that substantiates an answer to the issue we are debating can be pinned down so far as 'official criteria for citizenship' in the immediate period following the colonies separation from Britain. We know what the standards for naturalization are today, but in 1776 the idea wasn't concrete. Looking to Article IV, Sec 1, we can only ascertain from the standards required for a citizen not born here giving the requirement of '14 years' to give a guideline -- but this is still not necessarily conclusive.

3. The facts we do have, are not substantial as to the issue of Paine being a US Citizen. We know that he was a British citizen, and was granted French citizenry, but nothing -- and I repeat for emphasis -- nothing in historical record (or even his biography) that names him as ever having been recognized as an American citizen. Have you ever considered that it may not have been his desire to be a 'citizen' of any state? Particularly given his views on governments being 'necessary evil' and inasmuch, not placing that much weight in their mandates? Have you also considered his feud with Washington and the sitting Federalists that occurred after the war? Have you considered that he wasn't well liked by many in those times? He was critical of the Christian church in an era where that was even more sensitive in the US than it is today. The context of his relationship with his political peers and the viepoint of the partisan post-revolutionary American people may provide some clues as to why we've never seen him officially named as a 'citizen'. But that still doesn't unequivocally answer the question.

I personally rank Paine as one of the most important figures in US history, and I have nothing but respect for his writings and principles. But, that is solely an emotion, which should never be mistaken for (or substituted in lieu of) historical fact. We cannot name him a citizen. We do not have the power to due so. This matter doesn't rest on an editor of a WP article to prove he wasn't a citizen -- the burden of proof rests on recorded facts that can be cited (per the WP manual of style) for our purpose. Find one such source (as I challenged before) and we will include it here. Otherwise, there is nothing left to debate. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument (1) citing “Article IV, Sec.1 (clause 5)” is non-responsive (and you meant Article II). All it establishes is that AMONG CITIZENS, some are eligible for federal office and some aren’t -- you ignore the word “neither” which explains the connection between the two parts of the clause. Or are you also arguing that nobody under age 35 can be a United States citizen? What the section I cited did establish was that citizenship in the United States existed BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution, making it irrelevant whether he left the country during the ratification debate -- once a citizen always a citizen unless renounced or otherwise stripped by operation of law. The whole clause:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The rest of your response fails to address clear facts that have been presented to you. Let me repeat these facts, supported by reliable sources:

1- Contrary to what has been said above, Paine was released from French custody based on his American citizenship. While Gouvernor Morris, a political foe of Paine, did not work for his release, his replacement James Monroe did. From Foner's biography of Paine (page 244) -- "... it was not until the arrival of the new American ambassador, James Monroe, who claimed Paine as a citizen of the United States, that he was released -- the "citizen of the world" saved by the principle of national citizenship."

2- The following seems to meet even your “explicit” standards. In the online version of Conway’s biography at [20], on page 209, the following is an excerpt from a letter from the Pennsylvania Council to the Pennsylvania General assembly:

"Arriving in America just before the war broke out, he [Paine] commenced his residence here, and became a citizen of this Commonwealth by taking the oath of allegiance at a very early period.”

With state citizenship leading to national citizenship, this makes it clear that there is an “official” recognition of Paine’s citizenship. Any discussion of Paine’s citizenship in the article MUST take this into account.

So explain EXACTLY (1) why Paine’s claim of American citizenship and French and AMERICAN, through the ambassador, recognition of this is irrelevant and (2) why Paine’s citizenship in Pennsylvania as early as 1775 is irrelevant? Before you declare “ Otherwise, there is nothing left to debate”, how about actually engaging in debate by addressing the points you are ignoring?

I will also now point out Article IV of the Articles of Confederation which clearly equates “free inhabitants” with citizens:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;

You might also consider what Alexander Hamilton said in 1784 at [21]:

By the declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, in the year 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth, the late colony of New-York became an independent state. All the inhabitants, who were subjects under the former government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon the change which took place, were to be considered as citizens, owing allegiance to the new government, This, at least, is the legal presumption; and this was the principle, in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils have been grounded. Duties have been exacted, and punishments inflicted according to this rule. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, duly noted; you caught me asleep at the wheel -- I work late, and had been reading something earlier on States Rights in Article IV and thus when I went into my argument at about 1:45 in the morning, carelessly mis-stated what I actually meant to say is in Art. II. So, now that I've conceded my carelessness (and had my morning coffee) here are my explanations you've requested...

1-a. There are two provisos -- age of 35, and resident for 14 years. I'm citing the latter. The language in itself is ambiguous when separted into two clauses, beyond the general requirements for a President -- which is, at first glance, particularly problematic today, given that in 2009 a non-Native born citizen is ineligible to run for the office.

In Federalist No.42, Madison notes the historical inconsistencies and lack of clarity on the exact issue of defining citizenship and their rights, and considers the language in the Articles of Confederation ambuigious as well -- specifically the apparent conflation and/or inconsistent use of the terms 'free citizens' and 'inhabitants' and reminds us that the rules among the several colonies had "long been remarked as fault in our system, and as laying a foundation of intricate and delicate questions."[22]

1-b. Consider politics of the day when considering Ambassador Monroe's position as a dyed-in-the-wool Republican vs. Gov. Morris's as an equally staunch Federalist. While he served under Washington at the time was (and respected Washington's wishes as far as his duties were concerned), Monroe was -- first and foremost -- a Jefferson man. Essential to understanding early partisanship requires us to consider the divisive issues of the day: the Federalist v. Republican positions regarding England v. France were as heated then as abortion and guns are today, going so far as to Jefferson's Republicans being castigated for their Franco-philia (particularly by party heavyweights Hamilton, Marshall and Admams). Of course Monroe was going to use his weight to fight for Paine's release. But the actual 'citizenship' question was still not concretely provided with a definitive answer.

The fact remains that in the 18th Century, it was hazy, and in the 21st Century, there are no documents available to support his status as we understand the term today. You make an interesting argument, but the hard evidence (i.e. official legal documents) to support it incontrovertibly is not available -- which is why none of his biographers have been able to cite Paine's official status as a citizen.

2. The case of his oath to Pennsylvania is murky so far as to the legitimacy of the claim after the colonies became these United States. The author in your quote makes a leap of faith With state citizenship leading to national citizenship, this makes it clear that there is an “official” recognition of Paine’s citizenship. Any discussion of Paine’s citizenship in the article MUST take this into account. He seems to be saying that he believes what you and others are asserting (i.e. that Paine is a citizen), but the rhetorical work of the statement 'must be taken into account' indicates a plea, not an affirmation of fact. The otheriwsie logical progression the author follows from state citizenship leading to national citizenship, is something that Madison also addresses in Federalist No. 42 -- (regarding the lack of consistency in states rights vs. those at the federal level which are addressed by the eventual provisions stated in Article IV (and this time I do mean Art. IV): The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required... he ends this section with this: The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them (i.e. colonial state's laws), and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.

The Constitution is, as you already know, at the heart of the 'united' part of the title United Sattes. The states, while retaining certain rights in the constitution, bends their collective knee to the federal government on very specific issues. The reason why Conway can't make Paine's assumed citizenship argument stick is due to his acceptance as a citizen of PA in the 1770's, which occurred before the laws of citizenship in the colonies were uniform -- and which were superceded by the powers granted solely to the federal government, which is exactly the work Art. IV does in such cases -- unifies the definition of citizens, and regulates who exactly has the authority to recognize it. Again, while it remains murky, the facts still remain: Paine had already left the US by the time the Constitution was ratified. He was a resident for 13 years, and then departed to Europe. That he later cites his citizenship of the US wilst imprisoned in France, appears more as a convenience in a time of desperation than anything. You make the case that Gov. Morris ddidn't fight for Paine, while Jefferson did -- and I will point out (based on my earlier assertions of partisanship) that nothing more than politics are evident in your claim.

Alright, your turn. ;-) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Article 2 -- You still miss my point. While the purpose of the clause is to describe the qualifications for the presidency, for the purposes of our discussion the relevant section is “a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”. What this means is simply that even BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution there were people who were classified as United States citizens. Their citizenship arose from something other than the ratification of the Constitution. The next quest is where did that citizenship arise from.

