Thomas Paine and Common Sense By early 1776 sentiment surrounding the idea of ​​revolution was evenly divided in the British colonies in America. Feelings were evenly divided between those who were in favor of the revolt, those who opposed it and those who were neutral. In January 1776 Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. The ideas and theories expressed in the booklet were very convincing and thorough. Convincing enough to get most of the undecided settlers to agree that revolt is the necessary course of action. Paine states in the introduction to Common Sense "a long habit of thinking nothing wrong, gives a superficial appearance of reason, and raises at first a formidable cry in defense of custom." This topic is not about listing injustices or reasons for revolt, but rather pushes the reader to decide whether his thoughts are genuine or whether he is not thinking critically about times and situations. Now that we "suffer to examine the component parts of the English Constitution", the defects will have to be found. Paine argues a theoretical position that could influence those loyal to the king himself. If the British constitution is a system of checks and balances and the commons is control over the king, then this implies: "The king is not to be trusted." This brings to light a fundamental flaw in the way the British system of government is organised. Paine is against a divided form of government. He believes that a simpler government is the best solution. This way people will know who to hold accountable. He also believes that the king did not improve with the creation of a comradely government only in a subtle way. He later states that the system "has all the distinctions of a house divided against itself." He then argues again that loyalists have not opened their eyes to the defects of the British form of government. Paine says those who favor the current form of government think so "more out of national pride than reason." Paine argues that there is no reason to feel loyalty to Britain. He believes that all of Britain's actions are in its self-interest. He believes that the colonies would not need to be defended if Britain did not bring its enemies into the colonies. There would not have been a French and Indian War because the colonies would not have been enemies of the French.