Links between the American and French Revolutions

[Pontifex Maximus]

Additionally, I don't think King Louis XVI supported the American revolution because he valued freedom, after all France fought its own revolution shortly after largely due to inspiration from the United States when things went south for the monarchy.

Posts moved from the "Riot in Toulouse" thread. ~Abdülmecid

[Cyclops]

Additionally, I don't think King Louis XVI supported the American revolution because he valued freedom, after all France fought its own revolution shortly after largely due to inspiration from the United States when things went south for the monarchy.

Louis XVI supported US freedom about as sincerely as you support French freedom I'm sure. The French revolution was a very different animal, and to imagine the US revolt was the cause or even the major inspiration is a bit laughable. Is this actually seriously advocated anywhere? The regicidal English Commonwealth and the Netherlands were plainly more important models as events proved.

[sumskilz]

The French revolution was a very different animal, and to imagine the US revolt was the cause or even the major inspiration is a bit laughable. Is this actually seriously advocated anywhere?

The intellectual ideology of at least the early part of the French Revolution drew on the same philosophical lineage and involved some of the same characters. Most notably...

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen) was written by Lafayette influenced by Thomas Jefferson, with direct input and feedback from Jefferson during the process. It contains all the same sorts of natural rights ideology as in American documents. Lafayette had served as a major general in the Continental Army under his friend George Washington, whom he named his son after.

Thomas Paine, who wrote the Common Sense pamphlet advocating independence from England, was elected a member of the first French revolutionary government (Convention nationale), despite not being able to speak French.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Louis XVI supported US freedom about as sincerely as you support French freedom I'm sure. The French revolution was a very different animal, and to imagine the US revolt was the cause or even the major inspiration is a bit laughable. Is this actually seriously advocated anywhere? The regicidal English Commonwealth and the Netherlands were plainly more important models as events proved.

You can attribute as many motives to me as you'd like or misconstrue my argument as much as you'd like, but it isn't helping you prove anything. Go ahead and read Chapter 3. If you continue to engage dishonestly with my points I won't bother replying again

[Cyclops]

The intellectual ideology of at least the early part of the French Revolution drew on the same philosophical lineage and involved some of the same characters.

The presence of the ideas of the Philosophes in US political writings is not evidence of US influence on France. Do US schools seriously teach that the American revolt sparked the Revolution?

[sumskilz]

The presence of the ideas of the Philosophes in US political writings is not evidence of US influence on France. Do US schools seriously teach that the American revolt sparked the Revolution?

Pontifex Maximus overstated his case in the first couple posts you responded to, but judging by the source he later cited and the context of the discussion regarding freedoms in the US vs France, he was referring to American influence on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, which I don't believe is a controversial claim outside of France, and even then, is a disagreement regarding significance rather than existence of said influence. Georg Jellinek, the previously linked source was German. Chapters III to VIII all look relevant, although I only read Chapter III, which leaves out some additional evidence that might not have been available to Jellinek at the time.

Quoting Ludwikowski 1990 (note in particular the last paragraph):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the year before the breakdown of the old Regime, friends of the American cause frequently gathered either in LaFayette's hotel in Paris or in the house occupied by Thomas Jefferson, who in 1784 was sent to assist Franklin and in 1785 replaced Franklin as a minister to France. Jefferson remained in France until 1789. [22] The French fascination with America reached its highest peak in the several months preceding the adoption of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. During this period, the political work of the American Revolution was most extensively discussed. Before 1789, four editions of the U.S. Constitution had previously been published. The American state constitutions also inspired a broad interest. The Frenchmen were most attracted to the constitution of Pennsylvania, which provided for a unicameral legislative system and executive power entrusted to a president, chosen by the legislature and assisted by a council of twelve. The Pennsylvania Constitution was praised in France as the most democratic constitution adopted anywhere. [23] As Albert P. Blaustein argued, "France's first constitution.., looked more to Pennsylvania than to any other United States source for its governmental structure." [24] In regard to other American state constitutions, those of Virginia, Massachusetts and Maryland were most widely discussed. It was often raised that the preambles of these constitutions as well as their prototype, the American Declaration of Independence, strongly influenced the authors of the French Declaration. As Bernard Fay wrote, "A detailed comparison of the French Declaration of Rights with the preambles of these three constitutions brings out a striking resemblance." [25] This thesis was questioned by French historians who, like Godechot argued that, "The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen offers some significant differences from the American declarations." [26] Godechot maintained that the American and French Declarations vary in character. The American texts were to be "very specific, very American," while the French Declaration was conceived as a sort of universal manifesto appealing to mankind as a whole. [27] In Mirabeau's words, the French declaration was to be "applicable to all ages, all peoples, all moral and geographic latitudes." [28]

