But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction
of men Into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but
how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into,
and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so
the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by
birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve
some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the
strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently
turn it into ridicule by giving mankind a donkey for a lion.

1)Contextualization: Who was the head of the British government, and therefore American government, in 1776

3) How does the author try to appeal to the emotions of American colonist in his attempt to build an argument and support for the American revolution? Cite evidence from the text to support your claims.

4) Analysis: Based on this excerpt, why do you think the author who was trying to convince other American colonist to support the revolutionary movement, called the larger written piece, Common sense?

HELP PLS