A REPLY TO JAMES V. LYNCH’S
“ THE LIMITS OF REVOLUTIONARY RADICALISM: TOM PAINE AND SLAVERY “
© by Irwin Spiegelman ~ September 2000
Vernon L. Parrington, in giving high praise to Thomas Paine, mentions that he was “a victim of odium theologicum et
politicum without parallel in our history.” 1 James V. Lynch in his craftily fabricated 1999 article, “The Limits of
Revolutionary Radicalism: Tom Paine and Slavery,” 2 has made another contribution to that disgraceful tradition heaping
calumny on Paine’s name.
Provoked by a 1992 Congressional resolution3 calling Paine an abolitionist, Lynch asserts, “Paine’s public abolitionist
reputation is unjustified and historically incorrect,” (p 188) and, “Paine’s reputation as an abolitionist developed as a tangled
skein of no readings, misreadings, misattributions and carelessness,” (p 174) and, finally, “Paine’s abolitionist reputation is
founded on no substantial evidence but is rooted in the assumptions that he intended the rights of man for all human beings.” (p
197)
Not content with attempting to snatch the mantle of abolitionist from the shoulders of Paine, our author then proceeds to
claim, with no credible evidence, that Paine never intended his human rights agenda to be universal, and that he implicitly
excluded native Americans and Africans!
Professor Lynch on the other hand has performed a service in questioning Paine’s authorship of some works attributed to
him if the result is a more thorough search of historical documents and a closer analysis of these texts by highly trained
“literary detectives.” Most welcome would be a more conclusive judgement on who wrote “African Slavery in America” and
the anti-slavery section dropped from the Declaration of Independence. Now is the time, also, for the question of whether
Thomas Paine had a hand in drafting the Declaration of Independence to be thoroughly investigated. After all, both Joel
Moody 4 in 1872 and Joseph Lewis 5 in 1947, among others, proposed that it was the work of Paine and both present many
very convincing arguments in favor of this view.
This reply to Professor Lynch aims at refuting his thesis that Paine was no abolitionist by:
A. Reviewing the public anti-slavery writings attributed to Paine by Moncure D. Conway6 and others and demonstrating
that all were from Paine’s pen. (Lynch does not deny that “To the French Inhabitants of Louisiana,” signed Common Sense,
and “The Forester’s Letters,” signed The Forester, are by Paine. He also grudgingly agrees that “A Serious Thought” may also
be from Paine, but no others.) Our goal is to convince the reader that the preponderance of the evidence favors the view that
“African Slavery in America” and the second Preamble written for the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Law are also by Paine.
Some evidence indicates that the Anti-Slavery Clause in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence is by Paine, and
awaits further research.
B. Presenting the evidence for public anti-slavery activism by Paine, which is completely overlooked by Lynch.
C. Outlining the Historical Context, that is, the state of anti-slavery efforts in America from 1774-1809 (Paine’s most
productive years) and indicating who were the leading activists and writers in that time frame. Again, our author fails to give
background information to judge better the merits of Paine’s contributions in the struggle to end slavery. In reviewing and
evaluating the evidence under these three headings it should be evident that Paine made considerable contributions to
emancipation efforts and the Lynch conclusions should be emphatically rejected.
D. A fourth and final section is devoted to examining the evidence and to rejecting, emphatically, the charge that
Blacks and native Americans were excluded from Paine’s human rights program, which is yet another attempt to defame
a great friend of all peoples.
A. Public Anti-Slavery Writings Attributed to Paine BY CONWAY, in chronological order
1. “African Slavery in America,” signed by Justice and Humanity, March 8, 1775, in Pennsylvania Journal
2. “A Serious Thought,” signed Humanus, October 18, 1775, in Pennsylvania Journal
3. “The Forester’s Letter, number 3, signed the Forester, April 24, 1776, in Pennsylvania Journal
4. The Anti-Slavery Clause, later dropped from the Declaration of Independence, attributed to Thomas Jefferson,
June, 1776
5. The second Preamble to the Pennsylvania Gradual Abolition Act, unsigned, adopted March 1, 1780
6. “To the French Inhabitants of Louisiana,” a pamphlet signed Common Sense, September 22, 1805
1
Vernon L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, New York, 1927, p 328
James V. Lynch, “The Limits of Revolutionary Radicalism: Tom Paine and Slavery,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography, 123: 177 (July 1999)
3
Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, 138: page S18147 (October 8, 1992)
4
Joel Moody, Junius Unmasked or Thomas Paine the Author of the Letters of Junius and the Declaration of Independence, Washington,
1872
5
Joseph Lewis, Thomas Paine Author of the Declaration of Independence, New York, 1947
6
Moncure D. Conway, The Life of Thomas Paine, two volumes, New York, 1892
2
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 2
1. “African Slavery in America” is rightly considered to be the centerpiece of Paine’s public writings against slavery. It is
the longest work containing, as Conway 7 correctly points out, the major arguments used by 19 th century Abolitionists. The
Paine attribution is based on Benjamin Rush’s recollections contained in a letter to James Cheetham 8 in 1809 and on thematic
and stylistic features seen in other Paine writings.