The dispute concerning the origins of the French Declaration resulted in the polarization of the positions taken by the disputants, who usually either attempted to trivialize or overestimate the reception of the American patterns. [29] In fact, the arguments of both disputing parties are not fully convincing and the truth about the origins of the Declaration lays somewhere in between. It is unquestionable that there was a constant interflow of ideas between the two countries and that Frenchmen were attracted to American political arrangements. The idea of the bill of rights, which could be used as a preamble to a constitution, was American and in fact Americans translated it into the idea of a constitution as a single document providing a basic law superior to any legislative act and different from mere statutes. Also the idea that a constitution should be passed or amended by special conventions or with requirements higher than those expected for ordinary statutes was worked out in America. [30]

The original draft of the Declaration was prepared by LaFayette, discussed with Jefferson, and sent to Madison for comment. [31] The draft was also studied by Governor Morris who was in Paris occasionally on private business. [32] Before preparing his draft, Lafayette also discussed the subject with Hamilton, Franklin and Thomas Paine. However, the first Lafayette draft was not met with an enthusiastic reception. The draft generated heated dispute during which some deputies even proposed not to publish the Declaration until the adoption of the Constitution. [33] Finally, the Assembly accepted a draft which was a compromise between Lafayette's initial project and drafts of other deputies such as Sieye's, Mirabeau's and Mounier's, which were most widely discussed and influential. The compromise brought more French tincture to the Declaration. [34]

[Cyclops]

Pontifex Maximus overstated his case in the first couple posts you responded to, but judging by the source he later cited and the context of the discussion regarding freedoms in the US vs France, he was referring to American influence on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, which I don't believe is a controversial claim outside of France, and even then, is a disagreement regarding significance rather than existence of said influence. Georg Jellinek, the previously linked source was German. Chapters III to VIII all look relevant, although I only read Chapter III, which leaves out some additional evidence that might not have been available to Jellinek at the time.

Quoting Ludwikowski 1990 (note in particular the last paragraph):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the year before the breakdown of the old Regime, friends of the American cause frequently gathered either in LaFayette's hotel in Paris or in the house occupied by Thomas Jefferson, who in 1784 was sent to assist Franklin and in 1785 replaced Franklin as a minister to France. Jefferson remained in France until 1789. [22] The French fascination with America reached its highest peak in the several months preceding the adoption of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. During this period, the political work of the American Revolution was most extensively discussed. Before 1789, four editions of the U.S. Constitution had previously been published. The American state constitutions also inspired a broad interest. The Frenchmen were most attracted to the constitution of Pennsylvania, which provided for a unicameral legislative system and executive power entrusted to a president, chosen by the legislature and assisted by a council of twelve. The Pennsylvania Constitution was praised in France as the most democratic constitution adopted anywhere. [23] As Albert P. Blaustein argued, "France's first constitution.., looked more to Pennsylvania than to any other United States source for its governmental structure." [24] In regard to other American state constitutions, those of Virginia, Massachusetts and Maryland were most widely discussed. It was often raised that the preambles of these constitutions as well as their prototype, the American Declaration of Independence, strongly influenced the authors of the French Declaration. As Bernard Fay wrote, "A detailed comparison of the French Declaration of Rights with the preambles of these three constitutions brings out a striking resemblance." [25] This thesis was questioned by French historians who, like Godechot argued that, "The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen offers some significant differences from the American declarations." [26] Godechot maintained that the American and French Declarations vary in character. The American texts were to be "very specific, very American," while the French Declaration was conceived as a sort of universal manifesto appealing to mankind as a whole. [27] In Mirabeau's words, the French declaration was to be "applicable to all ages, all peoples, all moral and geographic latitudes." [28]

The dispute concerning the origins of the French Declaration resulted in the polarization of the positions taken by the disputants, who usually either attempted to trivialize or overestimate the reception of the American patterns. [29] In fact, the arguments of both disputing parties are not fully convincing and the truth about the origins of the Declaration lays somewhere in between. It is unquestionable that there was a constant interflow of ideas between the two countries and that Frenchmen were attracted to American political arrangements. The idea of the bill of rights, which could be used as a preamble to a constitution, was American and in fact Americans translated it into the idea of a constitution as a single document providing a basic law superior to any legislative act and different from mere statutes. Also the idea that a constitution should be passed or amended by special conventions or with requirements higher than those expected for ordinary statutes was worked out in America. [30]

The original draft of the Declaration was prepared by LaFayette, discussed with Jefferson, and sent to Madison for comment. [31] The draft was also studied by Governor Morris who was in Paris occasionally on private business. [32] Before preparing his draft, Lafayette also discussed the subject with Hamilton, Franklin and Thomas Paine. However, the first Lafayette draft was not met with an enthusiastic reception. The draft generated heated dispute during which some deputies even proposed not to publish the Declaration until the adoption of the Constitution. [33] Finally, the Assembly accepted a draft which was a compromise between Lafayette's initial project and drafts of other deputies such as Sieye's, Mirabeau's and Mounier's, which were most widely discussed and influential. The compromise brought more French tincture to the Declaration. [34]

Thanks, that's very interesting and you've corrected my ignorance in this matter. There's definitely more US involvement in the actual intellectual underpinning for the French revolution, especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man, than I knew.

