Thomas Paine – The Intelligent Collector Magazine

Here’s why Benjamin Rush is an unsung hero of the American Revolution

A Dr. Benjamin Rush autograph manuscript titled “References to texts of Scripture related to each other upon particular Subjects” sold for $5,975 at a February 2006 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

Early in 1813, two former U.S. presidents were in grief over the death of a mutual friend and colleague. Dr. Benjamin Rush had been responsible for reconciling the ex-presidents and healing the bitter rift that had grown worse after they left office. Now, Dr. Rush was dead and both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were convinced that the eminent physician deserved to be honored for more than his enthusiasm for American liberty.

Benjamin Rush was born in 1746 in a small township a few miles outside of Philadelphia. Just 30 years later, he was one of the younger of the 56 men who bravely signed the Declaration of Independence (Edward Rutledge, age 26, was the youngest). Benjamin was 5 years old when his father died, but in a stroke of pure providence, his mother took notice of his remarkable intellect and was determined to see that her precocious youngster got special tutoring. She sent him to live with an aunt and uncle, who enrolled him in a boarding school run by the Reverend Samuel Finley, an academic who founded the West Nottingham Academy (1744) and later the College of New Jersey (Princeton University).

Rush (predictably) flourished in this rarefied intellectual atmosphere and at age 13 was admitted to Princeton. After graduating in one year, he was then apprenticed to Philadelphia’s foremost physician, Dr. John Redman. However, eager to continue his studies, he sailed to Scotland in 1766. He entered the University of Edinburg, rated the finest medical school in the British Empire. Again, serendipity reigned since this was the blooming of the Scottish Enlightenment. This period was coincidental with the European movement that encouraged rational thought, while resisting the traditional imposition of sovereign authority, especially from Great Britain. By divine providence, the American colonies were gradually drifting into similar territory and the example of taxation was considered undermining independent action, which curtailed liberty.

During the next three years, Rush not only became a fully qualified doctor of medicine, but was exposed to some of the greatest thinkers, politicians and artists that were alive. When he returned to Philadelphia, his bandwidth had continued to expand as he absorbed radical alternatives to conventional theories. He became obsessed with the concept of public service and a champion of the common man.

Establishing a medical practice was challenging since the poor represented the equivalent of today’s middle class and the wealthy naturally controlled the best and most experienced practitioners. Since Rush was now eager to help close social inequalities, he sought out the sick in the slums of Philadelphia and offered his services. He was forced to accept a position as professor of chemistry at the College of Philadelphia to bolster his income (his family had grown to 13) and, importantly, provide an outlet for his prodigious medical papers.

He is credited with being the first to highlight the deleterious effects of alcohol and tobacco, but in the process alienated both heavy users and most producers. Even more controversial was his anti-slavery position with the South growing more reliant on slave labor as the integral part of their agrarian economic development. With Great Britain seemingly intent on oppressing all Americans, the nation was inevitably being drawn into war. Dr. Rush was eager to leverage his medical skills to assist the military and was appointed Surgeon General of part of the Continental Army. His broad experience resulted in a pamphlet called “Directions for Preserving the Health of Soldiers.” He keenly observed that “a greater proportion of men have perished with sickness in our armies than have fallen by the sword.” Looming in the future, the Civil War and World War I would prove just how prescient he was.

Today, Dr. Benjamin Rush is generally forgotten or relegated to the second tier of Founding Fathers, an oversight that even Adams and Jefferson recognized when he died in 1813. It is a curious situation when one considers the sincere eulogies expressed by his colleagues and students. It’s estimated that he trained 3,000 doctors and his writings, both personal and technical, are astonishing in breadth and depth. Jefferson was effusive with his praise and John Adams declared he “knew of no one, living or dead, who had done more real good in America.” High praise from two such prominent men who were there to witness it.

Another man who benefited from association with Rush was the firebrand Thomas Paine, who generally falls into the same category. His publication of Plain Truth is one of the most powerful forces behind the colonies’ quest for independence from the British Crown. Never heard of it? That’s not surprising since Plain Truth was changed to Common Sense after Dr. Rush had Paine read him every line before it was published. He persuaded Paine to make the change and it remains the best-selling book in American history and set the colonies firmly on the road to independence.

When I view the current political landscape, I’m persuaded that all that’s missing is … Common Sense!

Intelligent Collector blogger JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is president and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as chair and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].

History littered with leaders who underestimated the power of the people

A Silver Medal for Gallantry, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, from King George III to Captain Peter Ewing of the Royal Marines, dated June 17, 1775, realized $32,000 at a June 2012 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

It is fascinating to watch the mass demonstrations in Hong Kong and speculate how the central government in Beijing will quell the unrest. It could end up badly if President Xi Jinping decides to ensure there is no uncertainty over the ultimate authority that still rests comfortably on the mainland … and resorts to force.

Hong Kong (Island) became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839-42), then expanded to include the Kowloon Peninsula after the Second Opium War in 1860. Finally, Britain obtained a 99-year lease in 1898. After the lease expired in 1997, Hong Kong has exploded into one of the major financial centers of the world. It is home to many of the world’s ultra-rich and has managed to squeeze 7 million to 8 million residents into its 317 skyscrapers, the most of any city in the world. It has a first class, 21th century economic model that is widely admired.

The protesters’ beef is over governance, since HK has an autonomous system with executive, legislative and judicial powers devolved from the mainland (two systems, one country). They are resisting a proposal that would dilute the judiciary by moving criminal indictments and trials to Beijing. Small wonder since the conviction rate is almost 100 percent. If President Xi does move forward (at least now), it would be a classic mistake that many others have made. History is littered with leaders who underestimated the power of the people they govern.