Lynch, on the other hand, seriously doubts Paine’s authorship. He points out, “Compared to the corpus of Paine’s
writings, this essay is unique in both style and content.” (p 185). He, further, concludes that Rush’s letter, due to obvious
errors of fact therein, must be rejected as proof that the essay is by Paine. Lynch is following the conclusions of Aldridge. 9
Rather puzzling is Eric Foner’s position. He, author in 1976 of Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, which covers the year
in which “African Slavery in America” appeared, has made the following pronouncements, without explanation:
in 1995: “There is no evidence that Paine wrote the essay….although it is attributed to him.” 10 and,
in 1999: “No conclusive evidence confirms that a March 1775 essay condemning slavery was written by Paine,
although he later supported abolition in Pennsylvania.” 11
A careful examination of the text of the Benjamin Rush letter to Cheetham leads to the following analysis:
a. Rush’s major recollections are:
1) Rush read an antislavery article and was told that it was by Paine
2) Later, Rush met Paine by chance, congratulated him on the essay and Paine said he wrote it.
b. Rush’s minor or subordinate recollections are:
1) That the recollections, 1 and 2 above, occurred “about the year 1773 ” (it was 1775)
2) Paine told Rush it was the first thing he had ever published (but other articles by Paine had appeared earlier in 1775)
3) After Rush’s meeting with Paine, Aitkin hired him as editor (Paine was hired before the meeting)
Note well that the three subordinate recollections are all mistaken, BUT THEY IN NO WAY AFFECT, HAVE NO BEARING
AT ALL ON, THE VALIDITY OF THE TWO MAJOR RECOLLECTIONS OF RUSH: THAT PAINE IS THE AUTHOR !12 Rush’s
lapses of memory do cast a shadow on his reliability as a witness. On the other hand, at this time, Rush, himself, had written a
pamphlet against slavery, and he was most involved in the emancipation issue and most likely to recall these events. An
examination of the diaries of Rush13 may yield valuable evidence.
Now let’s examine some strong textual evidence for concluding that Paine produced this essay. Here are four important
themes in “African Slavery in America” which can be found in Paine’s writings.
1. Argues against the practices of the Israelites in the Old Testament:
a. “African Slavery in America” -- “They had not only orders to cut off several nations altogether…and other things
totally unlawful to us under clearer light.”
b. The Age of Reason, part 2, 1795 (Foner, 1: p 518) 14-- “…they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations, who
as history itself shows had given them no offense; that they put all these nations to the sword…”
2. Binding future generations is unjustified:
a. “African Slavery in America” -- “If slavery of the parents is unjust, much more is their children’s.”
b. Rights of Man, part 1, 1791 (Foner, 1: p 251) -- “Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in
the future generations to follow.”
3. A suggestion for settling free Negroes in the West:
a. “African Slavery in America” -- “Perhaps they might sometime form useful barrier settlements on the frontier.”
b. Letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 25, 1805 (Foner, 2: pp 1456-64) -- “for free Negroes place them on tracts of land
[in the Louisiana territory] as before mentioned.”
7
Every argument and appeal, moral and religious, military, economic, familiar in our subsequent anti-slavery struggle, is here found stated
with eloquence and clearness, Conway, I: page 51
8
in L.H. Butterfield, ed., Letters of Benjamin Rush, Philadelphia, 1951, II: page 1007
9
A. Owen Aldridge, Thomas Paine’s American Ideology, Newark DE, 1984, page 290
10
Eric Foner, ed., Thomas Paine’s Collected Writings, New York, The Library of America, 1995, “Chronology” by Eric Foner,
page 835
11
Eric Foner, “Biography of Thomas Paine,” in American National Biography, Garraty and Carnes, eds., New York, 1999, 16:
page 925
12
A case in which the falsity of a subordinate recollection destroys the validity of the major recollection is seen in the famous trial, with
Abraham Lincoln as defense attorney. The witness’ major recollection was that at a certain date and time, late at night, he saw the
defendant murder the victim. The subordinate recollection was that there was bright moonlight. Lincoln, with the aid of an almanac,
showed that on that night the moon had already set at that time, so that the subordinate recollection being false invalidated, totally, the
major recollection of seeing the murder committed. This is a slightly altered popular version of the trial of William ‘Duff’ Armstrong as
related in Carl Sandburg’s Abraham Lincoln, the Prairie Years and the War Years, New York, 1954 page 126
13
Robert B. Sullivan, “Biography of Benjamin Rush,” in American National Biography, Garraty and Carnes, eds., New York, 1999, 19:
page 725. Sullivan writes: “During the years 1761-1766, Rush also began his lifelong habit of regularly making entries in his
‘Commonplace Book’.”
14
Foner, 1 and Foner, 2 refer to Philip S. Foner, The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, volumes 1 and 2, New York, 1945
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 3
4. Heavenly punishment for enslaving Africans:
a. “African Slavery in America” -- “How just, how suitable to our crime is the punishment with which providence
threatens us?”
b. “To the French Inhabitants of Louisiana” (Foner, 2: page 968) -- “Dare you put up a petition to heaven for such a
power [slave ownership] without fearing to be struck from the earth by its justice?”
And here is a strongly stylistic feature, a strongly cadenced complex sentence structure, not uncommon in Paine’s
writings.
a. “African Slavery in America” -- “That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence
and murder for gain is rather lamentable than strange.”
b. English preface to Rights of Man (Foner, 1: p 246): “That there are men in all countries who get their living by war and
by keeping up the quarrels of nations is as shocking as it is true.”
Lynch writes (p 185) that, “The essay’s religious undercurrent and themes of redemption and sin are unlike Paine’s other
writings.” However, close examination of the text reveals that only about one-third of the work, consisting of two sections,
fit this description! The first, is a reference to Christ’s teachings of the brotherhood of mankind in the New Testament. The
second is the last paragraph, a kind of postscript to specific recommendations for emancipation. This 'postscript' is concerned
with how Christian missionary efforts might proceed, recalling, “…what singular obligations are we under to these injured
people.”
An erroneous impression is left by Professor Lynch that the whole essay, not a part, is atypical of Paine. This remainder
is bristling with the most potent arguments, powerfully expressed, as to the evils of slavery and the steps to be taken to end
this evil.
These “evangelical Christian” sections could be explained as Paine’s attempt to win over certain Christian sects living in
Pennsylvania, which, in a short time, will strongly favor independence, but will oppose abolition. That Paine was not only
familiar with the Quaker religion but also with Methodism is seen in John Keane’s biography 15 which indicates that Paine may
well have been an outdoor preacher in London and elsewhere in England.
