"Historians Still Debating the Meaning of the American" Topic

…Revolution if it Was a Revolution

"Prof. Merrill Jensen, of the University of Wisconsin, listened recently to various characterizations of the American Revolution—Colonial war for independence, economic movement, intellectual movement, social accident, oedipal conflict.

"It was all of those things," he said. "It's the blind man looking at the elephant. It depends on what part you touch."…"

Main page

link

Armand

"See the article in its original context from
July 6, 1976, Page 13"

Historians are still debating everything. That's what historians do.

It was unquestionably a revolution, just not on the French model. Thankfully. And it extended backwards for many decades, and forward until, well, now.

And optional is correct: most of those interpretations have been around since at least the 1960s, and probably far longer (except, oedipal??)

As the French Revolution occurred in 1789-1800, it wasn't a 'model' for the American Revolution, which occurred from 1763-1789.

The American experiment in democracy, et al, is still underway, but not the Revolution.

Again, we are a Democratic Republic, or call it a representative democracy, but not a pure democracy.

That is absolutely correct. The United States is a constitutional republic to be precise.

Thanks

Armand

All different, yes. But hardly irrelevant. The word "revolution" itself applies to industrial (as you note), computer, sexual, neolithic, and a host of other events. As usual, careful definitions are essential. The American Revolution was exceptional compared to those other political revolutions.

The French Revolution tried to change EVERYTHING (a British newspaper explained to its readers that the winter months were now named Wheezy, Breezy, and Sneezy). This included the calendar, days of the week, hair and clothing styles, modes of address, religion, and more. It was a totalitarian regime, and indeed the model for others since.

The American, in contrast, left almost everything intact except the necessary political changes -- sovereign states, and eventually a new central government (though a heavily restricted one).

The French Revolution produced a series of revolutionary governments, not just one.

Four different governments were established during the period 1789-late 1799:

(1) the National Assembly: 1789-1792, which was formed from the commoner section of the Estates-General, commonly known as the Third Estate (the first and second estates being the nobility and the clergy). In October of 1789 it became the National Constituent Assembly.

(2) the National Convention with its 'arm' the Committee of Public Safety: 1792-1795. They declared France to be a republic and this period is also known as the First Republic. During this period the government was taken over by the radicals who instituted the Terror.

(3) The Directory: 1795-1799.

(4) The Consulate came into existence through the November 1799 coup, which was organized and executed by one of the Directors, Sieyes. Napoleon was recruited by Sieyes and the other conspirators because they needed a famous general as the army was the only stable organization in the country. Napoleon brought the Revolution to a successful conclusion.

Religion was not 'changed' during the Revolution; it was abolished. It was restored and freedom of religion was established during the Consulate by Napoleon.

The only actual totalitarian government during the Revolution was the Committee of Public Safety during which the Terror occurred and was run by the government. The Directory was incompetent and corrupt, but was far from being totalitarian.

"The American, in contrast, left almost everything intact except the necessary political changes" because those elites want to be lords in everything but title, it was a bourgeoisie revolution.

Sure, but most Americans (except slaves) owned some land, which makes them middle class.

The French Revolution also began as a middle class revolution.

Indeed it did.

When the radicals and fanatics get control of anything (political, social, religious) it is then out of control and anything, mostly bad, can happen.

That is generally true. However, the moderate voices of reason also prevent the great breakthroughs to something better or higher. The American Revolution was very much the exception in that what resulted was way better than what it replaced.

You can admire Napoleon's legal reforms, but more than a decade of bloody wars of conquest were quite a high price to pay.

And I think your generalization, while valid for political and social, breaks down where religion is concerned. From the Book of Job on, through Abraham and Moses to Jesus, we see a God Who is pretty radical Himself, treating His friends and ultimately Himself in extreme ways. From Job's three friends to the Sadducees and Pharisees, it is the church people who get zapped.

You can admire Napoleon's legal reforms, but more than a decade of bloody wars of conquest were quite a high price to pay.

No.

-Great Britain broke the peace of Amiens and then proceeded to finance her continental allies to fight Napoleon.

-Austria and Russia were the aggressors in 1805.

-Prussia was the aggressor in 1806 along with Russia and the war continued into 1807 ending with the Treaty of Tilsit in July 1807.

-Napoleon discovered that Spain was prepared to attack France, her ally, if the Prussians had won.

-Austria was the aggressor in 1809.

-Russia was preparing for war against France as early as 1810. Napoleon struck first.

The 1813 and 1814 campaigns were a continuation of the 1812 campaign.

It was the allies in 1815 that declared war.

Who was then mostly responsible for the Napoleonic Wars? What was Napoleon supposed to do when either attacked or war was declared against him and France?

<your generalization, while valid for political and social, breaks down where religion is concerned.

Napoleon restored the Church (Roman Catholic in this instance) and granted freedom of religion to the French people.

And Napoleon's reforms stretched across French society from legal, political, social, education, and also guaranteed basic civil rights.

If you'd like a more detailed view of Napoleon's reforms, let me know and I'll post them. It's a long list.

God as a 'radical'? I think not. Where does that come from? I certainly wasn't raised and taught that way and I was educated in twelve years of Catholic school.

Well, the RCs have had their fair share of radicals, such as Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, and no doubt dozens of more that a Protestant may be less aware of. Mother Teresa in modern times.

The root of "Radical" is radix, which means root. A radical wants to get to the root of things, past convention and appearance and "the day's dead sanctities." (From "The Hound of Heaven.") God IS a radical. I know a man, he came from my hometown, who got pulled up by his roots and replanted in more spacious and fertile ground. God does that from time to time, if you are blessed.

Your defense of Napoleon is breathtaking.

Radicals of any sort are dangerous to their countries and their fellow-men.

Napoleon was 'Napoleon Bonaparte' or 'Bonaparte' until 2 December 1804 when he became Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, or simply Napoleon.

He was also known by his military rank up to General of Division until he was crowned Emperor.

Calling him merely 'Bonaparte' was begun by the English who refused to accept his elevation to his imperial rank. It has come to be a term of derision or disrespect, historically speaking.

I'm not 'defending' Napoleon, merely giving his his just due for his myriad accomplishments-not too shabby for a self-made man. 😁

You bet they are!

And yeah, you're defending him. That's okay. I have my heroes too.

Napoleon is not one of my 'heroes.' I admire him as a reformer and military commander, and I have studied him since 1965.

Since I never knew Napoleon, it would be difficult for him to be considered a personal hero.

My personal heroes are more close to home.

Your defense of Napoleon is breathtaking.

I supplied factual material on Napoleon, his government, and his wars. Too many times factual material is not used to criticize or condemn the French Emperor.

I remember one poster on another forum years ago who criticized John Elting's work on the Grande Armee, Swords Around a Throne, because the overwhelming number of references were French. How else would you research a book on a French army other than using French references?

And Col Elting's bibliography for the book is excellent and he worked on the book for thirty years.

Your defense of Napoleon is breathtaking.

To be interested in Napoleon is not to defend him. And there is much to be interested in about him. With roughly 300,000 books written about him, there are no other as studied personages, except for Christ.

Au pas de Charge + 1

Armand

Thanks Tango.

I think as of today, it's 300,001 books on Napoleon. ;)

No have a substance farm was not enough to vote At the time of the revolution only 6-20% of the population could vote again they wanted to be lords.