Character analysis
The American Colonists
in Common Sense by Thomas Paine
The American Colonists serve as both the main audience and the collective protagonist of Common Sense. Paine speaks to them directly throughout the pamphlet, aiming to shift their self-perception from loyal British subjects to a people destined for self-governance. At the beginning, Paine recognizes that many colonists still feel a sentimental connection to Britain and are hesitant to break away from the Crown, presenting independence as a radical and daunting step. His rhetorical strategy is crafted to overcome that reluctance.
Paine depicts the colonists as a diverse and hardworking society formed from various parts of Europe—not just England—thereby undermining the notion that Britain deserves special loyalty as a "mother country." He argues that the colonies have already surpassed British control both economically and politically, citing the prosperous trade that could thrive without imperial restrictions. He also points out that the colonists have endured real grievances—such as taxation, military occupation, and the destruction of towns—that create a moral obligation for them to resist, rather than just a right to do so.
By the end of the pamphlet, Paine portrays the colonists as the chosen actors in history: their struggle is "the cause of all mankind," and the time has come for them to establish a republican government that serves as a model for the world. The colonists evolve from a divided, uncertain group that clings to monarchy out of habit and fear, to a people Paine argues are ready—and duty-bound—to create a completely new political order. This collective transformation is the persuasive aim that the entire text is designed to accomplish.
Who is The American Colonists?
The American Colonists in Common Sense function as a collective protagonist—a diverse, cross-sectional body of people whom Paine addresses, diagnoses, and attempts to transform. Paine establishes that the colonists are not simply transplanted Englishmen. He notes that "Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America," pointing out that immigrants from Germany, Sweden, France, Holland, and elsewhere have made their homes in the colonies. This demographic argument dissolves the sentimental fiction that loyalty to Britain equates to loyalty to one's own blood and heritage. The colonists, as Paine constructs them, are a genuinely new people—industrious, pluralistic, and already effectively self-sustaining—who have simply not yet recognized their own political identity.
What is The American Colonists's arc and motivation?
At the pamphlet's opening, the colonists exist in a state of collective false consciousness. They are motivated primarily by habit, sentiment, and fear—clinging to the idea of reconciliation with Britain not because it is rational but because monarchy and empire are all they have ever known. Paine describes this attachment as a kind of political childhood, a stage that must be outgrown. Their hesitancy is not cowardice exactly, but rather a failure of self-perception.
Paine's rhetorical project aims to move the colonists through three stages: recognition of grievance, rejection of the system producing that grievance, and finally embrace of a republican destiny. By the pamphlet's closing sections, he frames the colonists' potential action as something far larger than self-interest—"the cause of all mankind." Their motivation is thus elevated from complaint to moral vocation. They transition from people seeking redress to history's agents, charged with demonstrating that representative self-governance is viable.
What are The American Colonists's key moments?
Several passages mark critical points in the colonists' rhetorical transformation. Early in the pamphlet, Paine acknowledges that "the king and his worthless adherents" are actively burning towns and deploying troops—a direct reference to British military actions in 1775—and insists this violence converts loyalty into complicity. The colonists cannot continue to call George III their king while he wages war against them; the emotional justification for attachment collapses under that contradiction.
Later, Paine's extended critique of monarchy's origins—tracing the English Crown back to William the Conqueror, "a French bastard landing with an armed banditti"—aims squarely at dismantling the colonists' inherited reverence for kingship itself. If the institution is fraudulent at its root, then the colonists' deference has never been owed. This argument is designed to produce a specific feeling: not anger, but release.
The pamphlet's conclusion, where Paine envisions the colonies establishing a Continental Charter and a republican government that serves as a beacon to oppressed peoples worldwide, represents the moment the colonists' arc reaches its proposed endpoint. They are no longer subjects seeking fairer treatment; they are founders.
What are The American Colonists's most important relationships?
Paine's relationship with the colonists resembles that of an urgent counselor who respects his audience enough to confront their self-deception directly. He uses "ye" and collective address to create intimacy while simultaneously challenging them—never flattering their hesitancy but insisting they are capable of more than they currently believe.
The colonists' relationship with King George III is central and paradoxical: they have called him their protector while he has ordered their towns destroyed. Paine frames this as an abusive dynamic, and his "hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh" epithet evokes not just tyranny but a ruler impervious to moral appeal—making negotiation permanently futile and resistance morally required.
Their relationship to Parliament is structural rather than personal: Parliament legislates for a people it does not represent, proving that no internal reform of the British system can resolve the colonists' fundamental problem. Their relationship to the monarchy as an institution—mediated through Paine's invocation of William the Conqueror—teaches them that what they have revered was never legitimate to begin with.
How is The American Colonists connected to the other characters?