2. Concerning “A Serious Thought,” Mr. Lynch seems grudgingly to accept Paine as author, but he says (p 186), “While there
is no reliable evidence that Paine wrote this essay either, it does resemble his style and is consistent with his views of the
Revolution and slavery.” There is, however, a good deal of indirect, textual data in favor of Paine. Here are a few examples.
1. a. “A Serious Thought” -- “…wretched natives being blown away for no crime other than because, sickened with the
miserable scene, they refused to fight…”
b. “The Forester’s Letter, no. 3” (Foner 2: pp 76-7) -- “…The cruelties practised by the British army in the East Indies:
The tying men to the mouths of cannon and blowing them away [Paine’s italics]…”
2. a. “A Serious Thought” -- “…ravaged the hapless shores of Africa.”
b. “The Forester’s Letter, Number 3” (Foner 2: page 82, footnote 23) -- “Forget not the hapless African.”
3. “A Serious Thought” deals with the horrors of British Imperialism, first in the East Indies (India) and then with the
atrocities of the African slave trade. In the reverse order, the third stanza of an unpublished poem in Paine’s handwriting deals
with these issues.16
See Afric’s wretched Offspring torn
From all that human heart holds dear
See Millions doomed in Chain to Mourn,
Unpitied even by a Tear.
See Asia and her fertile plains
Where once the Bramin dwelt serene,
Now ravaged by the thirst for Gain,
Till Famine ends the dismal scene.
4. Another example of a cadenced complex sentence
a. “A Serious Thought” -- [“When I reflect” is carried throughout this short piece]
“When I reflect on the horrid cruelties…”
“When I read of the wretched natives…”
“When I reflect on these…”
“And when I reflect on the use she has made…”
“And when to these and many other melancholy reflections…”
"I hesitate not…"
15
16
John Keane, Tom Paine, A Political Life, Boston, 1995, pp 46, 61-62
A. Owen Aldridge, Thomas Paine’s American Ideology, Newark DE, 1984, page 291
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 4
b. Second Preamble to the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Law (Foner, 2: page 21) -“When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition to which the arms of Britain were exerted to reduce us,
When we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed…
We are unavoidably led to a serious and grateful sense of the manifold blessings…”
Two features of “A Serious Thought” stand out as Paine’s. The first is his passionate condemnation of the British not
only for the outrages committed against the American colonists, but also for its barbarous actions against the natives of India
and Africa. Is there another contemporary American writer with such scope of interest? The second feature is the tying of our
own fight for freedom with our obligation to abolish slavery. This is seen in “The Forester’s Letter,” the footnote, “Forget not
the hapless African.” (Foner, 2: page 82), and is well developed in the preamble to the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Law. Is
there any doubt that “A Serious Thought” is by Paine?
3. Concerning the preamble to the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Law (5. listed above), our critic, without discussion of text or
historical background, dismisses it out of hand (page 183): “…there is no substantive evidence proving Paine’s authorship.”
While the evidence is not conclusive, there is strong circumstantial evidence and there are textual reasons for concluding, on
balance, that the preamble is from Paine’s pen.
Mr. Lynch fails to mention that there were two preambles, one accompanying the original legislation introduced in 1778,
and a second substituted when the bill was modified and reintroduced in November, 1779, when Paine took over as clerk of the
Pennsylvania Asembly.17
An example of strongly cadenced complex sentences from the second preamble has been presented above in the section
on “A Serious Thought,” starting with, “When we contemplate….when we look back…” and concluding with, “we are
unavoidably led…”
Here, Paine’s recurrent theme of America’s achieving its freedom from Britain is seen (Foner, 2: page 22): “…we are
enabled this day to add one more step to universal civilization.” That is, to enact a law of gradual emancipation.
Of the six pieces attributed to Paine by Conway, listed above, unanimous agreement prevails that “The Forester’s
Letters,” 1776, signed the Forester (3. listed above), and “To the French Inhabitants of Louisiana” (1805), signed Common
Sense (6. listed above) (Foner, 2: page 963), are productions of Paine.
4. The remaining work is the most controversial and possibly of greatest interest: The Anti-Slavery Clause in the draft of the
Declaration of Independence.
Our historian confines his comments to a footnote (page 179, no. 6): “Conway compared Paine to Garrison, and
attributed to Paine any anti-slavery thought he could, even suggesting that Paine wrote the clause on slavery in the Declaration
of Independence.” No mention is made of Conway’s side-by-side comparison of the anti-slavery clause with passages from
“African Slavery in America” and from Common Sense. 18
Paine’s frequent mention in many of his writings of the King’s veto over legislation (‘his negative’) is seen in the AntiSlavery Clause, “…prostituted his negative,” and also in “The Forester’s Letter, Number 3” (Foner, 2: page 25): “He [the
king] will have his negative on the whole legislation of the continent.”
17
Gary B. Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom By Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath, New York, 1991,
page 101
18
Conway, Life of Thomas Paine, New York, 1892, pp 80-81. The second column, ending with, “…pretended Christians.” is from “African
Slavery in America,” (Foner, 2: page 15), but the final paragraph starting at the top of page 81 with, “…that barbarous and hellish power,” is
from Common Sense (Foner, 2: page 30).
PARAGRAPH STRUCK OUT OF THE DECLARATION
THOMAS PAINE
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
“…these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
them, tempting kings to sell subjects, which they have no right to do,
person of a distant people who never offended him,
and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners.
captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
By such wicked and inhuman ways the English, etc….an hight of
hemisphere, or to court miserable death in their transoutrage that seems left by Heathen nations to be practiced by
portation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium
pretended Christians.”
of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king
“…that barbarous and hellish power which has stirred up the Indians
of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where
and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt – it is dealing
MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his
brutally by us and treacherously by them.”
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to
prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this
assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished
die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among
us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them
by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them, thus
paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of
one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against
the LIVES of another.”
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 5
In the “American Crisis X,” March 5, 1782 (Foner, 2: page 190), Paine writes, “…[the King] who has stirred up the
Indians on one side, and the Negroes on the other, and invoked every aid of hell in his behalf…” After six years that theme
seen in Common Sense and the Anti-Slavery Clause recurs.
