Virginia Commonwealth University French Revolution Discussion Compare and contrast the ideas put forth by Burke and Paine on the French Revolution. Whose i

Virginia Commonwealth University French Revolution Discussion Compare and contrast the ideas put forth by Burke and Paine on the French Revolution. Whose ideas strike you as common sense versus radicalism? Who makes the best points and why? 250-350 words.Use the resources provided. RIGHTS OF MAN
Thomas Paine:
Rights of Man (1792)
[Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes. This condensed and
abridged version reduces about 90,000 words to about 7,200.]
Dedication
To George Washington: President Of The United States Of
America
Sir,
I present you a small treatise in defence of those principles of freedom which your exemplary virtue hath so eminently contributed to
establish. That the Rights of Man may become as universal as your
benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the happiness of seeing
the New World regenerate the Old, is the prayer of
Sir,
Your much obliged, and Obedient humble Servant,
Thomas Paine
Rights of Man: Being an answer to Mr Burke’s attack on the
French Revolution
Among the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and
irritate each other, Mr. Burke’s pamphlet on the French Revolution is
an extraordinary instance. There is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be
found in the English language, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded
the French Nation and the National Assembly. Everything which rancour, prejudice, ignorance or knowledge could suggest, is poured forth
in the copious fury of near four hundred pages.
Mr. Burke with his usual outrage, abused the Declaration of the
Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as the
basis on which the constitution of France is built. This he calls ‘paltry
and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man.’ Does Mr. Burke
2
mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean
that there are no such things as rights anywhere, and that he has none
himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke
means to admit that man has rights, the question then will be: What
are those rights, and how man came by them originally?
The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough
into antiquity. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an
hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a
rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If antiquity is to be
authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively
contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come
out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of
his Maker. What was he then? Man! Man was his high and only title,
and a higher cannot be given him.
Though I mean not to touch upon any sectarian principle of religion, yet it may be worth observing, that the genealogy of Christ is
traced to Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation
of man? Every history of the creation, and every traditionary account,
all agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean
that men are all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born
equal, and with equal natural right; and consequently every child born
into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God.
The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and
his natural right in it is of the same kind.
The Mosaic account of the creation, whether taken as divine authority or merely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of
man. The expression admits of no controversy. ‘And God said, Let us
make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.’ The distinction of sexes is pointed
out, but no other distinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at least historical authority, and shows that the equality of
man, so far from being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record.
His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. A few
words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to
man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights,
or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual
3
4
THOMAS PAINE
RIGHTS OF MAN
for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the
natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man
in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its
foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the
enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently
competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that
class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and
those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.
A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause. Every
man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of
right.
It follows, then, that the power produced from the aggregate of
natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied
to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in
which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself. Let us now
apply these principles to governments.
In casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish the governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the
social compact, from those which have not; but to place this in a
clearer light they may be all comprehended under three heads.
First, Superstition.
Secondly, Power.
Thirdly, The common interest of society and the common rights
of man.
The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.
When a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to hold intercourse with the Deity, as familiarly as they now
march up the back-stairs in European courts, the world was completely
under the government of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and
whatever they were made to say became the law; and this sort of government lasted as long as this sort of superstition lasted.
After these a race of conquerors arose, whose government, like that
of William the Conqueror, was founded in power, and the sword assumed the name of a sceptre. Governments thus established last as
long as the power to support them lasts; but that they might avail
themselves of every engine in their favor, they united fraud to force,
and set up an idol which they called Divine Right, and which, in imitation of the Pope, who affects to be spiritual and temporal, and in contradiction to the Founder of the Christian religion, twisted itself afterwards into an idol of another shape, called Church and State. The key
of St. Peter and the key of the Treasury became quartered on one
another, and the wondering cheated multitude worshipped the invention.
When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for
Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the
honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves
and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed
upon.
We have now to review the governments which arise out of society.
