Common Sense is the name of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, meant to justify the concept of American independence. It was published in 1776, when the question of whether the nascent American Revolution would be fought to force Britain's parliament to be more equitable with the colonies, or whether it was a true war of independence. Paine argued that America should fight for total independence.
As a student of American History, I have heard this book referenced for years, but had never read it. It is especially regrettable that I hadn't read it since, as mentioned, it was originally a pamphlet, and in a modern format it is still under 100 pages and can be read quickly.
One of the things that I found while reading "Common Sense" was that, like much of the writing of that era, it has been retroactively turned into an icon. Just as the actual Constitution of the United States of America deals more with the structure of government than statements of principles, "Common Sense" deals more with the immediate crisis of American politics at the time than it does with intricacies of political philosophy. Of course, that is to be expected, because even from the title, we know that the book is "Common Sense", a book meant to be about immediate concrete problems and the solutions to them.
Which is not to say that this is still not an important book to read. Also, it was not the only book that Paine produced, and I believe some of his other works were more philosophical in character. But this was Paine's best seller, and the work that was most important as a piece of propaganda that effected popular opinion at the dawn of the American Revolution. It is important to read to understand the sentiments, rather than the just the ideas, of the American patriots.
It is also, like so much related to the American Revolution, a book that is easy to misquote and misconstrue out of context. For example, the closing words of the work are:
mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of AMERICA.
Which makes a good
soundbite to suggest that Paine was against religion in politics. Of course, the argument is somewhat weakened in that in the same work, Paine also includes a quite lengthy argument from scripture against the concept of monarchy. In other words, Paine, like many of the founding fathers, was much less systematic and consistent than some might think. Which is one of the reasons why this work should be read in its whole, and not just alluded to--- to avoid taking a single line and misconstruing the philosophical background it came from.