What can be concluded from the evidence about Paine’s authorship of these six compositions attributed to him?
Incidentally, the nay-sayers, except for the Anti-Slavery Clause, have not come up with any other likely candidates. A fair
judgement is that pending elaborate and detailed examination by those trained in literary detective work, the preponderance of
the evidence favors that five are from the pen of Paine, and that the evidence strongly suggests, pending further research, that
Paine had a hand in the composition of the Anti-Slavery Clause. Ghost-writing was not unknown even 200 years ago!
B. Paine’s Anti-Slavery Activities
Lynch (page 182) examined the records of the anti-slavery society founded in Philadelphia in 1775, and found that
Paine’s name was absent and that he was neither a member nor attended any meetings. (Operations of the group were
suspended in 1776 for the duration of the war.) Our critic goes on to conclude (page 188) , “…he [Paine] never involved
himself actively in antislavery organizations…” This statement is ‘unjustified and historically incorrect’ (borrowing the words
of Lynch used to attack Paine on page 188). Our author has overlooked considerable data which make this dogmatic statement
untenable. Reliable evidence shows that Paine was active in three countries in public organizations which had abolition among
their political goals.
Paine’s American activities can be seen in Brunhouse’s statement,19 “It was men of the stripe of George Bryan, Thomas
Paine, and James Willson Peale who led the fight for the abolition law in Pennsylvania.” From his earliest days in Philadelphia,
Paine was a leader of and a writer for the Pennsylvania Constitutionalist faction (party) which headed the fight for
independence, for a progressive 1776 State Constitution, and despite a split in ranks, pushed through the 1780 Pennsylvania
Gradual Abolition Act. Osterhout 20 points out that when conservatives attempted to re-write the 1776 State Constitution,
“…the supporters of the document, led by George Bryan, Thomas Paine and others, responded by organizing the Constitutional
Society.”
In Great Britain, the publication of Rights of Man, parts 1 and 2 (1791-2), gave a dramatic boost to both middle class and
working class reform organizations. These were dedicated to wide political reforms, including emanciaption. Even after these
groups weakened as a result of government repression and the reaction to the French ‘Reign of Terror,’ Paine remained in
contact with their leaders. James Walvin 21 states:
“Abolition was, likewise, a distinct theme in the political creed of the artisan radicals in the corresponding societies (as one
might expect of men devoted to the writings of Paine!)”
Paine did not pocket the royalties for Rights of Man, but used the money to finance cheap editions which almost any
working person could afford. Until Paine left England in 1792, with the authorities hot on his trail, to take his seat in the French
Convention, Paine was at the center of and a leader of a great surge for political reform. 22
In France, Paine’s closest associates were Condorcet and Brissot, who were leaders not only of the Girondists but also the
founders of the Abolitionist Society of the Friends of the Blacks (Societe des Amis des Noirs).
Conway 23 writes of Henry Redhead Yorke’s account of his visit to Paine in Paris in 1802:
“…that Yorke found Paine’s name odious on account of his antislavery writings, the people [here Conway quotes Yorke]
‘ascribing to his espousal of the rights of negroes of St. Domingo [Haiti] the resistance which Leclerc [leader of the
French expeditionary force] experienced from them.’ ”
The historical record of Paine’s activities in France and England is sketchy, at best. Future archival discoveries may well
give us a more accurate notion of Paine’s role in furthering reform and may unearth new writings. Even with this paucity of
information, it is clear that he was deeply engaged in public organized efforts for sweeping reform, including emancipation in
three countries.
C. The Historical Context: The Anti-Slavery Movement, 1774-1809
In 1774, Paine arrived in Philadelphia and 1809 is the year of his death. During this 35 year span, Paine produced his
greatest compositions. A short review of the achievements and failures of the American anti-slavery movement and a listing of
the outstanding anti-slavery leaders and writers, during this time, offers a rough standard for evaluating Paine’s role as an early
19
Robert L. Brunhouse, The Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, Harrisburg PA, 1942
Anne H. Osterhout, A State Divided: The Opposition in Pennsylvania to the American Revolution, New York, 1987
21
James Walvin, “The Rise of British Popular Sentiment for Abolition, 1787-1832” in Christine Bolt and Seymour Descher, eds., AntiSlavery, Religion and Reform, Folkstone UK, 1980
22
John Keane, Tom Paine, A Political Life, Boston, 1995, pp 310, 328-32
23
Moncure D. Conway, Life of Thomas Paine, New York, 1892, volume II, page 300
20
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 6
abolitionist. Mary S. Locke’s monograph 24 presents a useful overview of the situation. From the point of view of the antislavery movement these years can be divided into periods.
1774-1783, the Period of Revolutionary Idealism, commenced with a flurry of abolitionist writings.
High Points for Abolitionists
1. The Declaration of Independence (1776) was the fullest expression of the new nation’s dedication to the achievement
of full human rights for all its people including slaves: “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
2. The 1780 Pennsylvania Gradual Abolition Law, the first such state law
Low Point for Abolitionists
Adoption of Articles of Confederation (1781) which failed to take a stand against slavery in the wake of the Declaration
of Independence
1783-1809, the Period of Conservative Reaction
High Points for Abolitionists
1. The Northwest Ordinance (1787), outlawing slavery west of the Alleghenies and north of the Ohio River. This was
a compromise, with slavery allowed south of the Ohio. Kentucky was admitted as a slave state in 1792.
2. The federal statute outlawing the slave trade went into effect in 1808
Low Point, and a Near Fatal Defeat, for Abolitionists
The U.S. Constitution (1787). The dominant concern of the Constitution is the preservation of property rights including
slave-holding, that is, property in people! Overwhelmed were the founding principles of the republic as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence. Yet such avid opponents of slavery as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John
Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay played leadership roles in Philadelphia.