I still contend the French Revolution is definitely its own creature, and was brewing at least as long as the American revolt, in very different circumstances as its course and outcome demonstrate.

I would also continue to contend that US thinkers were based in the largely French tradition of the Enlightenment.

[Common Soldier]

Thanks, that's very interesting and you've corrected my ignorance in this matter. There's definitely more US involvement in the actual intellectual underpinning for the French revolution, especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man, than I knew.

I still contend the French Revolution is definitely its own creature, and was brewing at least as long as the American revolt, in very different circumstances as its course and outcome demonstrate.

I would also continue to contend that US thinkers were based in the largely French tradition of the Enlightenment.

US thinkers were equally influenced by British thinks like John Locke as well, you seem to be discounting that influence, and would say the influence of Locke and others as important as the French, as important as it was.

Still, in any society, Locke contended, people are endowed with certain natural rights (to "life, liberty, and property"). In his enormously renowned political theory, Locke presented the idea of governmental checks and balances, which became a foundation for the U.S. Constitution. He also argued that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation, which also clearly influenced the Founding Fathers. He most eloquently expounded his arguments concerning the natural rights of man in his 1680 work, Second Treatise on Government (or Two Treatises on Government), a book that Thomas Jefferson read at least three times. https://www.shmoop.com/ideological-o...john-locke.html

The success of the American Revolution would have inspired and encouraged French Revolutionist, Men like Layeffette who played a role in the French revolution,

After the forming of the National Constituent Assembly, he helped write the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, with Thomas Jefferson's assistance; inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence, this document invoked natural law to establish basic principles of the democratic nation-state. In keeping with the philosophy of natural liberty, Lafayette also advocated for the end of slavery. After the storming of the Bastille, Lafayette was appointed commander-in-chief of the National Guard and tried to steer a middle course through the French Revolution. In August 1792, the radical factions ordered his arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilber...s_de_Lafayette

On August 26, 1789, the Assembly further emphasized its support of the Enlightenment ideals by passing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The French were inspired to issue a document by a draft of a bill of rights that Thomas Jefferson offered to the Assembly. Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, served as U.S. ambassador to France in 1789. The French Declaration closely resembles the American one. Both granted freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and power to the people rather than a sovereign. The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen reflects French thought by further mandating equality of taxation and equality before the law. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...an-and-citizen

While the French Revolution probably arose mostly from domestic concerns, the timing, and involvement of men like Lafayette and it appears Thomas Jefferson does argue for a strong influence from the American Revolution. The influence of the American Revolution was rather incomplete, since the French Revolution was a much bloodier affair, and at the end of the day, the French in a few years wound up under the tyrannical rule of Napoleon.

The second major influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution was the cost of the war in supporting the US helped bankrupt the French monarchy, and made it weaker, more vulnerable to the revolution. The French government might not have fallen so quickly, nor radical elements so easily cease control otherwise.

Jacques Necker, a protestant banker from Geneva, was made Director-General ofFinance. It has been maintained that he financed the American war and borrowed hugesums of money. This only increased the Crown's debt, so much so that fifty per cent of itsincome went to pay the interest on the debt. Necker was to cause future Controllersserious trouble. As Necker was seen to run a costly war without raising taxes, they couldno longer increase taxation in peacetime.......

Eventually the economic crisis created by the government created a Revolution.The strong belief that there could be no liberty, if legislative and executive powers wereplaced into the hands of a single monarch or a body of magistrates proved to be true.Consequently, the people of France got rid off an absolute monarchy and a dictatorialrule and entered the stage of the Napoleonic era. http://www.indiana.edu/~b356/exams+a...assignment.pdf

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Ultimately the creation of the USA emboldened the middle class ideologues in pushing for the French Revolution. Had it not been for this the French agitators may have chosen to simply go about it in a practical manner which included the authority of the monarchy in some capacity or other (as Mirabeau had wanted).

The English model of government was also used as an influence on the French Revolution. While Jean Jacques Rousseau's social contract was probably the main inspiration for the revolutionaries, there was an existing clique who preferred the clear delineations between the state and society, rather than conflating the two as the same entity. One of the members of the English clique was none other than Napoleon Bonaparte who undid social control by the state and pushed for the organization of societies along the lines of local communities.

