How Did Thomas Paine Protect The Colonies
I would have agreed with Thomas Paine’s arguments. His first argument is how the colonies have no advantage of being connected with Britain. He then begins to say that reconciliation between the colonies and Britain would just make the problems occur once again. I agree with him because the American colonies would most likely end up being taxed by the crown repeatedly. It was not logical for England to be in controlled of Americans when they could easily mange by themselves. The only option was to gain full independence and nothing less.
Paine took note of the fact that although Britain did protect the colonies; it was strictly for the economic benefit not out of benevolence. It is also pointed out how if they were not so tightly bound with Britain then the colonies would not share the same enemies. In other words, there would have been no need for protection in the first place with England out of the picture. He also adds, yes, the colonies have been successful, but that does not mean things should remain the unchanged. To have a successful future, the political aspects must be altered because monarchy, in this instance will deprecate over time.
I back Thomas Paine up on all of his many arguments. Peaceful relations between Britain and the American colonies were not possible. It was not necessary nor was it …show more content…
One reason being the fact that monarchs are more worried about the benefit of their county. A president for example, may have conflict of interest, whereas a monarch most likely will not. Furthermore, with a democratic republic, issues must go through a process which cannot be quickly achieved. A king or queen however, can make decisions and put them into effect with minor delay, if any. Another benefit of monarchy is they will not become corrupt because they have not made a commitment to any groups that needs to be fulfilled. They are above the influence of any political
Paine took note of the fact that although Britain did protect the colonies; it was strictly for the economic benefit not out of benevolence. It is also pointed out how if they were not so tightly bound with Britain then the colonies would not share the same enemies. In other words, there would have been no need for protection in the first place with England out of the picture. He also adds, yes, the colonies have been successful, but that does not mean things should remain the unchanged. To have a successful future, the political aspects must be altered because monarchy, in this instance will deprecate over time.
I back Thomas Paine up on all of his many arguments. Peaceful relations between Britain and the American colonies were not possible. It was not necessary nor was it …show more content…
One reason being the fact that monarchs are more worried about the benefit of their county. A president for example, may have conflict of interest, whereas a monarch most likely will not. Furthermore, with a democratic republic, issues must go through a process which cannot be quickly achieved. A king or queen however, can make decisions and put them into effect with minor delay, if any. Another benefit of monarchy is they will not become corrupt because they have not made a commitment to any groups that needs to be fulfilled. They are above the influence of any political