Revolutions: American vs French

[billscottmorri]

The French and the American revolutions seem to have so much in common that at one point a single book by Englishman Thomas Paine "The Rights of Man" was broadly accepted by both as representing their aims equally.

However they quickly took very different paths. The Americans dedicated their efforts to party politics and making money almost from the start, George Washington setting the tone by resigning his commission and folllowing his civilian political career almost as soon as peace was assured.

France however accelerated the radical agenda to the point where execution became a common way of settling policy differences, political killing reached the level of massacre and civil war broke out in several areas. Chaos brought about military dictatorship even followed by a short term restoration of the monarchy.

Why did the American revolution leave a system that has lasted for centuries whilst the French one collapsed and became the template for virtually every totalitarian regime seen since?



Based on an original idea by Stratego

[Half Pint]

IMO the American Revolution was a war between to separate nations. The French was as much a civil war as it was a revolution.

HP

[billscottmorri]

So does that mean that there was a war of independence between the US and the British Empire but not a revolution? I think most of the leading figures on the American side felt they were fighting for more than just moving the government from London to Philadelphia and changing the flag.

Wasn't it all about the rights of man etc?

[Half Pint]

Originally Posted by billscottmorri

So does that mean that there was a war of independence between the US and the British Empire but not a revolution? I think most of the leading figures on the American side felt they were fighting for more than just moving the government from London to Philadelphia and changing the flag.

Wasn't it all about the rights of man etc?

The rights of British Citizens, which it seemed the Crown didn't see it the same way. I, of course, am speaking with hind sight. With a new flag and government came the revolution of self determination for the colonies. That is basically all the Colonies wanted, not a total break with the Crown. George III led a more distarous foreign policy than George 43.

HP

[HappyWlad]

I always thought of the American Revolution as a capitalist revolution based on Enlightenment principles and the French Revolution as a socialist revolution based on Enlightenment principles.

Wlad

[Half Pint]

Originally Posted by HappyWlad

I always thought of the American Revolution as a capitalist revolution based on Enlightenment principles and the French Revolution as a socialist revolution based on Enlightenment principles.

Wlad

So do you think that the common soldiers of the Continental Army were fighting for capitalistic principle and not having equal rights with the rich land owners and gentry?

HP

[billscottmorri]

Originally Posted by HappyWlad

I always thought of the American Revolution as a capitalist revolution based on Enlightenment principles and the French Revolution as a socialist revolution based on Enlightenment principles.

Wlad

That is a bit of a generalisation but I think you are pretty close to the mark. Part of the answer for me is that the American revolution was basically "conservative" in that it was all about preserving and extending the rights of the individual including property rights - very strong capitalist notions. The French revolution may have had many people of the same mind at one point but they ended up losing control to the radical "Left".

But why?

[Mackie]

Originally Posted by billscottmorri

So does that mean that there was a war of independence between the US and the British Empire but not a revolution? I think most of the leading figures on the American side felt they were fighting for more than just moving the government from London to Philadelphia and changing the flag.

Wasn't it all about the rights of man etc?

When the US Revolution began they were fighting to restore the rights of Englishmen, rather than abandon the political traditions of the mother country. However as the number of engagements went on it turned into a different thing with the DoI justifying independence as well as stating it.

As Michael Heale said, 'The only course left was a rebellion, a rebellion which was begun...not so much against the British constitution as on behalf of it.'

It can be difficult to view it as revolutionary in this sense. As there was no intention of overthrowing the economic and social order that already existed in the colonies. However the fighting did bring forth more radical thinking.

On a side note: French involvement in the US Revolution made it bankrupt, it cost roughly double what they made in a year. This was one reason for the French Revolution.

Also the Founding Fathers never meant the US political system to be dominated by parties. They thought these factions would be in it for their own interests and possibly lead to 'monarchic rule'.

[HappyWlad]

Originally Posted by billscottmorri

That is a bit of a generalisation but I think you are pretty close to the mark. Part of the answer for me is that the American revolution was basically "conservative" in that it was all about preserving and extending the rights of the individual including property rights - very strong capitalist notions. The French revolution may have had many people of the same mind at one point but they ended up losing control to the radical "Left".