This in itself is not too different from the basic concept of American articles of confederation. The key difference though is that central authority still had de facto and legal authority and this was based on the existing tradition of Absolutism. Also keep in mind that Napoleon was a Corsican and local authority was so grass roots that landed families were their own authorities, Corsica still has an existing problem with family feuds. This is also an acceptable explanation for why Napoleon practiced so much nepotism within his immediate family.

[Ludicus]

France fought its own revolution shortly after largely due to inspiration from the United States

I would say, largely due to the ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu on liberty and democracy (on the contrary, the Americans are indebted to the French who advanced their revolution).
Although both revolutions are a product of Enlightenment, the American revolution focused more on man's rights to "life, liberty, and property", influenced by John Locke -a contract theorist like Hobbes and Rousseau, but Locke’s ideas encouraged the American constitutionalism;by contrast, Rousseau's notions of freedom and of the state played a crucial role in the French Revolution;and yet,according to Rousseau General Will, people did not have the right to rise above subsistence without everyone's consent;Rousseau was critical of private property.
The French revolution was grounded in a "Cult of Reason" (Voltaire and Rousseau) representing the revolutionaries opposition to traditional religion; Jefferson uses references to God and religion. The French Declaration of Rights is a claim to entitlements, grounded in human reason,being a generalization; the American Declaration of Independence is a declaration of responsibility, covers the construction of the government. Each had a specific purpose and use.
The French revolution was not inspired by the American revolution.

[Roma_Victrix]

Louis XVI supported US freedom about as sincerely as you support French freedom I'm sure. The French revolution was a very different animal, and to imagine the US revolt was the cause or even the major inspiration is a bit laughable. Is this actually seriously advocated anywhere? The regicidal English Commonwealth and the Netherlands were plainly more important models as events proved.

Lord Protector Cromwell's republic, however, wasn't exactly a radically secular affair, as he was a Protestant Puritan who believed that he was on a divine mission, graced by the Almighty in battle and victory, and was clearly a partisan against Catholics in the realm (especially those who would be monarch). None of these issues or those of the Wars of Religion were relevant by the end of the 18th century, with the American and French revolutions. Whether you agree or disagree about the level of influence Thomas Jefferson and other American statesmen (via Lafayette) had on the underpinnings of the French Revolution, these were both radically secular political revolutions. The French Revolution, for that matter, was even more radical than the American one in that regard, considering not just the divorce of church and state but also the utter contempt shown for the Catholic Church (an attitude inherited by Napoleon, who even slightly snubbed the pope during his imperial coronation). The American founding fathers didn't go about changing the calendar itself to remove all religious and royalist influences, for instance, not like the revolutionary French Republican Calendar.

I would say, largely due to the ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu on liberty and democracy (on the contrary, the Americans are indebted to the French who advanced their revolution).
Although both revolutions are a product of Enlightenment, the American revolution focused more on man's rights to "life, liberty, and property", influenced by John Locke -a contract theorist like Hobbes and Rousseau, but Locke’s ideas encouraged the American constitutionalism;by contrast, Rousseau's notions of freedom and of the state played a crucial role in the French Revolution;and yet,according to Rousseau General Will, people did not have the right to rise above subsistence without everyone's consent;Rousseau was critical of private property.
The French revolution was grounded in a "Cult of Reason" (Voltaire and Rousseau) representing the revolutionaries opposition to traditional religion; Jefferson uses references to God and religion. The French Declaration of Rights is a claim to entitlements, grounded in human reason,being a generalization; the American Declaration of Independence is a declaration of responsibility, covers the construction of the government. Each had a specific purpose and use.
The French revolution was not inspired by the American revolution.

That's a bold assertion given the scholarly argument presented above by Sumskilz about Thomas Jefferson's direct influence on the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789. I obviously don't think Jefferson had any influence over the anti-monarchical sentiment that had been brewing in the Kingdom of France for some time or the overthrow of the monarchy itself. While the United States Bill of Rights was obviously inspired by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, it was actually the US model that served as a known influential factor in the French one. Yes it is true the French had the Enlightenment philosophies, including the likes of Voltaire and Rousseau, as a cornerstone for the radical democratic ideals of the French Revolution, but the brand new US model was something tangible that they could see, trust, and verify as something that actually functioned in the real and practical world, not just in the abstract philosophies of those living under absolute monarchy. That was probably the biggest contribution of the fledgling US to the French Revolution.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

There is a matter in which Ludicus is undoubtedly correct. That most of the revolutionaries in France rejected the social contract of John Locke. The more extreme members who came to the fore during the Jacobin rule and were still around during the Directory were advocating for the abolition of private property, the family and total control of society by the state. The actual government was organized into some sort of weird technocracy with these ideologues seemingly running the state in concert (though with lots of conflict behind the scenes). This is something which Napoleon overwhelmingly rejected and pushed to reorganize society along the lines of England and America but with a powerful individual at the helm for the sake of social order. In a way Napoleon kind of breaks the Monarchical-Republican dichotomy because even under his Imperial rule all of the Republican institutions were still in place. In fact the French still referred to their state as a Republic and in that regard it wasn't too different from the parliamentarian system of Britain.