Let us assume the five of six works attributed to Paine by Conway are indeed his. Note that his public writings on slavery
extend from 1775 (“African Slavery in America” and “A Serious Thought”) to 1805 when he wrote “To the French Inhabitants
of Louisiana.” Given his active participation in the passage of the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Act and his collaboration with
groups in England and France, can Paine be denied his rightful place as a leading opponent of slavery in this period?
Here is a list of many of the leading American abolitionist leaders and writers.
Thomas Jefferson, officially recognized as the author of the Declaration of Independence, “…at the time [1783], the leading
southern opponent of slavery,” (Locke, page 86). Among the bills he sponsored was one to allow manumission in Virginia
and to outlaw slavery west of the Alleghenies, 1784. It was not enacted. (Locke, pp 76, 149).
Benjamin Franklin, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, 1787; author in 1751 of an anti-slavery essay,
“Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind,” (Locke, pp 48, 98).
Benjamin Rush, succeeded Franklin as head of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society; wrote in 1773 a 54 page pamphlet and a
reply to a critic: “An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements on the Slavery of Negroes in America…..” (Locke,
pp 54-6, 93).
Henry Laurens, a president of the Continental Congress, a slave-holder and slave trader who renounced his past in a letter to
his son, Col. John Laurens in, “A South Carolina Protest Against Slavery,” 1776 (Locke, page 52).
George Bryan, a leader of the Constitutionalists in Pennsylvania, who headed efforts leading to the 1780 Pennsylvania
Abolition Act, and who wrote newspaper articles in support of the law. (Locke, page 78).
Anthony Benezet, Philadelphia Quaker, ant-slavery activist and writer, active from mid 18th century into the 1780s, who
assisted in the passage of the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Act (Locke, pp 78, 203-4).
Rev. Samuel Hopkins, minister of Newport RI, wrote, “A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of Africans,” 1776, and “A
Discourse Upon the Slave Trade and the Slavery of Africans,” 1787 (Locke, pp 17, 47, 63, 187-8).
John Dickinson, author of “A Farmer, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct
Respecting Slavery…” signed ‘A Farmer,’ reprinted 1783. (Locke, page 78)
Among the others who spoke out and wrote against slavery in this period were Noah Webster, 1793; Thomas Branagan,
1805-1807, a writer of prose and poetry; John Parrish, 1806 (see Locke, index).
The first five names were placed at the head of the list because they have always been considered by historians to be
leading figures in the anti-slavery movement. Thomas Paine worked closely with each man at one time in his career. Though
Paine criticized publicly the majority of Quakers who remained aloof from the struggle for independence, Quakers like Benezet
strove mightily, as did Paine, for the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Act.
A last summary glance at the 35 years from 1774-1809: the earlier period of revolutionary idealism produced important
advances and Paine was in the thick of these efforts. After 1783, the abolition movement was eclipsed due to the
24
Mary S. Locke, Antislavery in America (1619-1808), 1901, reprinted Gloucester MA, 1965. Note that Locke makes no reference to Paine
or to “African Slavery in America,” and certainly cannot be accused of a pro-Paine bias, and within limits she does provide easy access to
anti-slavery events and writings.
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 7
Constitution, as Locke points out (page 89): “By this time (1783) the efforts of Thomas Jefferson against slavery were
practically over, and no one else so conspicuous in national affairs took an equal interest in the work of emancipation.”
D. Are There “Limits” To Paine’s Radicalism?
After arguing (with little success) that Thomas Paine was an abolitionist only in private and not in public, our dauntless
defamer claims, astoundingly, that Paine never intended his human rights agenda to include Blacks or native Americans! Here
are Lynch’s words.
page 189, “But nowhere in his writings does Paine suggest civic or social equality for American Negroes. Indeed, Paine
did not extend his ‘rights of man’ to all men, and throughout his career, he implicitly excluded not only free
and enslaved blacks, but also Indians from participation in American civil society.”
page 197, “Thus Paine appears to us a modern thinker who meant what his words connote to us. Confusion with his
universal language and a misreading of evidence has created an image of Paine that exaggerates his radicalism,
especially concerning slavery.”
To back up his accusations, our critic presents his fanciful interpretations of Paine’s words, expressed in three of his
private letters.
The first is Paine’s letter to Benjamin Rush in 1789 (Foner, 2, page 1286). Paine writes:
“I despair of seeing an abolition of this infernal traffic in Negroes. We must push that matter further on your side
of the water. I wish that a few well instructed could be sent among their brethren in bondage, for until they are
enabled to take their own part, nothing will be done.”
Lynch writes in reference to the letter to Rush,
page 191, “It seems doubtful that Paine even really thought Negroes would become equal members of American
civilization without considerable help.”
This is certainly NOT what Paine said! Lynch implies that Paine thought that Blacks were inherently not capable of
being equal members of society “without considerable help.” Paine, here, is talking about another matter: Emancipation. He
“despairs” because white society is unable to end slavery and he suggests that the slaves, themselves, will have to become
active on their own behalf or “nothing will be done.” The Rush letter, then, is about emancipation, not, as our wayward
historian claims, integration of Blacks into American society.
The second case is Paine’s letter to President Thomas Jefferson, dated January 1, 1805 (Foner, 2: page 1453), concerned
with the St. Domingo (Haiti) Revolutionary Black Republic. Our analyst writes,
page 192, “Given his lack of interest in actively promoting abolition and civic equality for blacks, it should be no surprise that
Paine was unimpressed by the Haitian Revolution.”
But re-read the remarks of Henry Redhead Yorke, quoted above in section B, on visiting Paine in Paris. Then read
Paine’s letter to President Jefferson to see the utter falsity of Lynch’s statement. The clear purpose of Paine’s letter is to
suggest to the American President a policy toward Haiti and France which can greatly assist the Black republic and also be
beneficial to the United States. Paine writes (Foner, 2: page 1454),
“And when we have gained their confidence by acts of justice and friendship, they will listen to our advice in matters
of Civilization and Government and prevent the danger of them becoming pirates, which I think they will do if
driven to desperation.”
