Did Paine REALLY think that statement through? By this time English settlement was certainly not confined to the North American colonies, and from what little I understand off the top of my head form seeing colonial activity in other parts of the new and old world and of course not excluding the violence within the north American continent against native peoples, it seems like a little bit of a fib on his end.

Paine? Are you spooked that your multi-faceted paper detailing exactly how bad the king and his system are and how possible and what advantages we would have over England in a revolutionary scenario if or when it finally kicks off being considered (pause for comedic effect) A punishable act of Treason? in all seriousness I very much wonder if Paine was thinking he might get in some serious trouble for this pamphlet with the powers that be in the colonies. and as a result, he took the liberty of saying that this isn't his personal thoughts to maybe avoid the worst of the consequences...

The great awakening was fresh in the minds of many, so it makes sense that Paine would be appealing to fear of the devil in promoting an argument against something that he doesn't like

I would like to see Paine go into a little more detail about exactly why he sees all forms of government as evil, because for me that is just a really edgy anarchist take on government systems as a whole.

This is an interesting argument given several things. Chief among them is that Paine gave an earlier example of places in which non-monarchical governments had been in part established, particularly in Europe. While quite a bad example given several of Paine's statements about the value of heredity, the Dutch Republic, referenced using the particularly non-inclusive Dutch generalization term that is Holland, was quite the influential and functional nation without the presence of a traditional monarch. While the positions within the government of the Dutch Republic did later fall to heredity due to preference of House of Orange stewards, or provincial leaders, the point of a semi-functioning, monarch-less republic still stands. The second, is even more ironic, is his overlooking the Natives of the soil this document was distributed on. Native Americans had markedly different views on class and leadership, with, much in the same way as the protestant Christians, a sense of devotion to something higher than a living high leader figure. This often resulted in tendencies and systems which many consider to be incredibly free, with positions of leadership not always, but often centered around merit or age, not simple heredity. This makes for an interesting situation, as it would appear Paine is utilizing a very Anglo-Centric version of the ideal of Freedom, or, simply what he had seen in England and colonial America, nowhere else, despite using other European examples and entirely excluding Native American systems and precedents from his analysis.

Monarchical is something that is related to or characteristic of a monarch or monarchy. In this situation, Paine is comparing the peacefulness of the other governments of Europe, almost all monarchy-based to the Dutch Republic, which despite the comparison having some flaws in a few of it's arguments, was orders of magnitude less monarchy-based than England.

If there is one thing you should expect from political writings of this time period, it is religious rhetoric, as the 1770s was less than 30 years after the religious boom period known as the great awakening. During this time period, protestant Christianity in colonial America flourished and often found its way into almost every aspect of life. One side effect of this was the shifting view of monarchical rule as unnatural, as it did not occur in nature, and was without basis in the bible, as no idol was to be worshipped in place of the lord, to which the pope and monarch of England were given worship-like respect. There is evidence, and I can say that I agree fully, that such notions were of particular importance to American independence. Vilifying the papacy and the monarch of England, two notions which lined up creating a timeline from the start of protestant Christianity to the arrival of the first pilgrims the new world and then the greater masses to America, were frowned upon in Catholicism and the church of England respectively. This was not the case in the Colonies with Protestantism, as it has no physical leaders higher than those who were in the clergy, and the result was a more critical view of the monarchical system, as perhaps not the moral and righteous system it was made to be in other places. This seems to have given colonists a unique sense of not only injustice based in concrete physical difference, but injustice to God, something which was against the bible. This drive, at least to me, was central to the public perception and eventual success of American Revolution.

As someone who is tasked with reading documents from the 18th century, the reasoning or method for capitalizing things in printed media is always something I find a little interesting and at times confusing. It would appear that at this time and in this document, it is used to convey tone, if not simply to highlight the most important words within each sentence or paragraph of the pamphlet. It's all around an interesting little bit of writing or press printing style which I associate with the 18th century. I am, however, not an expert on colonial writing and print work, and aside from the style likely dating back further, it deserves much research on its own by linguists and others of that discipline who aren't simply reading for the history. Kind of interesting though, I felt I had to point it out.

To procure something is to obtain it, particularly with care or effort. In this case, referring to the ideals in the writing, the effort aspect is more likely the reason it is used.