Although Napoleon also pushed for direct representation of every household through voter rights that even included those which did not own property (which was more universal than Britain or America). Napoleon was even advocating for every household to own firearms and abolished property and income taxes. Then moved for free trade and hard currency rather than worthless bank notes. If that isn't inspired by Anglo-American ideologies and policy then I don't know what is.

I wanted to address Napoleon's relationship with the church since it is such a complex concept to grasp. Napoleon seems to have been one of these agnostic "secular" enlightenment types (I say secular somewhat hesitantly) who never the less professed his belief in the Catholic Church due to cultural reasons. He was actually favourable towards the church as an institution so long as it did not interfere with the state and was generally favourable towards the social role which organized religion played. For instance he regularly had masses said in his name, had the Pope present at his coronation, signed a concordat with the Pope (even though he didn't need to and many advised against this), ordered the return of church property and reopened churches which had been banned by the Revolutionary governments.

During his early career in Italy he also advised the government against closing and looting churches. He even wrote a series of strategic plans which included as a necessity that the Directory never engage in wars against the Papal States and respect the sovereignty of Rome. On the other hand in 1797 after defeating the Papal Army and taking Ancona he allowed these Papal States to hold referendums on whether or not they would secede from Rome and join the French puppet republics. Various states in the Romagna voted to secede and join the Cisalpine Republic. The Notre Dame coronation was more a matter of prestige, with the Pope present he could appeal to the Catholic traditions of France. By crowning himself it was a clear statement of Napoleon's secular authority over matters of religion. Though the Pope required that Napoleon married his wife by the church rather than just a secular court.

His problems with the Pope came during his reign and had mostly to do with the temporal authority of the Papacy and the actual Papal States. The Pope rejected the continental blockade against Britain which led to Napoleon venting his ire against the Pope. As Emperor he dissolved the Papal States and had the Pope's authority confined to only matters of religion. In spite of having the Pope relocated to France he treated the Pope almost as some kind of state minister rather than as the Holy See, but not exactly a prisoner either (even though technically he was). Napoleon's disrespect for divine authority led to his being excommunicated twice, because the first time the Pope changed his mind but then excommunicated him again (). It was a soft competition between old school theocracies and modern secularism. In a way this was less policy and more like the love-hate relationship between Napoleon and the Pope.

Though I must stress that secular in this case is not as we know it. Secular here meaning a clear delineation between the church and state. Both in Napoleon's mind and in reality, Catholicism was the dominant faith in France. Religious minorities like Protestants, Jews and Muslims were allowed to practice religion within the limitations of the law. Since Napoleon allowed for local initiatives with regards to governance and laws that means different parts of France had different policies on these matters. They could practice their religions within the confines of these various laws but there were no protected classes.

[sumskilz]

There is a matter in which Ludicus is undoubtedly correct.

Actually...

I would say, largely due to the ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu on liberty and democracy...

Correct.

The French revolution was not inspired by the American revolution.

Incorrect.

These are not two mutually exclusive propositions being discussed. See the text in the spoiler in post #6. All those references are to primary sources, the evidence is unambiguous.

EDIT: Not sure about quantifying terms like "largely" though, especially when applied to ideological rather than material grievances. The vision on which people hope to reform society is not necessarily the cause of them being pissed off.

[Ludicus]

That most of the revolutionaries in France rejected the social contract of John Locke. The more extreme members who came to the fore during the Jacobin rule and were still around during the Directory were advocating for the abolition of private property, the family and total control of society by the state..

Precisely. Some would even say that the General Will of Rousseau was the Magna Carta of Absolutism.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Actually...

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure if you posted the answer above or something.

Certainly I would not say that these revolutionaries were not influenced by John Locke but their creation of the revolutionary state shows them rejecting the core principles of Locke and more easily embracing the theories of Rousseau and the like. During the Jacobin rule the state was organized into something more comparable to Rousseau "Socialism". Hardcore ideologues still survived within the Directoire who advocated extreme policies with regards to control of society and the state.

As I understand it most of the French Revolutionaries would more easily agree with this particular statement of Rousseau:
"Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, the division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom.
According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law."

