Talk:Thomas Paine

Archives

• Talk:Thomas Paine/Archive 1

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. [1] --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." [2]

--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 [3]

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. [4]

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 [5]. 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)[6]. 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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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)

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)

"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