But the critique, by Lynch, of Paine on Haiti continues,
pages 192-3, “The Haitian Revolution never meant to Paine what historians assume it should have meant. He did not publicly
endorse it, nor did he privately identify it as an extension of his own political ideas. As it did for Jefferson, the black
revolution remained for Paine a dangerous and unstable event, something to be feared rather than celebrated.”
Paine appeared publicly to endorse the Haitian Revolution and suffer for it in France, according to Yorke. To Paine’s
credit, he saw the dangers in all revolutions, including the French, and does not single out the Black Haitian Revolution as any
different. Paine was not paralyzed by fear, but, rather, he sent a letter to president Jefferson with wise suggestions for American
foreign policy, for bringing peace and helping it to survive and flourish.
Here is a final quote from Lynch, a summary of a very distorted view of Paine.
page 191, “Paine’s doubts about the possibilities of black people in a republic are most clearly revealed in his writings on the
Haitian Revolution and its implications.”
Read and re-read the letter; there is not the slightest implication that the troubles Paine constructively addressed are
derived from black people’s being constitutionally unable to govern themselves!
The third and last example is a letter from Paine to President Thomas Jefferson, dated January 25, 1805 (Foner, 2: page
1456) and deals, among other matters, with bringing settlers into the Louisiana territory as quickly as possible to out-vote the
pro-slavery French-speaking inhabitants. Relying on the deletion of the three words, “as above mentioned,” from the excerpt
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 8
of Paine’s letter, Mr. Lynch uses this letter to Jefferson as further evidence that Paine’s ‘rights of man’ agenda excluded Black
people.
The relevant passages from this letter (Foner, 2: page 1458) are,
“The best farmers in Pennsylvania are those who came over in this manner [as indentured servants] or the
descendants of them…[skip one sentence]…These would be the best people, of foreigners, to bring into Louisiana –
because they would grow to be citizens.” (italics added)
And (Foner, 2: page 1461),
“This appears to me the best and quickest method of peopling, cultivating, and settling Louisiana and we shall gain
by it a useful industrious set of citizens. “ (italics added)
And (Foner, 2: page 1464),
“I think that numbers of our free Negroes might be provided for in this manner25 in Louisiana. The best way that
occurs to me is for Congress to give them their passage to New Orleans, then for them to hire themselves out to the
planters for one or two years; they would by this means learn plantation business, after which to place the men on a
tract of land as before mentioned.” (italics added)
Here, now, is Professor Lynch’s interpretation.
page 195, “He [Paine] does not imply that they might grow into citizens. By his account they could become productive
plantation cultivators, free, but not citizens.” (italics added)
Is it surprising that our historian quotes the passage from the letter, quoted here above, marked Foner, 2: page 1464,
starting, “I think that numbers of our free Negroes…” but he ends with, “…to place the men on a tract of land.” Left out, with
no indication it was deleted, are the words, “…as before mentioned.” (my italics) ?
On re-reading the three excerpts from Paine’s letter, is it not crystal clear that, as an afterthought, Paine suggests that free
Negroes could join German indentured servants and others in populating the Louisiana territory and that, “as before
mentioned,” takes the reader back to the German indentured servants who would be excellent cultivators and they would,
“grow to be citizens,” and, “we would gain by it a useful and industrious set of citizens.”
In all three instances Mr. Lynch has not proven his case.
Thomas Paine is one of the few 18th century political thinkers who remain relevant to the struggles facing humanity in the
21 century. It is precisely because he meant that every human being’s birthright, no exceptions, was to an equal share, with all
others, of human rights, as Paine phrases it in Rights of Man (Foner, 1: pp 274-5):
“The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man), relates
not only to the living individuals, but to the generations of men succeeding each other…..
….by which I mean that men are all of one degree (italics in the original) and consequently that all men are born
equal, and with equal natural rights….
….His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”
st
Finally, let Thomas Hardy, a founder of the working class London Corresponding Society, which was greatly aided and
influenced by Paine’s Rights of Man, speak to this issue:
“The rights of man are not confined to this small island, but are extended to the whole human race, black and white,
high and low, rich and poor.” 26
CONCLUSION
Mr. Lynch writes (page 188), “these [two] short pieces…constitute the entire corpus of public writings on slavery that
have been attributed to Paine.” This number is totally wrong. As mentioned earlier, Conway attributes four works and “The
Forester’s Letter, Number 3,” as well as “To the French Inhabitants of Louisiana,” signed Common Sense. My paper argues
that the preponderance of evidence favors the position that Paine should be assigned at this time to three of four as author, for a
total of five out of six. The exception is the Anti-Slavery Clause omitted from the Declaration of Independence, although as
Conway shows in his split-page presentation, that its writing style and choice of words are similar to those of Paine: the AntiSlavery Clause needs further research. An even more secure foundation for assigning these works to Paine would be by means
of literary analysis which would compare the attributed works with the Paine oeuvre and that of contemporary political writers,
as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, George Bryan and Anthony Benezet. This method is exemplified by
Donald W. Foster, who sought the author of a 1612 Elegy, signed simply W. S. 27 Foster cautions that even with his exhaustive
analysis there is no way of determining the author with certainty.
25
26
27
“Provided for in this manner” refers to the previous sentence and to a plan by Jefferson of making Negroes tenant farmers on plantations.
James Walvin, England, Slaves and Freedom, 1776-1838, Jackson MI, 1986
Donald W. Foster, Elegy by W. S.: A Study in Attribution, Neward DE, 1989
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 9
Our critic finds (page 188), “But considering…that he never involved himself actively in antislavery organizations,
Paine’s public abolitionist reputation is unjustified and historically incorrect.” The data presented here totally contradict this
view. Lynch has completely overlooked Paine’s active participation in three countries in powerful reform organizations whose
programs prominently included Black Emancipation. Just his role in the passage of the 1780 Pennsylvania Abolition Act gives
the lie to this charge.