In such, the fact must be that the individuals themselves, each in his
own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each
other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which
governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which
they have a right to exist.
To possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or
ought to be, we must trace it to its origin. A constitution is not a thing
in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and
wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A
constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government
is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is
not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government.
Can, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he cannot, for we may fairly conclude that though it has been so much talked
about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form. The English
Government is one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out
of society, and consequently it arose over the people; and though it has
been much modified from the opportunity of circumstances since the
5
6
THOMAS PAINE
RIGHTS OF MAN
time of William the Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated
itself, and is therefore without a constitution.
Mr. Burke said, in a speech last winter in Parliament, ‘that when
the National Assembly first met in three Orders (the Tiers Etat, the
Clergy, and the Noblesse), France had then a good constitution.’ This
shows, among numerous other instances, that Mr. Burke does not
understand what a constitution is. The persons so met were not a constitution, but a convention, to make a constitution.
I now proceed to draw some comparisons between the French constitution and the governmental usages in England.
The constitution of France says that every man who pays a tax of
sixty sous per annum (2s. 6d. English) is an elector. What article will
Mr. Burke place against this? Can anything be more limited, and at the
same time more capricious, than the qualification of electors is in England?
The French Constitution says that the number of representatives
for any place shall be in a ratio to the number of taxable inhabitants or
electors. In England, the county of York, which contains nearly a million of souls, sends two county members; and so does the county of
Rutland, which contains not an hundredth part of that number. The
old town of Sarum, which contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which contains upward of sixty
thousand souls, is not admitted to send any.
The French Constitution says that the National Assembly shall be
elected every two years. What article will Mr. Burke place against this?
Why, that the nation has no right at all in the case; that the government is perfectly arbitrary with respect to this point; and he can quote
for his authority the precedent of a former Parliament.
The French Constitution says that the right of war and peace is in
the nation. Where else should it reside but in those who are to pay the
expense? In England this right is said to reside in a metaphor shown at
the Tower for sixpence or a shilling a piece: so are the lions; and it
would be a step nearer to reason to say it resided in them, for any inanimate metaphor is no more than a hat or a cap. We can all see the
absurdity of worshipping Aaron’s molten calf, or Nebuchadnezzar’s
golden image; but why do men continue to practise themselves the
absurdities they despise in others?
The French Constitution says, There shall be no titles; and, of
consequence, all that class of equivocal generation which in some
countries is called ‘aristocracy’ and in others ‘nobility,’ is done away,
and the peer is exalted into the Man.
Titles are but nicknames, and every nickname is a title. The thing
is perfectly harmless in itself, but it marks a sort of foppery in the human character, which degrades it. It reduces man into the diminutive
of man in things which are great, and the counterfeit of women in
things which are little. It talks about its fine blue ribbon like a girl, and
shows its new garter like a child. A certain writer, of some antiquity,
says: ‘When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a
man, I put away childish things.’ It is from the elevated mind of France
that the folly of titles has fallen. It has outgrown the baby clothes of
Count and Duke, and breeched itself in manhood. France has not
levelled, it has exalted. It has put down the dwarf, to set up the man.
Let us then examine the grounds upon which the French Constitution has resolved against having a House of Peers in France.
Because, in the first place, aristocracy is kept up by family tyranny
and injustice.
Secondly. Because there is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy
to be legislators for a nation.
Thirdly. Because the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent
as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an
hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous
as an hereditary poet laureate.
Fourthly. Because a body of men, holding themselves accountable
to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.
Fifthly. Because it is continuing the uncivilised principle of governments founded in conquest, and the base idea of man having property in man, and governing him by personal right.
Sixthly. Because aristocracy has a tendency to deteriorate the human species. By the universal economy of nature it is known, and by
the instance of the Jews it is proved, that the human species has a tendency to degenerate, when separated from the general stock of society,
and inter-marrying constantly with each other.