"Society corrupts men only insofar as the Social Contract has not de facto succeeded, as we see in contemporary society as described in the Discourse on Inequality (1754).
In this essay, which elaborates on the ideas introduced in the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, Rousseau traces man's social evolution from a primitive state of nature to modern society. The earliest solitary humans possessed a basic drive for self-preservation and a natural disposition to compassion or pity. They differed from animals, however, in their capacity for free will and their potential perfectibility. As they began to live in groups and form clans they also began to experience family love, which Rousseau saw as the source of the greatest happiness known to humanity.
As long as differences in wealth and status among families were minimal, the first coming together in groups was accompanied by a fleeting golden age of human flourishing. The development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labour and resulting dependency on one another, however, led to economic inequality and conflict. As population pressures forced them to associate more and more closely, they underwent a psychological transformation: they began to see themselves through the eyes of others and came to value the good opinion of others as essential to their self-esteem."

Than this statement of Locke:
"In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, Locke argues that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods or utilise property to produce goods beneficial to human society"


"Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed people to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions".^[35] Most scholars trace the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence, to Locke's theory of rights,^[36] though other origins have been suggested.
Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society. However, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day.^[38] Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."

Precisely. Some would even say that the General Will of Rousseau was the Magna Carta of Absolutism.

This is basically what I am referring to. Rousseau and the revolutionaries advocated for an all encompassing state that could not be overthrown, since this state existed to create collective good. The actions of the Revolutionaries prior to Napoleon assuming power were largely towards this end. The Directoire was more moderate in its dispositions but a few extremists still held positions of power and influence.

John Locke and his like minded adherents believed in individual rights so that society and the state were clearly delineated and if the state ever became tyrannical then the citizenry were obliged to overthrow it. The French did not really take this idea at face value and rejected the notion that the state could be overthrown so by the populace, much less if the regime allowed for representation of said populace. Which is ultimately the reason for why these revolutionaries affected political change through internal coups and the support of military groups. Minor action to affect larger change. Rather than having the populace rise up yet again and repeat chaos and upheaval.

Even someone who was relatively moderate such as Napoleon was against taking up arms against Robespierre for that reason. It has largely to do with French culture and the tradition of absolutism compounded by the desire to avoid a repeat of the events of the Terror. Though ideologically there was no reason to call upon the citizenry to overthrow the state yet again, since the matter of the monarchy had been resolved. Freedom had already been achieved and the collective good of the nation was at stake. That is how they defined Liberty.

[sumskilz]

Care to elaborate?

You're talking about the direction the revolution ultimately went, whereas those who were most influenced/inspired by the American Revolution were key figures in the first few years. By the end of 1793, many had lost their heads. I'd mentioned Lafayette and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In addition to having been a member of the Convention nationale, Thomas Paine was involved in the Républicain newspaper with Jacques Pierre Brissot, the leader of the Girondins faction within the Club des Jacobins. Brissot had visited the US and was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was also apparently friendly with Jefferson based on Jefferson's reference to him in one of his letters written while he was ambassador France.

The way Brissot imagined/characterized the American revolutionary army in 1786 is informative to his later role in the French legislative assembly:

The real strength of a republic, depends upon the insuperable attachment of its members to liberty and their rights. Possessing this, the republican repels every attack, he soon learns the military art, he harasses and overcomes all his enemies: Witness many of the American generals, whose virtues and abilities you acknowledge. The greatest part of them had never handled a musquet; they had been merchants, farmers, physicians, book-sellers. Witness Warren, Knox, Morgan, Greene, and the infamous Arnold, whose talents should have ornamented the soul of a patriot. And no wonder that republicans so speedily acquire military skill. The preservation of their liberties engages every faculty; a more powerful incentive than the pay of mercenaries, or even the distinctions of European armies. This is the reason that one or two years experience, and two or three defeats, instruct republicans more than twenty or thirty years spent in the service of other governments.

Animated by the love of liberty, republican soldiers are more patient, and bear fatigue better than hired troops. Witness your own commendations of the American soldiers, who always fought bravely, although ill paid, ill provided for, ill cloathed, and unaccustomed to the business. You allow that they soon learned to serve the artillery, that their barracks were of the best construction, that they were brave, &c. &c. &c. What produced these wonders? The love of liberty. While they preserve it, they will have nothing to fear, and the military art will be useless to them.

They will do well to remember the battles you describe, not to study the plans or circumstances of them, but as splendid monuments erected to liberty. If they are ever obliged to reassume their arms, the same genius will inspire them without this study.

In a word, every individual of a republic, should be brave, should be a soldier, by birth the defender of his country; but none should be so by profession.

This ties into what Roma noted about the American Revolution serving as a tangible example.

[Cyclops]

I still hold the French Revolution was not "largely due to inspiration from the United States". Definitely the US was intellectually based in Enlightenment thinking, which folded back into some French thinking around the opening phase of the revolution: the bit about shared DNA is a good metaphor. That said the course and outcomes are utterly different. A tax revolt by the local gentry and merchants directed at a metropolis seeking increased control is a very different beast to a complete dislocation of the social order. The US clothed its removal of royal authority in an imaginative new constitution, the French experienced a paroxysm and a Hulk like transformation that dealt a deathblow (sometimes immediately fatal, sometimes leading to a slow death) to the Ancien Regime in Europe.