Pennsylvania citizenship -- I am assuming you acknowledge that the source cited is sufficient to establish that Paine was a Pennsylvania citizen. It is not the author that makes the leap that state citizenship leads to national citizenship. That was my claim (check out where the quotes are), but at least until the 14th Amendment this was pretty much the standard interpretation. Akhil Reed Amar, in “America’s Constitution: A Biography”, writes, “Lacking any explicit definition of American citizenship, the Founders Constitution was widely read in the antebellum era as making national citizenship derivative of state citizenship, except in cases involving the naturalization of immigrants and the regulation of federal territories.”

Saying virtually the same thing from a century older work available online at [23] by Westel W. Willoughby:

“Prior to the argument of the Dred Scott case there was surprisingly little discussion of this point. The opinion generally held seems, however, to have been that every citizen of a State was a citizen of the United States. This was the view declared by Rawle in his work on the Constitution and by Story in his Commentaries. Story says: "Every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.”

Commenting directly on the background for Dred Scott, Don E. Fehrenbacher in “The Dred Scott Case” talks about the vagueness surrounding citizenship but states:

“In its broadest and perhaps most common usage during the early national period, ‘citizen’ meant any domiciled inhabitant except an alien or a slave.” (page 64)

and

“Although certain abolitionist theorists had developed a doctrine of paramount national citizenship, the general tendency was to regard state citizenship as primary, with United States citizenship deriving from it.” (page 71)

Original research -- All of the above is supported by reliable sources. Murky as it may be, a wide assortment of scholars and legal minds have looked at the issue and made a detrmination. The counter-argument needed to be made is that other reliable sources say something different.

Your interpretation of Madison’s opinion in Federalist 42 agrees with mine, but what it does not say, and what you need it to say in order to carry your argument, is that state citizenship determinations are irrelevant to whether or not someone is a United States citizen. In fact, the Constitution only addresses the naturalization process.

You state your opinion that “... exactly the work Art. IV does in such cases -- unifies the definition of citizens, and regulates who exactly has the authority to recognize.” The sources I’ve cited, however, totally disagree with you -- the Constitution fails to specifically define what constitutes national citizenship.

Similarly you state, “Paine had already left the US by the time the Constitution was ratified. He was a resident for 13 years, and then departed to Europe.” Factually accurate. Of course he had earlier left England. Since he renounced neither his English or American or Pennsylvania citizenships, how does leaving the country serve to end citizenship? I have already established above that the ratification of the Constitution did not create citizens since it clearly acknowledges that citizens already existed before the ratification. You again are lacking a reliable source that says Paine somehow lost what he had already attained.

Paine in France -- The facts, supported by reliable sources are that (1) Paine claimed American citizenship, (2) an American Ambassador represented in his official capacity that Paine was a citizen, and (3) the French accepted his citizenship and released him.

You argue, “You make the case that Gov. Morris ddidn't fight for Paine, while Jefferson [actually Monroe] did -- and I will point out (based on my earlier assertions of partisanship) that nothing more than politics are evident in your claim.” You can argue that all you want, but Foner from all I can see takes it at face value. Harry Ammons, in “James Monroe” looks at the situation from the same perspective -- he “secured Paine’s release by insisting to the committee that he was still an American citizen and as such should either be brought to trial or discharged.” (page 136)

Richard Brookiser in his biography of Morris shows Morris mocking Paine in a letter to Jefferson (“Thomas Paine is in prison where he amuses himself by publishing a pamphlet against Jesus Christ”). Morris explains to Jefferson his inaction in freeing Paine in these terms, “If he is quiet in prison he may have the good luck to be forgotten. Whereas, should he be brought much into notice, the long suspended axe might fall on him.” (page 139) Also relevant is the fact that Morris was not on good terms with the French and was being recalled from his ambassadorship at French request.

Paine’s own description of the situation at [24] is interesting. While drawing any conclusions from this primary source would be original research, it seems clear that the issue is less whether he was ever a citizen, but whether his actions in accepting French citizenship had served to revoke his American citizenship. Even if it had, this would not change the fact that he was a citizen prior to this acceptance.

However, respecting this letter, what is NOT original research is what Conway in volume 2 of his biography of Paine (here [25]) writes on page 143. After citing Paine’s belief in the letter that his American citizenship was being denied by American officials, Conway writes in the clearest possible terms:

“As the American government did regard Paine as an American citizen, and approved Monroe's demanding him as such, there is no difficulty in recognizing the source from which these statements were diffused among Paine's newly arriving countrymen.”