The failure of our author to provide background information on the condition of the Anti-Slavery Movement and its
outstanding writers and leaders of the period to help evaluate Paine’s accomplishments is deplorable for an investigation of
this kind.
Most outrageous, however, is Professor Lynch’s final section, which allegedly demonstrates that Paine’s ‘rights of man’
agenda implicitly excluded Blacks and Native Americans. In each of three instances cited by our historian, the clear meaning
of Paine’s words are twisted and distorted beyond recognition. Is this an attempt to fit Paine’s universalist ideology with the
clearly racist views of, say, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas whose vision of America was described by Carl Sandburg as, “…an
ocean-bound republic of free white men,” with what are termed the ‘inferior races,’ the Negro, the Indian and the Chinese
coolie, barred from citizenship? 28 Re-reading Paine will set the record straight!
Is not the perplexed reader, noting that the Lynch article is filled with assertions that are disproved by the evidence and
burdened with so many obvious misinterpretations of Paine’s words, likely to surmise that Mr. Lynch’s effort might cast a dark
shadow on the reputation of its author? Does it also reflect badly on the scholarly journal and on the peer review panel which
allowed it to be published in this form?
Inescapably, the reader of “The Limits of Revolutionary Radicalism…” is drawn to speculate as to what motives might
lay behind the writing of this paper. The following excerpts dealing with Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and their
respective ‘places in history’ may well offer some clues.
pages 198-9, “Paine’s life, as revealed by Congress’ s 1992 resolution, has come to represent the triumph of racial equality,
individual rights and liberty worldwide. But the image of a racist, hypocritical Jefferson that recent
scholarship has created seems little different from THE CARICATURE OF PAINE EXTENDING THE HAND OF
FREEDOM AND EQUALITY TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS.” (Emphasis added)
page 199,
“Replacing a fallen Jefferson with A MYTHICAL PAINE is unjust to both and slights the contributions each
made to the Revolution.” (Emphasis added)
It appears that Professor Lynch was not only inspired to write by the lavish praise given to Paine in the 1992
Congressional resolution, but he was spurred on also by recent studies which have diminished, in his eyes, the standing of
Thomas Jefferson. Replacing a “fallen Jefferson” with a “mythical [sic] Paine,” may have been totally unacceptable to
Professor Lynch. First, the latest Jefferson revisionism, based, it seems, on little that is new, probably will not be very
damaging to one of the most illustrious of our ‘founding fathers.’ But a concern for Jefferson’s image is certainly no excuse
for composing a piece which defames Paine, violating repeatedly the standards set for scholarly endeavors.
In the end, all reliable evidence points to the accuracy of Gregory Claeys’ evaluation 29 of the legacy of Thomas Paine:
“The two themes of rights and democracy, then, are the chief legacy of Thomas Paine. More than anyone else, it was
he who transformed the narrow vision of the ‘liberties of Englishmen,’ which implied no corresponding rights for
Frenchmen, and the natural rights of Christians, not shared by infidels, into a cosmopolitan vision which afforded
protection and sustenance for all. He insisted on an ideal of the equality of rights and mutual respect which was
stunningly radical in his own time, but is now central to modern civility.”
The U.S. Constitution emerges from a study of the history of early abolitionism as a truly villainous event. It was,
basically, antithetical to the Declaration of Independence. Certainly a constitution was needed to bind the states together, to
put the financial accounts in order and to provide leadership for a nation rapidly growing in size and population But this
document is dedicated to the interests of speculators and the moneyed classes as suggested by Charles Beard 30 and saddled the
people with serious impediments to direct popular control of their government. But most damning is the failure of the framers
to find a compromise which would have set a date certain for ending slavery through compensated emancipation. It was
Elbridge Gerry in Congress who had such a plan (Locke, page 140):
“Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts suggested the possibility of emancipation by the purchase of the Southern slaves from
the proceeds of the Western land sales.”
In the end, the Constitution, placing property rights above those of the people, set back the development of our
Democratic Republic so that today we are still struggling even to approximate the goals set by the Declaration of
Independence.
28
29
30
Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, the Prarie Years and the War Years, in one volume, San Diego, 1954, page 162
Gregory Claeys, Thomas Paine, Social and Political Thought, Boston, 1989, page 216
Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, New York, 1935, page 324
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 10
Here is a worthy project for ambitious revisionist historians. Let them set the record straight on the Constitution. For at
least two decades the American public has been bombarded by pundits and politicians who have heaped near idolatrous praise
on the document, much of which is pure balderdash.
APPENDIX
Twenty-one statements by Mr. Lynch have already been quoted and challenged as to their validity and as to whether
there is sufficient supporting evidence to justify their conclusions. A number of other assertions deserving comment are
questioned and discussed in this Appendix.
1. Concerning Paine’s attitude toward American Indians, our author says ,
page 189, “Indians were not political or social realities, nor were they members of American society in general.” And,
“…he [Paine] implicitly excluded…Indians from participating in American civil society.”
Lynch is correct about one thing, at least, Indians did not then, and many today do not, consider themselves part of
American society. His notion, “Indians were not political or social realities [to Paine],” is, frankly, incomprehensible, and had
better been left unsaid.
Paine’s good will toward Indians can be seen in an excerpt from an article he wrote for The Prospect, signed ‘A Friend
to the Indians.’ 31
“The present administration [Jefferson’s] has brought the Indians into good disposition and is improving them in the
moral and civic comfort of life.”
2.
The claim that Paine was the first abolitionist? Lynch writes,
page 179, “Much of this reputation [as abolitionist] is probably due to Conway, who, conflating a Quaker
upbringing with Quaker abolitionism, insisted that Paine was America’s first abolitionist. 6 ”
[Footnote 6 refers to Foner, 2: page 15, who states, “While Paine does not deserve ‘the honor’ bestowed upon him by
Moncure Daniel Conway “of being the first American abolitionist,” he was certainly among the early pioneers in this
great cause.”]