The French Revolution very directly gives us the constitution and legal system of most European countries, and indirectly pretty much all of them. Only after WII did the US project its political system so powerfully.

[Ludicus]

In fact, I'm always puzzled when I hear people claim that there are similarities between the French and the American revolution, when I hear people claim that the French revolution was inspired or even modeled after the American revolution.
As we know, France faced a economic crisis caused in part by the cost of intervening in the American Revolution. The people - those who took Bastille- didn't even know the existence of the USA.
Robespierre, Desmoulins and Danton were not inspired by the American War of Independence. Mirabeau wanted to keep the Crown "We need a government like England’s", he said. The French Revolution was an increase in the power of the state, the American was a decrease in the power of the state. There are no similarities between the two revolutions.

The Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen was a statement of democratic principles grounded in the philosophical and political ideas of Enlightenment - but the truth is, 28 days later, all church property in France was confiscated by the government, the first precedent for further violation of property rights and violation of individual rights; the revolutionaries weren’t interested in a truly free society.
Bastiat clearly explains that French revolutionaries were "among the world’s first social engineers, the French Revolution was based on the idea of Rousseau that society is contrary to nature " Essays on Foundations of American Constitutional Government.
Babeuf (the first modern communist) created a Society of Equals dedicated to the abolition of private property, the Commune took over control of Paris, education was centralized ("Children belong to the State"- Saint Just).
To sum up, the French revolution brought anarchy, statism and dictatorship. The Conservative (conservative from an ideological point of view- not truly revolutionary) American Revolution brought freedom. How can freedom inspire a dictatorship?

[Roma_Victrix]

@Ludicus and Cyclops: the central premise of the thread as presented by Pontifex Maximus is obviously wrong. Clearly the American Revolution was radically different from the French Revolution. That being said, there is no denying the influence of the former on the latter in some significant ways, as outlined by Sumskilz. It doesn't mean that one served as the basis for the other. It just means that there was a small web of connective tissue here, largely because of the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but also simply because republican revolutions were such a rarity that the immediate example of the United States was bound to influence in one way or another the republican revolutions that would occur elsewhere. That's true even when considering these revolutions were largely based on different philosophies, as outlined by Lord Oda.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

@Ludicus and Cyclops: the central premise of the thread as presented by Pontifex Maximus is obviously wrong. Clearly the American Revolution was radically different from the French Revolution. That being said, there is no denying the influence of the former on the latter in some significant ways, as outlined by Sumskilz. It doesn't mean that one served as the basis for the other. It just means that there was a small web of connective tissue here, largely because of the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but also simply because republican revolutions were such a rarity that the immediate example of the United States was bound to influence in one way or another the republican revolutions that would occur elsewhere. That's true even when considering these revolutions were largely based on different philosophies, as outlined by Lord Oda.

I think that both Ludicus and Cyclops have correctly identified the key differences between 1775 and 1789. However Pontifex Maximus is trying to make a point about a stronger "Liberal" interpretation of the American ideology and legislation. As such I would say that Pontifex Maximus wins by default. Although I would also suggest that "Liberal values" are not a result of French culture, as we have seen the poor history of the actual Liberals in France.

You're talking about the direction the revolution ultimately went, whereas those who were most influenced/inspired by the American Revolution were key figures in the first few years. By the end of 1793, many had lost their heads. I'd mentioned Lafayette and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In addition to having been a member of the Convention nationale, Thomas Paine was involved in the Républicain newspaper with Jacques Pierre Brissot, the leader of the Girondins faction within the Club des Jacobins. Brissot had visited the US and was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was also apparently friendly with Jefferson based on Jefferson's reference to him in one of his letters written while he was ambassador France.

The way Brissot imagined/characterized the American revolutionary army in 1786 is informative to his later role in the French legislative assembly:

"The real strength of a republic, depends upon the insuperable attachment of its members to liberty and their rights. Possessing this, the republican repels every attack, he soon learns the military art, he harasses and overcomes all his enemies: Witness many of the American generals, whose virtues and abilities you acknowledge. The greatest part of them had never handled a musquet; they had been merchants, farmers, physicians, book-sellers. Witness Warren, Knox, Morgan, Greene, and the infamous Arnold, whose talents should have ornamented the soul of a patriot. And no wonder that republicans so speedily acquire military skill. The preservation of their liberties engages every faculty; a more powerful incentive than the pay of mercenaries, or even the distinctions of European armies. This is the reason that one or two years experience, and two or three defeats, instruct republicans more than twenty or thirty years spent in the service of other governments.

