The One Indispensible Book on Thomas Paine

Book Review

A review of:

Chiu, Frances
The Routledge Guidebook to Paine's Rights of Man
London & New York: Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group, 2020.
292 pages

Frances Chiu has written, in my view, the single most valuable work written on Thomas Paine. This claim with regard to the distinguished nature of Dr. Chiu’s book rests on the simplicity, clarity, and careful logic of its prose, its careful and consistent research, and on its two intellectual and historical goals presented in the introduction: to situate Paine in the development of Western political thought and to explain Paine’s argument and intellectual evolution within RIGHTS OF MAN. What no one has done before, Prof. Chiu has achieved with rare clarity and coherence.

Almost every author who has written on Paine has discussed his purported influences, the default themes being his bi-religious Quaker/Anglican upbringing and the ideas of John Locke. Prof. Chiu takes this discussion further than any other historian to look behind Quakerism to its earliest antecedents and, again, the genealogy of English and continental republican ideology. The introduction to her book amounts to a crash course in Western republicanism and the history of natural law thought from the 12th century canon writer Gratian (died c. 1155) to Grenville Sharpe (1735-1813). This gem of an introduction traces the development of natural rights thought as it relates to the concepts treated in Paine’s RIGHTS OF MAN; hereditary government, economic justice, populist rhetoric, class conflict, and political representation. The brightest touchstones among the many to which Dr. Chiu directs the eye of her readers; the obscure and too often overlooked radicals of the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt (Watt Tyler’s Rebellion) and the 1642–1651 English Civil Wars.

For those familiar with Paine’s “voice,” listen to the cleric John Ball (c. 1338 – 15 July 1381) from the Peasant’s Revolt or Wat Tyler’s Rebellion:

When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.
Ball, John. Cast off the Yoke of Bondage. 1381.

This echoes indeed of Tom Paine, who wrote:

             ’Tis the inequality of rights that keep up contention”

Thomas Paine. A SERIOUS ADDRESS to the PEOPLE of PENNSYLVANIA, on the present situation of their affairs. from the Pennsylvania Packet, December 1, 5, 10, 12, 1778.

Or listen to Gerrard Winstanley, the True Leveller of the English Civil War, who wrote:

The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land.
Winstanley et al., A Declaration from the Poor and Oppressed of England, 1649.

And Thomas Paine again:

“It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest. even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription. It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.”
Thomas Paine, RIGHTS OF MAN, part 2.

Having quoted these at more length than Dr. Chiu, the point I wish to make is that she has outlined and documented a clear line of descent for Paine’s ideas. Others have touched on this subject and a few have even pointed haltingly to these same origins. But no one to date has written as expansive and clear an explanation or provided comparable and as interesting support for the case. The introduction alone is worth the price of the book.

The main body of the work is an explanation and contextualization of the actual body of Paine’s RIGHTS OF MAN, Parts 1 and 2. Paine is well known for his “plain English” approach to writing, but there are nevertheless obstacles in Paine’s writing for students and others unfamiliar with 18th century speech. For students and non-students alike there may be, moreover, deficits when it comes to a deep understanding of the historical context of RIGHTS and to the targets of Paine’s rhetoric – to whom was he speaking ? What was he speaking for ? What were the contemporary and future responses to RIGHTS and to Paine’s advance of republican ideology. Did he in fact advance it ?  All of this and more is provided by Chiu’s step-by-step, chapter by chapter, and section by section review of Paine’s RIGHTS, in clear direct and well-supported prose; an epic achievement.

This is, however, no mere hagiography of Paine or his work. The author wields a two-edged sword in her critique of Paine and RIGHTS. Did Paine overstate the world-significance and high character of the 1789 Constitutional Convention ? What about slavery ? In Chiu’s words, “ … in light of Paine’s detestation of slavery,” what explains “his silence on the safeguards for its continued practice” in the new Constitution of the United States ? (Chiu, 187-88) Paine praises transparent and open government and praises the 1787 Constitutional Convention in ringing terms. And yet the entire process was marked by secrecy and usurpation. The doors were locked, windows shuttered, and no delegate allowed to speak publicly; neither were official records kept. The press was barred. No delegate to the convention was authorized by their respective state legislatures to do more than edit and revise the Articles of Confederation and yet an entirely new document emerged, to the dismay and, in some cases, resignations of delegates. This dissonant clash between Paine’s optimistic assessment of the proceedings and the reality of the matter are discussed in Part 2, Chapter 4. And this is not the only spot where Paine comes under Chiu’s critical review.  This is a work of scholarship; balanced and even-handed.

A word about the Conclusion to this work, designed to bring the RIGHTS OF MAN forward into the 20th century: here Dr. Chiu’s intellectual and philosophical scope is breathtaking and daring. Grotius and Winstanley, Priestley, the wages of hand-weavers, Bronterre O’Brien, William Cobbett, the Federal Reserve, wage and tax development in the 21st century, the Thomases Piketty and Frank, every US president from Ronald Reagan onwards (including Pres. Trump) pour from her keyboard in a coherent and daring analysis that demonstrates beyond doubt the continued relevance of Paine’s RIGHTS. The struggles heralded in Paine’s work are still the central themes of in society and politics. As Paine himself wrote in RIGHTS OF MAN, PART II

All this seems to shew that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system.

Thomas Paine left a roadmap of the principles he believed necessary for a just and stable system. He hoped that the nescient United States would adopt them. In her conclusion, Dr. Chiu shows precisely and, I think irrefutably, that it did not.

The present Taylor and Francis edition is designed and distributed primarily as a text book for undergraduate college use. There is no doubt that it is suitable for the graduate setting as well. This is a work at once readable, accessible, and yet deeply researched and broad in its compass. For those with an interest in Thomas Paine, the American and French Revolutions, contemporary politics, or the development of Western republican and democratic thought, this volume is required reading. To my mind, this work deserves a broader exposure than is likely to be achieved in its present format and marketing schema. In the meantime, it’s available on Amazon and other online booksellers or directly from Taylor and Francis.