Here, Lynch is perpetuating Foner’s error. Nowhere in The Life of Thomas Paine does Conway call Paine, ‘America’s
first abolitionist.’ What Conway writes are the following two statements.
“…that Paine was the first political writer who advocated and devised a scheme of emancipation.” (volume 1, page x,
preface) And,
“The first to urge extension of the principles of independence, even to the enslaved negro.” (volume 1, page 47)
It is possible that a thorough review of the anti-slavery literature may conclude that both statements of Conway are
accurate. The second Conway quote refers to “African Slavery in America,” dated 1775, almost one year before publication of
Common Sense, and it is unlikely that any other author would tie American independence with emancipation.
3. From Mr. Lynch,
page 181, “A close look at Paine’s early career, however, reveals that he seemed little concerned with making abolition a goal
of his public reform efforts."
This statement is objectionable on two grounds. Our author fails to mention a critical fact: how little hard information
there is concerning Paine’s life before 1774, so it is nearly impossible to conclude he “…seemed little concerned…” Further,
the great uproar in England against the slave trade and slavery came well after Paine’s arrival in America (1774) and
particularly in the last decade of the 18 th century when Paine published Rights of Man and was involved through such leaders
as Thomas Walker and Thomas Hardy.
4. Three comments about “African Slavery in America” should be noted.
a. Lynch writes,
page 184, “Of this relatively mild antislavery piece, Conway wrote that it was an ‘early manifesto of abolitionism’ and as
‘thorough as Garrison himself could make it.’ ”
To set the record straight, re-read it discovering that Conway does justice to it and it is far from a ‘relatively mild
piece.’
b. Lynch quotes from “African Slavery in America,” but incompletely.
page 185, “…those who hold them in slavery…” should be punished.
Our author is attempting to make the point that Paine’s friendship with John Laurens (he was publicly to denounce
slavery in 1776) and his soon-to-be friendship with Jefferson, both slave-holders, make it unlikely that he would call for
punishment of slaveholders. But the complete quote from “African Slavery in America” is, “ AND THE GOVERNMENTS
31
Thomas Paine, “To the Members of the Society, Stiling Itself the Missionary Society,” The Prospect, September 1, 1804 (Foner, 2: page
803
A Reply…...Supporting Paine’s Anti-Slavery Position, from Irwin Spiegelman, September 2000
page 11
WHENEVER THEY COME SHOULD, in justice set them free and punish those who hold them in slavery.” (Emphasis added)
Surely “…the governments whenever they should come…” gives slave owners time to free their slaves and avoid punishment.
Paine, with good reason, probably thought Laurens and Jefferson would be part of that government. Seen in this way, our
critic’s argument has little force.
c. Lynch comments,
page 187, “The tension between these two essays [“African Slavery in America” and “A Serious Thought”] is evident in their
styles, their emancipation recommendations, and how each conceives of the Revolution.”
This ‘tension’ is pure imagination. The style question has been argued above; one-third of “African Slavery in America,”
as explained, contained evangelical Christian arguments, and the rest, like “A Serious Thought” is completely consistent with
Paine’s style and line of argumentation.
The emancipation program is given in some detail in the former, but in “A Serious Thought,” it is brief, “…put a stop to
the importation of Negroes for sale, soften the fate of those already here, and IN TIME PROCURE THEIR FREEDOM.”
(Emphasis added) No ‘tension’ is here.
Finally, “…how each conceives of the Revolution.” “African Slavery in America” argues about the inconsistency of
the colonists seeking freedom for themselves, yet holding Africans in slavery, but in no way opposes American Independence.
“A Serious Thought” emphasizes the barbaric role of the British Empire in Asia, Africa and America, which will lead to
American Independence. Then, it is time for Americans to emancipate the slaves. The arguments in the two pieces are
from different viewpoints, but the conclusion is the same. The ‘tension’ between the two falls like the proverbial lead balloon.
5. Mr. Lynch on “A Serious Thought,”
page 188, “…At best, a vague antislavery piece…”
It is a short work, but it is a powerful indictment of the British rule and builds up to a strong, clear Emancipation
statement directed at the colonists who will be most grateful for their own deliverance from bondage! Mr. Lynch, it is not
vague!
6. Lynch says,
page 190, “…during the American Revolution Paine never supported recruiting slaves to fight for American liberty.”
It is more accurate to say there are no data (Paine’s words or anyone else’s comments) one way or another on this subject.
If we assume Paine did not support Col. John Laurens’ proposal, it might be because he had one of his own for raising more
troops for the Continental Army. 32
7. More on unfairly comparing Jefferson and Paine: Lynch says,
page 198, “Indeed there seems little doubt that of the two revolutionaries it was Jefferson who harbored the most passionate
and intense hatred of slavery. Yet Paine is remembered as an abolitionist and Jefferson as an ambivalent racist.”
The comparison is gratuitous and indicates unsound scholarship. How can relative states of mind be convincingly
demonstrated? The statement, as mentioned above, suggests an animus toward Paine mostly due to “Jefferson revisionism.”
7. More about Paine’s “Limits.” Here is Lynch again,
page 196, “His eyes were blind to many issues that today’s historians find distressing. Slavery, race relations, and women’s
rights were simply not part of his revolutionary universe.”
Without getting into Paine’s ‘universe,’ are today’s historians concerned about war, poverty, eco-disasters and even child
labor? We can’t tell from Mr. Lynch’s words. Is it enough to be opposed to slavery as William Wilberforce was and to be
blind to the evils of child labor and ‘wage slavery?’ Bertrand Russell 33 said, “…the only concession such men as Wilberforce
were prepared to make on the subject of child labor was that children should have time on Sundays to learn the truths of the
Christian religion.”
32
33
Thomas Paine, American Crisis V, dated March 21, 1778 (Foner, 1: page 128)
Bertrand Russell, Freedom and Organization, 1814-1914, London, 1934, page 42