January 1776
January 1776
by Kevin Boerup
By January of 1776, the American colonies were no longer arguing about taxes or representation in Parliament. They were arguing about whether the connection to Britain should exist at all. The opening weeks of that year did not begin the American Revolution, but they marked a decisive change in how many colonists understood it. What had once been framed as a struggle for rights within the British Empire was becoming, in the minds of ordinary people, a struggle to leave that empire entirely.
This shift did not happen overnight, nor was it the result of a single battle or declaration. It came from accumulated frustration, months of violence, failed compromises, and a growing sense that reconciliation was no longer realistic. January 1776 concentrated these forces. Military conflict widened, political language hardened, and Thomas Paine gave voice to ideas that many colonists already felt but had not yet said aloud.
A War Already Underway
By the start of 1776, fighting had been going on for nearly nine months. Blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord in April of the previous year. The Battle of Bunker Hill followed in June. Colonial militias were already laying siege to Boston, where British forces remained trapped but dangerous. Any illusion that the crisis might be settled peacefully was fading.
George Washington, newly appointed commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, spent January overseeing a fragile and often poorly supplied force outside Boston. His army lacked uniforms, gunpowder, and reliable enlistments. Soldiers came and went. Discipline was inconsistent. Yet Washington understood that simply keeping the army intact was a political statement. As long as an American army existed, the colonies were acting like something closer to a nation than a protest movement.
Washington’s leadership mattered in this moment not because of dramatic victories but because of steadiness. He projected seriousness and resolve at a time when the entire enterprise could still collapse. His letters reveal a man deeply concerned about morale, unity, and the need for civilian support. Independence, if it came, would require more than angry rhetoric. It would require endurance.
Illusions Burn Along With Norfolk
While Washington held the line in the north, events in Virginia showed how destructive the war was becoming. On January 1, 1776, much of Norfolk, one of the largest cities in the colony, was burned. British forces, Loyalists, and Patriot troops all played a role in the destruction. Fires spread rapidly, and by the time it ended, the city was largely ruined.
Norfolk’s destruction mattered because it shattered the idea that the war could be limited or contained. This was not a distant conflict fought by professional armies on open fields. It was destroying colonial towns and livelihoods. Neutrality became harder to maintain. Colonists increasingly felt compelled to choose sides.
For many, the burning of Norfolk confirmed what they already suspected: British power was not going to protect them. It was going to devastate them. The Crown’s promises of order and stability rang hollow when British warships shelled colonial cities. The emotional impact of such events fed a broader change in thinking. If remaining within the empire meant living under constant threat, then separation began to look less radical and more practical.
Loyalty Has Limits
Even in January 1776, many colonists still considered themselves loyal subjects of King George III. The Continental Congress had not declared independence. Earlier petitions, including the Olive Branch Petition of 1775, had explicitly affirmed loyalty to the Crown while asking for redress of grievances.
But those appeals had failed. The king rejected the Olive Branch Petition and instead declared the colonies in rebellion. Parliament authorized harsher measures. British troops were reinforced. To many Americans, this felt like a final verdict. The king they had trusted had chosen coercion over compromise.
John Adams, a delegate to the Continental Congress, sensed this shift early. Though cautious about timing, Adams increasingly believed independence was inevitable. In private letters, he argued that reconciliation was no longer possible and that the colonies needed to prepare their minds for separation. What held Congress back was not fear of Britain alone, but fear of public opinion. Leaders knew they could not outrun the people they represented.
Enter Thomas Paine
That changed dramatically with the publication of Common Sense on January 10, 1776.
Thomas Paine was not a wealthy planter or a prominent lawyer. He was a recent immigrant from England with no formal political office. That fact mattered. Paine wrote not as an elite addressing other elites, but as an ordinary man speaking to ordinary readers. His pamphlet was short, inexpensive, and written in clear, forceful language.
Paine did not argue about constitutional technicalities. He attacked the very idea of monarchy. He called it absurd that a small island should rule a vast continent. He ridiculed hereditary kingship and rejected the idea that Britain had any moral authority over America.
What made Common Sense powerful was not originality. Many colonial leaders already believed much of what Paine wrote. What Paine did was say it plainly, without hedging. He removed emotional barriers by framing independence as natural, logical, and inevitable. He transformed independence from a dangerous leap into common sense.
The pamphlet spread rapidly. Tens of thousands of copies circulated within months, an extraordinary number for the time. It was read aloud in taverns, workshops, and military camps. Soldiers encountered its arguments alongside news of burned cities and fallen comrades. Together, these experiences reshaped how people understood the war.
A Change in Tone
Before January 1776, the language of resistance often focused on rights as Englishmen. After Common Sense, the conversation shifted toward building something new. Paine urged Americans not to cling to Britain out of habit or fear. He insisted that the colonies had a chance to define themselves and that delay would only make the cost higher.
This change in tone gave political cover to leaders who already leaned toward independence. Benjamin Franklin, long a proponent of reconciliation earlier in the crisis, quietly accepted that Britain was no longer listening. Samuel Adams continued to push for decisive action, believing that public sentiment was finally catching up to political reality.
Even those who disagreed with Paine’s bluntness could not ignore his influence. The pamphlet reframed independence as the moral high ground rather than an act of rebellion. That mattered deeply in a society that valued legitimacy and feared chaos.
Rising Tensions in the South
While ideas spread through print, events on the ground reinforced them. In the southern colonies, January 1776 saw growing conflict between Patriots and Loyalists. North Carolina, in particular, was a flashpoint. Loyalist militias organized in support of the Crown, while Patriot forces mobilized to stop them.
Though the decisive clash at Moore’s Creek Bridge would come in February, January was a month of preparation, suspicion, and rising violence. Neighbors turned against neighbors. The cost of staying loyal to Britain increased as Patriot governments consolidated power.
These internal struggles highlighted another argument Paine made: that monarchy and empire imported division rather than stability. To many colonists, British authority now seemed less like a unifying force and more like a source of ongoing conflict.
People Ready to Commit
By the end of January 1776, the idea of independence was no longer confined to pamphlets and private letters. It was being discussed openly, passionately, and increasingly favorably. The Continental Congress had not yet acted, but its members were paying close attention to the mood outside Philadelphia.
What made this moment decisive was alignment. Military reality, political leadership, and public opinion were moving in the same direction. No single person caused that alignment, but several helped guide it. Washington gave the revolution a disciplined face. Adams and Franklin prepared the political groundwork. Paine spoke to the people directly and gave them words equal to their anger and hope.
January 1776 did not end the debate about independence, but it changed the terms of that debate. After Common Sense, the question was no longer whether independence was too radical. It was whether continuing to delay it made any sense at all.
Within six months, the Continental Congress would answer that question. But the mental break had already occurred. In January, Americans began to see themselves not as subjects seeking fairness, but as a people preparing to govern themselves. That shift, once made, could not be undone.
For a FREE copy of Common Sense, visit our website: www.3knollsmedia.com/common-sense-thomas-paine