But why?

I think it has to do with the "inalienable rights" of each revolution. To Americans, as spelled out in the Declaration, it was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". To the French it was "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity".

The inalienable rights of the Americans could be applied to ALL Americans in the United States at the time (except slaves, which was corrected four score and seven years later ). Their "aristocracy" had either sided with the British in the War (and either left or were subsequently kicked out) or were self made through capitalistic means which theoretically is open to everyone.

Unfortunately, the inalienable rights of the French, particularly Equality and Fratenity, could not be applied to all Frenchmen because of the distinct class differences between the nobility and everyone else. Since everyone can't be "equal" or "brothers", a clash was inevitable between those who wanted to be equal and those who would never want to be "equal" (or never could be equal).

Wlad

[Johan Banér]

Because these revolutions were made under very different conditions.

The American colonists already lived in the society it took the French decades of revolutionary activity, warfare etc. to first create, then safeguard.

In the US what was required was a bit of a shake-up of the top shelf of society. In France it took a radical restructuring of society itself.

The US was easy-peasy by comparison. Even fighting the British was a minor problem compared to the massive coalitions ranged against revolutionary France.

The Big Difference people (well, apparently English-speakers often do) tends to miss, is the nature of the French Ancièn Régime. There is a huge difference overthrowing the sovereign of what is already a liberal society, and overthrowning the sovereign of an ingrained aristocratic society relying on systems of privilege. The former was a society already very much what we have today, the latter very, very different.

It isn't really that the French revolutionaries were more radical than the US revolutionaries. Instead it was the reactionaries the French opposed who made the big difference.

That's why it took at least two repeat-performances of the French revolution (1830, 1848) to finally make a modern liberal society stick properly.

[Full Monty]

Let's not forget that the American War of Independence was sparked by the actions and agitations of an influential minority of leading 'Americans'. The French Revolution was a direct result of a food crisis and the inability of the leading nobility to do, or at least appear to want to do, something about it. The sans-culottes may not have been representative of the whole of the French public but they give the Revolution a certain sense of being a 'mass-movement' that the American version definitely lacks.

[Full Monty]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

That's why it took at least two repeat-performances of the French revolution (1830, 1848) to finally make a modern liberal society stick properly.

I'd add the Paris Commune of 1870-1 to the two mentioned.

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by HappyWlad

I always thought of the American Revolution as a capitalist revolution based on Enlightenment principles and the French Revolution as a socialist revolution based on Enlightenment principles.

Wlad

Don't know if this is true, but I like the thought!

[billscottmorri]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

Because these revolutions were made under very different conditions.

The American colonists already lived in the society it took the French decades of revolutionary activity, warfare etc. to first create, then safeguard.

In the US what was required was a bit of a shake-up of the top shelf of society. In France it took a radical restructuring of society itself.

The US was easy-peasy by comparison. Even fighting the British was a minor problem compared to the massive coalitions ranged against revolutionary France.

The Big Difference people (well, apparently English-speakers often do) tends to miss, is the nature of the French Ancièn Régime. There is a huge difference overthrowing the sovereign of what is already a liberal society, and overthrowning the sovereign of an ingrained aristocratic society relying on systems of privilege. The former was a society already very much what we have today, the latter very, very different.

It isn't really that the French revolutionaries were more radical than the US revolutionaries. Instead it was the reactionaries the French opposed who made the big difference.

That's why it took at least two repeat-performances of the French revolution (1830, 1848) to finally make a modern liberal society stick properly.

True, the starting point for both revolutions was very different - are you saying then that the "extremism" of the French ancien regime lead to the extremism of the revolutionsiaries?

Why were there no American "ultras"?

[Rythmik]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

Because these revolutions were made under very different conditions.

In the US what was required was a bit of a shake-up of the top shelf of society. In France it took a radical restructuring of society itself.

It isn't really that the French revolutionaries were more radical than the US revolutionaries. Instead it was the reactionaries the French opposed who made the big difference.