There is some surprising truth to a wisecrack attributable to an American philosopher unbeknown to me. It says, "If you are
not a radical when young, you have no heart; if you are not conservative when old, you have no head." I was right on the border of youth and young adulthood when I first read Thomas Paine''s book Common Sense. I admired the idea of a freethinking person who arrived from Britain in an America that was increasingly becoming its own country, the person who, from the get go, challenged religious authorities, especially their use of the Good Book to justify the slave trade and
slavery. Based on intellectual guts, Paine came to be one of the very first proponents of American independence from Britain. Once I crossed over to adulthood, I lost my heart, grew a head, and forgot all about Paine until the recent controversy sparked by the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barrack Obama''s long-time pastor. The multimedia clips of Wright''s sermons made me recall Paine, but at the time, I didn''t know why. Therefore, I decided to read Thomas P. Slaughter''s Common Sense and Related Writings (2001) of Thomas Paine. I was struck by the similarity between Paine''s and Wright''s rhetorics, one reason to wonder whether the former influenced the latter. As Slaughter states in his introduction, Paine''s message in his essay African Slavery in America (1774) was "to leave no safe ground for a Christian implicated in the institution of slavery, no rationalization, no biblical authority, nowhere to hide from his conscience, his God, and the social evil around him. Paine meant to make his readers uncomfortable, unable to live in peace with their acceptance of the status quo" (p. 16, all page numbers refer to Slaughter''s edition).The reason for all this is that Paine found no natural right to or justification for slavery because slavery was unnatural, and against both
Justice and Humanity. It may not be apparent in listening to, but in reading statements by those familiar with Rev. Wright''s work, one notices a similar passion for justice, and a nearly identical rhetorical emphasis on achieving justice. I have not read Wright directly; however, from what I now know the two men are closest when they speak of how governments sometimes fail their people. In his essay "African Slavery in America" (1774) addressed "to Americans", Paine calls attention to the "wicked practice" of slavery by indicting the decency of Christians for allowing it. Says Paine, "Most shocking of all is alledging the Sacred Scriptures to favor this wicked practice. One could have thought none but the infidel cavilers would Endeavour to make them appear contrary to the plain dictates of natural light, and Conscience, in a matter of Common Justice and Humanity; which they cannot be" (p. 59). And so "slave-traders should be called Devils, rather than Christians" (same page as above) for "Christians are taught to account all men their neighbours; and love their neighbours as themselves; and do to all men as they would be done by; to do good to all men; and Man-stealing is ranked with enormous crimes." Paine goes on to ask, "If they (African slaves) could carry off and enslave some thousands of us, would we think it just?" He then declares, "One would almost wish they could for once; it might convince more than Reason, or the Bible" (p. 60). Reverend Wright''s list of government failures is uncannily similar to Paine''s essay "A Serious Thought" (1775). The essay reflects "on the horrid cruelties exercised by Britain in the East Indies", where Britain "tampered with
passions, imposed on their ignorance and made them tools of treachery and murder" (p. 63). The same paragraph concludes with indignation that "When I reflect on these, I hesitate not for a moment to believe that the Almighty will finally separate America from Britain." Here too Paine''s statement sounds like Wright''s damning of America; the words are different, the rhetoric the same. In addition, we have come full circle to the question: Is Reverend Jeremiah Wright the modern day Thomas Paine?