The French Constitution hath abolished or renounced Toleration
and Intolerance also, and hath established Universal Right Of Con-
7
THOMAS PAINE
science. Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of
withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it. The
one is the Pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope
selling or granting indulgences. The former is church and state, and
the latter is church and traffic.
Were a bill brought into any Parliament, entitled, ‘An Act to tolerate or grant liberty to the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew or
Turk,’ or ‘to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it,’ all men would
startle and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The presumption of toleration in religious matters would then present itself unmasked. Who then art thou, vain dust and ashes! by whatever name
thou art called, whether a King, a Bishop, a Church, or a State, a Parliament, or anything else, that obtrudest thine insignificance between
the soul of man and its Maker? Mind thine own concerns. If he believes not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he
believes, and there is no earthly power can determine between you.
The inquisition in Spain and the persecution of dissenters in England does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from
this mule-animal, engendered between the church and the state. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is alway the
strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by
law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes
its original benignity. In America, a catholic priest is a good citizen, a
good character, and a good neighbour; an episcopalian minister is of
the same description: and this proceeds independently of the men,
from there being no law-establishment in America.
One of the first works of the National Assembly in France, instead
of vindictive proclamations against dissent, as has been the case with
other governments, was to publish a declaration of the Rights of Man,
as the basis on which the new constitution was to be built, and which is
here subjoined:
RIGHTS OF MAN
8
Declaration
Of The Rights Of Man And Of Citizens
By The National Assembly Of France
The representatives of the people of France, formed into a National Assembly, doth recognize and declare, in the presence of the
Supreme Being, and with the hope of his blessing and favour, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens:
One: Men are born, and continue, free and equal in respect of their
Rights.
Two: The end of all Political associations is the Preservation of the
Natural and Imprescriptible Rights of Man; Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.
Three: The Nation is the source of all Sovereignty.
Four: Political Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever
does not Injure another.
Five: The Law ought to Prohibit only actions hurtful to Society.
What is not Prohibited should not be hindered.
Six: the Law is an expression of the Will of the Community. All
Citizens have a right to concur, either personally or by their Representatives, in its formation.
Seven: No Man should be accused, arrested, or held in confinement, except in cases determined by the Law.
Eight: The Law ought to impose no other penalties but such as are
absolutely and evidently necessary.
Nine: Every Man being presumed innocent till he has been convicted.
Ten: No Man ought to be molested on account of his opinions, not
even on account of his Religious opinions, provided his avowal of them
does not disturb the Public Order.
Eleven: Citizens may speak, write, and publish freely.
Twelve: A Public force is instituted for the benefit of the Community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is
intrusted.
9
THOMAS PAINE
Thirteen: Contributions for defraying the expenses of Government
ought to be divided equally among the Members of the Community,
according to their abilities.
Fourteen: every Citizen has a Right, either by himself or his Representative, to a free voice in determining the necessity of Public Contributions.
Fifteen: every Community has a Right to demand of all its agents
an account of their conduct.
Sixteen: every Community in which a Separation of Powers and a
Security of Rights is not Provided for, wants a Constitution.
Seventeen: The Right to Property being inviolable and sacred, no
one ought to be deprived of it, except in cases of evident Public necessity.
Miscellaneous chapter
The opinions of men with respect to government are changing fast
in all countries. The Revolutions of America and France have thrown a
beam of light over the world, which reaches into man. The enormous
expense of governments has provoked people to think, by making
them feel; and when once the veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair. Ignorance is of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, it is impossible
to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the
absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant.
The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable,
nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of
any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not
lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have a legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that
the English nation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and abdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which
can only excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his
ignorance.
RIGHTS OF MAN
10
Conclusion
Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the
great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently
extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on.
Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to
it.
When we survey the wretched condition of man, under the monarchical and hereditary systems of Government, dragged from his home
by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more
than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and
that a general revolution in the principle and construction of Governments is necessary.
What is government more than the management of the affairs of a
Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any
particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force and contrivance it has been
usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of
things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to t…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment