Sometimes the only way to truly and utterly reform one's government is to do much of what the Revolutionary Frenchmen did during the Revolution. We might look at the deeds done by the French from the American perspective and think of it as overkill, both literal and figurative. But when one stops to think for a moment, it is difficult to truly compare the two revolutions. In what would become the United States, many towns, cities, nay, even entire colonies made their laws largely according to some semblance of democracy, may it be representative or direct. Americans began using democratic practices starting with the arrival of the first colonists in the first half of the seventeenth century; in short, before the American Revolution truly broke out, the colonies, if not well-versed in, had copious amounts of practice in the execution of democracy. Not so in France.
For the French, the idea of true democracy/representative democracy was only something they had read, heard and talked about, not that they had actually used themselves. In my last post, I referred to the fact that the ideas about which the Enlightenment philosophers spoke could only come about through Revolution and complete social/cultural upheaval. That is more or less what happened in the French Revolution. By loss of percentage of population, the American Revolution was the bloodiest war in American history; the French had much farther to climb than did the Americans, therefore the revolution required to reform their system of government and their society as a whole required more time, and, unfortunately, more lives. Making a move from an absolute monarchy to a democracy is no small task. So, the French, to enforce the New Order, had to take away more rights and police the enforcement of their laws with more force, again, because they were doing a 180 degree turn in their government. While it is unfortunate, they were able to accomplish, at least for the most part, what they wanted to do with their government (until Napoleon threw a little bit of a wrench in the system by becoming Emperor).
My point and purpose is to suggest that we should not be so shocked or so critical of the French for what they did during their Revolution, that we should not allow our perception of the French Revolution be too impacted or shaped by our knowledge and understanding of our own Revolution in the British colonies. The French had much more work and change to accomplish than did the revolutionary Americans, and they did the best they could with what they had. Granted, the loss of life and rights is tragic, but for the French, they were doing the best they could with what they had.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Location had to play a big role in the differences between how easily the Americans managed a new government and how the French attempted to. America was so far geographically from the influences of the Prussians, Russians, Austrians, etc. that it would have been near impossible for these countries to put down the American Revolution or to have a heavy hand in determining what sort of government would be set up (like these countries did to France during the restoration). Also the social climate in France was calling for some very quick and drastic changes that are not possible, because even America had trouble with the Articles of Confederation but they did not panic, get hostile, or throw themselves to the first power hungry military “Emperor” when this first attempt at a national government showed weaknesses. I agree with you that the situations were vastly different and led to immensely different results.
ReplyDeleteYour post highlights some of the important distinctions between the French and the American Revolutions. To me, the problem with the French Rev was not so much its goals as its methods of achieving them. The long shadow of the French Revolution was cast more by the Terror and the wars that accompanied the political changes in France than the changes themselves. While many Europeans looked at American 'democracy' and shuddered in horror at the thought, they did not fear it or feel the need to 'contain' that virus the same way that they feared the spread of French influence. I think that Ben is right to point to the differences in geography. The American Revolution was easier to contain and manage; it posed less of a threat to the rest of Europe.
ReplyDelete