Animated by the love of liberty, republican soldiers are more patient, and bear fatigue better than hired troops. Witness your own commendations of the American soldiers, who always fought bravely, although ill paid, ill provided for, ill cloathed, and unaccustomed to the business. You allow that they soon learned to serve the artillery, that their barracks were of the best construction, that they were brave, &c. &c. &c. What produced these wonders? The love of liberty. While they preserve it, they will have nothing to fear, and the military art will be useless to them.

They will do well to remember the battles you describe, not to study the plans or circumstances of them, but as splendid monuments erected to liberty. If they are ever obliged to reassume their arms, the same genius will inspire them without this study.

In a word, every individual of a republic, should be brave, should be a soldier, by birth the defender of his country; but none should be so by profession."

This ties into what Roma noted about the American Revolution serving as a tangible example.

Just to clarify I do agree that Locke had some influence and that many other Anglo-American philosophes did as well. But I do think that the French Revolution was largely a rejection of the principles outlined by John Locke throughout, as well as many other Anglo-American philosophes. From the moment that they put the Phrygian cap on the King's head to the moment that Napoleon seized power. It is mostly these differences which are the most relevant to French revolutionary rhetoric and the course of the French Revolution as a whole. I will agree with Ludicus on the specific points which he points out the differences between French rhetoric and Anglo-American rhetoric. With Napoleon it was probably more similar to the English than to the Americans, but that is a different topic. Locke was not as influential as many others if we are going by a particular philosophe.

Even the early moderates such as Mirabeau and Diderot rejected the majority of these Anglo-American principles. That Brissot, Thomas Paine and Lafayette thought they could affect the outcome and create a state comparable to England or America I think demonstrates their nearsightedness more than anything. But I really do question to what extent someone like Brissot or Lafayette was willing to emulate the United States and England. Given that Lafayette's initial actions could already be seen as a significant deviation and also keeping in mind that these individuals only played a very early role and many of them switched their positions soon after. I am more than willing to pull a Marxist () and suggest that all quotes and statements should be taken into a specific context and with the exact meaning in French. The reason being that it is quite possible that when these French philosophes speak of "Liberte" they are actually referring to their own specific definition of what they think it constitutes. I agree more with Jellinek in chapters 3, 4 and 5 that the French must have been influenced by the earlier constitutions of the various colonies due to the fact that these were the existing examples of bills of rights and legislation. The French adopted rhetoric from these legislations for practical purposes and ultimately the similarities are due to this similarity in ideology. As is demonstrated in Chapter 5 the Revolutionaries did not copy from any specific piece of legislation and they pulled or were influenced from various legislations. Jellinek however claims that this demonstrates a direct influence or copy, rather than the more likely extrapolation: that the same kind of rhetoric will lead to the same conclusions.

This is really why I disagree with Jellinek on many of his positions. A good example is chapter 2 where he states that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is not solely based on the Social Contract of Rousseau. This in itself is not that controversial because there were multiple so called "Social Contracts" by various philosophes, and indeed many of them share positions in which they overlap. The Declaration of the Rights of Man also has many articles which can be compared to the positions of John Locke (especially the last two; Articles 16 and 17 and yet there are other articles which are more in line with Rousseau such as Articles 1, 4 and 5). But I really must stress that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is not in itself a constitution and the wording is so poor that it can be interpreted through any lens so long as all the requirements outlined in these articles are met. When there exists contradictions in practice the Declaration is more likely to lean towards a Rousseau interpretation. Unlike the American Revolution, the French were not looking for a totally binding document and preferred pragmatic measures, as influential as this document may have been it was in fact a worthless document as both its detractors and adherents soon realized. Plus we can actually see where this rhetoric led throughout the 1789 to the 1804 period. Whether Rousseau was the main influence or not most of these philosophes were more in line with the social principles of Rousseau rather than the individual principles of John Locke. So in a way saying that Rousseau was not the source is almost a redundant statement on Jellinek's part. This is even something which John Locke conceded to later in life, that individual interests could come into conflict with social interests and this was the idea which took off and contributed in large part to the development of Communism and Socialism.

Appraisal:
Both Cyclops and Ludicus have correctly determined the practical differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Ludicus has more or less accurately stated that taken as a whole the rhetoric and ideology of the French revolutionaries did in fact reject the basic and important principles which defined Locke's Social Contract. However ultimately Pontifex Maximus is correct. As he stated in the original thread the wording and interpretation of American legislation more accurately allowed for laws based on Liberal principles. This is clear when one sees that in France the Liberal lobby was practically non-existent until 1815 and came both as a rejection of radical Jacobinism, an oppressive Bourbon monarchy and an attempt to negotiate with the all encompassing power of Napoleon. Since the Liberal interpretation is the crux of the argument then Pontifex Maximus is correct and that is regardless of any other points made towards the American influence debate. A debate which came into being after Pontifex Maximus' original statements were misinterpreted and then spiraled into something else.