Later, on page 149, Conway provides a copy of Monroe’s letter to the French claiming citizenship for Paine, and Conway writes, “At this the first positive assertion of Paine's American citizenship the prison door flew open.”

Monroe goes further on the citizenship issue. On page 150 is a copy of a letter he wrote to Secretary Randolph (who had replaced Jefferson):

"He was actually a citizen of the United States, and of the United States only; for the Revolution which parted us from Great Britain broke the allegiance which was before due to the Crown, of all who took our side.   He was, of course, not a British subject; nor was he strictly a citizen of France, for he came by invitation for the temporary purpose of assisting in the formation of their government only, and meant to withdraw to America when that should be completed.   And what confirms this is the act of the Convention itself arresting him, by which he is declared a foreigner.”  

Were Morris and Monroe, both politicians, acting as politicians? Probably to some extent. What reliable sources indicate that Monroe acted based strictly on politics and that he really believed Paine was not a citizen? According to Morris’ biographer, Morris’ inaction was simply a tactic to avoid having the French overreact. Having made the prima facie case by reliable sources that the claims of American citizenship were made and honored, it is up to you to come up with reliable sources that argue the whole American citizenship thing was a smokescreen.

Standard of Proof? -- You wrote “but the hard evidence (i.e. official legal documents) to support it incontrovertibly is not available.” Of course, the standard under Wikipedia:Reliable sources says nothing about “incontrovertibility”. Please explain why I can’t, under wikipedia policy, write this sentence:

“Thomas Paine was both a citizen of Pennsylvania and an American citizen.”

and footnote it to the statements by Conway cited above that say exactly that, along with clarifying footnotes as to what Foner, Ammon, Akhil, Storey, Rawle, Willoughby, and Fehrenbacher have to say about the relationship between state and national citizenship.

While I am not proposing to do that, let’s remember that this all started because you and an IP decided to argue that Paine, case closed, was purely and only an English citizen. You have yet to provide any reliable source that denies Paine’s American citizenship. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is only 56 hours since the last post (it was 39 days between the first 2) but I wonder if we have reached a consensus?
At 12:42 on 20 July 2009 Tom (North Shoreman) suggested adding "Paine was a citizen of England by birth, claimed and (sic) American citizenship, was granted honorary French citizenship, and has been referred to as a "citizen of the world."
IMO we have reliable sources for this - in WP terms, at least.
Removing the stray "and", and resolving the English/British question gives:-

Paine was a British citizen by birth, claimed American citizenship, was granted honorary French citizenship, and was referred to as a "citizen of the world".

Tom - are you still happy with this? or do you now want to make "claimed" (which I don't think was disputed) any stronger?

As "citizen of the world" is currently not in the main article, it should not just appear in the Intro/lede, but ought to be embedded in the article as well. It is currently in a footnote, and could be added where that footnote link is, giving:-

"James Monroe, who successfully argued the case for Paine's American citizenship, describing him as a "citizen of the world".