Eight hundred years ago, King John of England experienced a similar revolt by English nobility against his rule. The king met with the barons and affixed the Royal Seal to a peace agreement that became known as the Magna Carta (Great Charter). The implications of the Magna Carta were quite modest with respect to what the king agreed to.

He guaranteed to respect feudal rights and privileges, to uphold the freedom of the church and maintain the nation’s laws. However, later generations have come to view it as the cornerstone of a democratic England.

King John inherited the crown after the death of his brother, Richard the Lionheart, when he was on crusade in 1199. By 1215, he was viewed as a failure after raising taxes on the nobility to compensate for losing Normandy to the French. He also frequently quarreled with Pope Innocent III and even sold church properties to replenish the royal coffers. In return, he was formally excommunicated.

But importantly, just by signing the Magna Carta, it implied that the king was obliged to follow certain laws and avoid any future claim of absolutism. Several earlier monarchs had talked about the king having some sort of “divine immunity.” Then there was also clause 39 (of 63) that stated “no freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned … or outlawed or exiled … except by the lawful judgment of his peers.” This clause has been celebrated as our own guarantee of a jury trial and habeas corpus.

In one aspect, all of this was actually moot since another civil war erupted almost immediately and both King John and the barons disregarded their commitments after the pope annulled the Magna Carta. Fortunately, King John died the following year (1216) and his 9-year-old son, Henry III, inherited the crown. Under the auspices of his guardian William Marshall, the Magna Carta was revived and eventually it formally entered English statute law.

Closer to home, it’s safe to assume that when 22-year-old King George III succeeded to the British Crown in 1760, most American Colonists considered themselves Britons and subjects of the king (but not Parliament). However, this system started to unravel after the Seven Years’ War of 1756-63 when Great Britain started imposing higher taxes on the Colonies. One glaring example was the large British garrisons established after the war; Colonists were required to pay all costs to maintain them.

This was followed by the Sugar Act of 1764 and the pervasive Stamp Act in 1765. Next was the Declaratory Act of 1776, when it became obvious that the Parliament of Great Britain was intent on extending its sovereign power into every nook and cranny of daily colonial life. Loyalty to the king was one thing, but to allow Parliament to impose new taxes at will and without any representation or discussion was quite another. It proved a bridge too far, but no one in England was sympathetic to the whinges from across the ocean.

Enter a man named Thomas Paine, who believed that arguments over equality, excessive taxes, or lack of representation or divided loyalty were wrong. He helped shift the focus to one of separation and unrestricted independence. Gaining support for his views was difficult due to slow communications in the Colonies and the subtle complications to men of little education. Newspapers were notoriously inadequate due to erratic distribution and lack of coherence.

What distinguished Paine was his remarkable ability to synthesize the issues and offer ideas that the general population could grasp. Further, he was a pamphleteer extraordinaire and authored “Common Sense,” which was perfect for the masses to understand. It was an immediate success – the equivalent of 18^th century social media (which spawned the “Arab Spring” we witnessed in the Middle East). Suddenly, the momentum shifted to “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” instead of untimely complaints.

Ever disdainful and out of touch, Lord Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty, pronounced to the House of Lords in March 1775: “Of the Colonies … they are raw, undisciplined cowardly men.” More famously, British Army officer James Grant proclaimed in the House of Commons that Americans could not fight because “they drink, they swear, they whore” and that he would “undertake to march from one end of the continent to the other with but 5,000 regular British soldiers.”

Pity King George (now 37), who had never been a soldier, had never been to America or even set foot in Scotland or Ireland. But, with absolute certainty, he believed his trust in providence and high sense of duty. Nagged by his mother – “George, be a king!” – America must be made to pay. Inevitably, war came on April 19 with the first blood at Lexington and Concord and then savagely at Bunker Hill. On June 3, General George Washington had taken command of the “American Rabble.”

Game on!

Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ Stated Simply the Reasons for Independence

A 1776 edition of Thomas Paine’s *Common Sense* sold for $56,762 at a June 2009 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, it was thought that most colonists were true patriots who favored full separation from England. It was not true then – 15 percent to 20 percent were still loyal to the Crown (Loyalists) and a like number were still undecided – and it was absolutely unresolved as little as six months earlier.

It was true that there had been skirmishes with British soldiers and a series of complaints diplomatically lodged by colonial leaders, however, the Continental Congress had been silent on the issue of indignation. There was still a sense that Parliament in London could resolve disputes. If anything, the colonies vibrated with unarticulated emotions – poised for someone to bring the scattered opinions into focus.

Clarity finally arrived in Philadelphia on Jan. 10, 1776, when an English corset-maker, who had only been in America a little over a year, published a pamphlet titled “Common Sense.” It was originally titled “Plain Truth” (Benjamin Rush suggested the change) and signed anonymously “By an Englishman.” In stunningly clear and moving prose, Thomas Paine gathered up the random, unspoken thoughts of the average smithy or farmer and crystallized the rebellious demand for independence, giving them the courage to accept a radical idea.

He wrote, “The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. … ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest … Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor.” History would be made now or never. Paine wrote. “The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune.”

Then came the words from which there would be no turning back: “Every thing that is right or reasonable pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’TIS TIME TO PART!”

“Common Sense” was an immediate success; 100,000 copies circulated in three months to the 2.5 million white residents in the 13 colonies. For the first time, the notion of independence was on the lips of every yeoman in the colonies and a new idea of separate nationality was in their heads.

Paine was the first man to string together the five words we now cherish: the United States of America.

Unadorned and plain, the American voice of simple declarative sentences, set off by vivid imagery, is the pioneering literary achievement of “Common Sense.” John Adams neatly summed up its importance when he said, “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of George Washington would have been raised in vain.”

Sounds right to me.