- Thomas Paine
Paine is the colonists' direct interlocutor and advocate. He addresses them as 'ye' and 'fellow subjects' before reframing them as sovereign citizens, positioning himself as the voice that awakens their latent political identity and courage.
- King George III
Paine presents King George III as the colonists' active oppressor—a 'hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh' who has ordered towns burned and troops deployed against them, making continued loyalty not just foolish but morally indefensible.
- The King of England (Monarchy as Institution)
The monarchy as an institution is portrayed as the structural source of the colonists' subjugation. Paine argues the colonists have been conditioned to revere kingship itself, and dismantling that reverence is prerequisite to their political liberation.
- The British Parliament
Parliament is depicted as an extension of tyranny over the colonists, legislating for a people it does not represent. Paine uses Parliament's overreach to demonstrate that no reform within the British system can adequately protect colonial rights.
- William the Conqueror
Paine invokes William the Conqueror to delegitimize the royal lineage the colonists have been taught to respect, arguing that the Crown's origins lie in conquest and banditry rather than divine right or merit—undercutting any inherited obligation the colonists might feel.
Questions readers ask about The American Colonists
Are the American Colonists portrayed as English people living abroad in Common Sense?
No — Paine explicitly rejects this identity, arguing that "Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America." He emphasizes that colonists have emigrated from Germany, Sweden, France, Holland, and elsewhere, making them a genuinely new, pluralistic people rather than transplanted Englishmen who owe Britain special loyalty.
Why are the American Colonists hesitant to support independence at the start of Common Sense?
The colonists' hesitancy stems from habit, sentiment, and fear rather than rational loyalty. Paine describes this as a form of political childhood — they cling to monarchy and the idea of reconciliation simply because imperial rule is all they have ever known, not because British governance has genuinely served their interests.
How does the colonists' relationship with King George III change over the course of Common Sense?
Paine transforms the colonists' view of George III from protective sovereign to active oppressor. By cataloguing British military actions — burning towns, deploying troops — Paine argues that a king waging war on his own subjects cannot be called a protector, making continued loyalty not just foolish but morally indefensible.
What role does William the Conqueror play in reshaping the American Colonists' political identity?
Paine invokes William the Conqueror — calling him "a French bastard landing with an armed banditti" — to strip the monarchy of any inherited legitimacy the colonists might feel. If the Crown's origins lie in conquest and banditry rather than divine right, then the colonists' centuries of deference were never actually owed.
What does Paine mean when he calls the American Colonists' struggle "the cause of all mankind"?
Paine uses the phrase to elevate the colonists' motivation from personal grievance to universal moral vocation. By framing their potential republic as a model for oppressed peoples worldwide, he repositions them not as subjects seeking fairer treatment from Britain, but as history's chosen agents proving that representative self-governance is viable.
Why can't the American Colonists simply reform the British system from within, according to Common Sense?
Paine argues that Parliament's overreach is structural, not accidental — it legislates for a people it does not represent, and no internal reform can fix that fundamental mismatch. Because the problem is built into the British system itself, the colonists' only viable path to protected rights is complete independence and self-governance.
How does Paine's relationship with the American Colonists function rhetorically throughout the pamphlet?
Paine positions himself as an urgent counselor who addresses the colonists with collective intimacy — using "ye" and "fellow subjects" — while simultaneously challenging their self-deception. He never flatters their hesitancy but insists they are capable of building an entirely new political order, respecting them enough to confront their fears directly.
What is the American Colonists' ultimate fate or proposed endpoint in Common Sense?
By the pamphlet's conclusion, Paine envisions the colonists establishing a Continental Charter and a republican government that serves as a beacon for oppressed peoples worldwide. They transition fully from uncertain subjects seeking redress to founders charged with demonstrating, on a world stage, that self-governance is both possible and morally necessary.
Use this in your essay
Paine constructs the colonists as a new people, not a disgruntled extension of Britain
to what extent does his demographic argument (Europe as parent country) successfully sever the emotional ties he identifies as the main obstacle to independence?
The colonists are depicted as both victims and agents
analyse how Paine balances grievance rhetoric with empowerment rhetoric, and whether one mode proves more persuasive than the other.
Paine's arc for the colonists depends on delegitimizing kingship itself, not merely George III
how does his historical argument about William the Conqueror function as a prerequisite for the colonists' political liberation?
"The cause of all mankind"
examine how Paine universalizes the colonists' struggle, considering whether this framing serves persuasion, flattery, or genuine political philosophy.
The colonists are positioned as reluctant heroes who must overcome fear and habit
how does Paine's construction of their hesitancy shape his rhetorical strategy, and does he treat that hesitancy with sympathy or impatience?