Appendix

Paine argues that the King's Speech appeared at the most opportune moment to vindicate the doctrine of independence, as its bloody-mindedness demonstrated the necessity of pursuing separation.

Paine contends that silence regarding wicked performances lends them countenance, though he acknowledges that national tranquility sometimes requires prudent restraint rather than public denunciation.

Paine characterizes the King's Speech as a willful libel against truth and the common good, a method of offering human sacrifices to tyrants' pride.

Paine argues that kings are creatures of human creation who have become enemies of their creators, knowing neither nature nor their subjects, having become like gods to those who created them.

Paine claims the King's Speech cannot deceive because its brutality and tyranny are plain on its face, making the king appear more savage than an untutored Indian.

Paine attacks Sir John Dalrymple's argument that those grateful for an administration should credit the king's nod alone, calling it idolatry and marking the speaker as having forfeited rationality.

Paine asserts that the king has trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet through consistent insolence and cruelty, earning universal hatred.

Paine argues that America has a duty to provide for her young family rather than grant property to support the king, who has become a reproach to mankind.

Paine addresses religious and political leaders, suggesting they must secretly wish for separation if they desire to preserve their country from European corruption.

Paine announces his structure: first, that separation from Britain serves America's interest; second, whether reconciliation or independence is more practical.

Paine claims no nation in foreign dependence with limited commerce and cramped powers can achieve eminence; America is still in childhood compared to what it could become with self-governance.

Paine argues that England's true advantage lies in American commerce, which would continue even under mutual independence since each nation cannot find better markets elsewhere.

Paine asserts that independence will occur eventually, making the question not whether but when.

Paine refutes the claim that waiting forty or fifty years would strengthen America, arguing that current military experience from the last war would be extinct by then, while numbers alone would be insufficient.

Paine argues that under continued British rule, America loses the means to discharge its debt through land sales, which Canada's extended boundaries have already illegally deprived it of.

Paine explains that selling back lands and reserving quit-rents will allow debt repayment without burden and eventually support government expenses.

Paine contends that independence is a simple line within American control, while reconciliation involves complicated interference by a treacherous court.

Paine describes America as having legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, and paradoxically perfect independence contending for dependance, creating a situation without precedent.

Paine argues that without fixed laws, nothing is criminal and no treason exists; people act as they please, and Tories dared not assemble offensively only through fear of informal consequences.

Paine contends that English soldiers captured in battle are prisoners of war, but inhabitants of America bearing arms against the state are traitors deserving execution.

Paine warns that visible feebleness in proceedings and a loosely buckled Continental Belt encourage dissension and divisions that the king and his adherents exploit.

Paine criticizes those who speak lightly of reconciliation without considering the various orders of men affected, particularly sufferers and soldiers who have sacrificed everything.

Paine argues that Britain cannot and will not restore the 1763 footing, and even if she did, future parliaments could repeal agreements, leaving America defenseless against national power.

Paine contends that merely restoring laws to 1763 is insufficient without also restoring circumstances: rebuilding towns, compensating losses, and discharging defense debts.

Paine argues that taking up arms merely to enforce repeal of a tax law is as unwarrantable as using arms to enforce obedience to it, as the object does not justify loss of life.

Paine asserts that the violence done to persons, destruction of property by armed force, and invasion by fire and sword are what legitimately qualify the use of arms.

Paine argues that when defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain should have ceased, and independence should have been dated from the first musket fired against America.

Paine identifies three ways independence may be effected: by legal voice of Congress, by military power, or by mob action, each with different implications.

Paine argues that if independence is achieved through Congress, America has the unique opportunity to form the purest constitution and begin the world anew.

Paine characterizes the present as the birthday of a new world, unique since Noah's time, where numerous people will receive freedom from a few months of events.

Paine warns that neglecting the present opportunity means future independence achieved by other means will be the fault of those opposing the measure without proper reflection.

Paine suggests there are arguments for independence that men should think about privately rather than be told publicly, as the present is not the time to debate the question itself.

Paine asserts that every day demonstrates the necessity of independence, and even Tories should support it as the only secure protection against popular rage.

Paine claims independence is the sole force that can hold America together and enable proper negotiation with Britain.

Paine argues that America's delay in declaring independence encourages Britain to hope for conquest and prolongs the war.

Paine proposes that America independently redress grievances and then offer to reopen trade, noting that mercantile England will prefer peace with trade to war without it.

Paine notes that no one has refuted the doctrine in the pamphlet's former editions, suggesting either it is irrefutable or its supporters are too numerous to oppose.

Paine appeals for citizens to offer friendship to neighbors, bury past dissensions, and replace the names Whig and Tory with those of good citizens and virtuous supporters of American rights.

Paine introduces his response to the Quaker testimony, addressing them as a political body dabbling in matters beyond the scope of their Quietude principles.

Paine argues that Quakers have no more claim to political representation than the writer has, and his standing opposite them demonstrates the presumption both lack.

Paine contends that the Quaker testimony demonstrates politics is not their proper sphere, being a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together with unnatural and unjust conclusions.

Paine acknowledges the first two pages of the Quaker testimony regarding peace, noting that Americans seeking independence exceed all others in commitment to endless peace.

Paine asserts that Americans fight neither for revenge nor conquest, and are attacked in their own homes without recourse to civil law, forcing reliance on military defense.

Paine challenges Quakers to apply their pacifist principles to both sides equally; if bearing arms is sinful, willful attack is more so than unavoidable defense.

Paine criticizes Quakers for directing their peace testimony only at the injured and insulted Americans, not at the king and his commanders who are the actual aggressors.

Paine invokes Barclay's address to Charles II as an example of how faithful ministers should preach repentance and warn of eternal ruin, not partial invectives.

Paine tells Quakers not to claim persecution and make Americans the authors of their reproach, since Americans object not to their being Quakers but to their failing to be true Quakers.

Paine notes that setting up and putting down kings refers to making someone king or unmkaking him, which has no bearing on America's desire to have nothing to do with them.

Paine argues that making religion a party in political disputes is dangerous to society and decreases respect for all religion.

Paine contends that many Quakers disavow the political testimony, demonstrating that the body as a whole does not endorse it.

Paine warns that the Quaker testimony threatens the continental harmony and friendship they themselves helped establish through charitable donations.

Paine bids farewell to the Quakers without anger, wishing them civil and religious rights while hoping they disavow the example of mixing religion with politics.