1. I agree with the first author more perhaps due to the fact that I’m a modern day American but then again, maybe because the ideas brought up in the first arguments were based on generally accepted thoughts. Britain did not see America as a mature country and it did not let America have much freedom at all. Britain did not protect America from its own enemies, but only from her own. Britain basically forced America to be its ally although her enemies were not necessarily America’s enemies. This makes it clear that Americans were not happy with their situation and needed to gain independence in order to keep peace.
2. Thomas Paine states that “If Reconciliation Were to Happen” it would be “the ruin of the Continent.” By saying this, Paine means that the mother country would not stop trying to make less of them and that in terms of government it would not last long. However, the biggest problem of them all is the continental unrest that can only be solved by gaining independence.
3. Paine states that “The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the King, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent” and “That as even the best terms which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient.” Paine’s most convincing argument is what he believes would result from independence. By addressing the fact that he knows the disadvantages of independence, Paine strategically builds up his argument that, totaling greater than any of the disadvantages combined, the benefit of peace and the prevention of civil wars far surpasses any other problem.
4. Inglis, who opposes the independence of America, states that the advantages of remaining under British control for America are “Preventing War” and “America’s Trade.” Both of these arguments are not convincing at…