During the time when Paine was perfecting his bridge, and consulting the scientific committees, the country was absorbed with preparations for forming a national Constitution and Union. When the States were nominating and electing delegates to the Convention of 1787, no one seems to have suggested Paine for a seat in it, nor does he appear to have aspired to one. The reasons are not far to seek. Paine was altogether too inventive for the kind of work contemplated by the colonial politicians. He had shown in all his writings, especially in his "Dissertations on Government," that he would build a constitution as he built his bridge: it must be mathematical, founded and shaped in impregnable principles, means adopted and adapted strictly for an ideal national purpose. His iron span did not consider whether there might be large interests invested in piers, or superstitions in favor of oak; as little did his anti-slavery essays consider the investments in slavery, or his "Public Good" on the jealous sovereignty of States. A recent writer says that Paine's "Common Sense" was "just what the moment demanded," and that it "may be briefly described as a plea for independence and a continental government."* In setting the nation at once to a discussion of the principles of such government, he led it to assume the principle of independence; over the old English piers on their quicksands, which some would rebuild, he threw his republican arch, on which the people passed from shore to shore. He and Franklin did the like in framing the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, by which the chasm of "Toryism" was spanned. * "The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies of America," by Eben Greenough Scott, 1890. Every pamphlet of Paine was of the nature of an invention, by which principles of liberty and equality were framed in constructions adapted to emergencies of a republic. But when the emergencies were past, the old contrivances regained their familiar attractions, and these were enhanced by independence. Privilege, so odious in Lords, was not so bad when inherited by democracy; individual sovereignty, unsuited to King George, might be a fine thing for President George; and if England had a House of Peers, why should we not make one out of a peerage of States? "Our experience in republicanism," wrote Paine, "is yet so slender, that it is much to be doubted whether all our public laws and acts are consistent with, or can be justified on, the principles of a republican government." But the more he talked in this way, or reminded the nation of the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Bill of Rights," the more did he close the doors of the Constitutional Convention against himself.