(The quote was, of course, not originally about Paine, but goes back to Socrates, if not earlier).
Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The issues here have resurfaced and I just noticed I never replied to you. Sorry. I actually had intended to start working on the article and got distracted. I do agree that the sentence belongs somewhere in the article and also believe, due to the fact that he was clearly a Pennsylvania citizen, that simply saying that he claimed American citizenship is too weak. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom, i personally believe this is a decent intro... Thomas Paine was an English author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual and American revolutionary as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Firstly it caters for both sides of English and American, you could argue where is his French identity, given that he pretty much did exactly for America what he did for France...and like i mentioned earlier travelling from England as regards America, he went DIRECTLY to the source (ie.travelled to France for their Revolution) expressing his ideology, also later wrote to his native English people to overthrow the German-descended monarch of England (while there wasnt a revolution, reforms would soon take place in UK diminishing the sovereigns power - today now merely a figurehead a monarch hasn't made a political decision in 200 years). While he is seen as a citizen of the world, I feel though that that intro is not bad, as it covers the major tracks of his life..in being an English writer (which he himself stated and signed), radical (political and following on from British deism), inventor... and an American revolutionary (and founding father). There is no definitive i accept that, thought i'd throw that one out there.81.140.84.197 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for grins I explored biographical articles on Paine by other encyclopedias available online. It seems the pattern in the introductory sentences is either to leave nationality out or to use the term "Anglo-American." While I prefer the former, I would like to see if there is a consensus for Anglo-American. There is a long discussion above on the reasons why English is inappropriate and I don't consider your proposal as consistent with the various issues that have been raised. The bottom line is that folks are able to write complete biographies of Paine without finding the need to state that he should properly be considered only as an English writer and the current article, in following this pattern, does not short change any readers who get the key facts -- born in England and achieved initial fame in America. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We're almost back to where we came in - I started this thread by objecting to "English-American Pampleteer" as, IMO, it could be inferred, or misunderstood, that Paine was born with dual nationality - which he wasn't.
This may be a difference between UK & US English? UK English uses phrases such as Anglo-Indian to describe "mixed Indian and British ancestry". This may not be the US understanding, but it needs to be clear to all.
"Anglo-American" could be even more problematic than "English-American" as Wikipedia's definition of Anglo-American, would define Paine as either a "cultural sphere" or "the relations between the UK and the Americas".

I think 81.140.84.197 is almost there, but there is still a jar between Paine being English and an American Revolutionary, in the same sentence, without any sense of timing. May I suggest:-

Arjayay (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is extremely misleading. It suggests that Paine was an established author in England before he came to America to become a revolutionary. In fact, Paine had written nothing of significance until he came to America, became a citizen of Pennsylvana, and wrote "Common Sense." To repeat myself from above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph states that the opening paragraph should state a person’s nationality with the clarification that “In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.” Paine, if he had died on the trip from England to the Pennsylvania, would not have been notable enough to even merit a Wikipedia article. Based on wikipedia criteria, the correct reference would be American, not English. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And I foolishly thought that we were getting somewhere!
I don't think we will ever get everyone to agree - unless we can get them to agree to differ.
I asked above if Tom was still happy with his even earlier proposal:-

"Paine was a British citizen by birth, claimed American citizenship, was granted honorary French citizenship, and was referred to as a "citizen of the world"."

I still think this should satisfy almost everyone, including WP:MOS, provided it is in the opening paragraph.
Alternatively, as some are trying to get all the information into the first sentence, not just the first paragraph, this could be:-

"Thomas Paine was an English-born author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor and intellectual who became an American revolutionary and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States."

This would need some adjustment of the text afterwards, removing born in England etc.
--Arjayay (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My earlier suggestion was made before I was aware that Paine had taken direct steps before the Revolution to become a citizen of Pennsylvania. I would reword it now to red something like:

"Paine was a British citizen by birth, an American citizen by choice, a French citizen by honorary grant, and was referred to as a "citizen of the world"."

A far as adding "English-born" simply to have it in the first sentence rather than the second, I would suggest it be rewritten as follows:

"Thomas Paine was born in England and immigrated to American where he became a noted author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor ,intellectual, American revolutionary and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States."

Of course, my first choice is still to leave it as it is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it as it is.
I thought you were arguing that we had to determine a nationality in order to comply with WP:MoS.
Your last post confused me - probably due to my poor understanding of the sequence of events.
You say "Paine had taken direct steps before the Revolution to become a citizen of Pennsylvania"
If this was before the Revolution (a date would be good, but Conway doesn't give one), who did Paine swear allegiance to, when becoming a citizen? the Colony of Pennsylvania i.e. The Crown?
--Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I presume it would have been to the colonial government of Pennsylvania which carried over to the post July 4, 1776 Pennsylvania which led to the American citizenship. Same thing as with George Washington -- he went from being a British subject and Virginia citizen to US citizen without any further operation of law. I imagine it is quite possible, or even likely, that there would have been reference to King George in such an oath. I think I see your point -- was a document published on 1-10-1776 the act of an Englishman or an American Revolutionary. I still say the latter -- Paine had made the break with England before many were ready. His notability came concurrently with the revolution. Without more specific information it honestly seems like either side is faced with making a tortured argument. Unless a reliable source surfaces that says what Paine was on whatever date he became famous, then it seems like the status quo is best. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)