The US role in the French Revolution

**Whitey5150** · April 29, 2009, 05:51 PM

What is your opinion about this matter?

Personally, I think in the situation the United States was in at that period of time, they made a good choice. But I still think that the US could have shipped supplies to the French royalty.

Then again, what French government did the US have close relations with? was it the Royalty or the rebellious?

Let me your opinions. This is a topic I find very interesting and what to hear outside opinions.

**Chukada1** · April 29, 2009, 06:37 PM

What did the U.S do for France in the French Revolution again? I think a better thread would be the French role in the American Revolution.

**Whitey5150** · April 29, 2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Chukada1

What did the U.S do for France in the French Revolution again? I think a better thread would be the French role in the American Revolution.

Well what it was was that after the Revolutionary war, Franch attempted the side principle. And the French royalty I believe desperately needed the US forces to intervene with the situation.

And what General Washington did was that he refused to join his french allies. and I really do not understand why besides the fact they had limited ary reserves. they could at least send supplies to the battlefront.

**Chukada1** · April 29, 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Whitey5150

Well what it was was that after the Revolutionary war, Franch attempted the side principle. And the French royalty I believe desperately needed the US forces to intervene with the situation.

And what General Washington did was that he refused to join his french allies. and I really do not understand why besides the fact they had limited ary reserves. they could at least send supplies to the battlefront.

So the United States did nothing?

I guess Canada also helped the French people by not doing anything. Cheers for Persia as well, props to those Indians.

**Lord Tomyris** · April 30, 2009, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Chukada1

I guess Canada also helped the French people by not doing anything...props to those Indians.

Britain was France's most persistant enemy at this time!

**Chukada1** · April 30, 2009, 06:04 AM

Seriously guys.

Are we patting America on the back for decieding to do absoloutey nothing during the French Revolution? That seems a little pathetic.

**Stavroforos** · April 29, 2009, 08:57 PM

From what I know, the French had spent tonnes of money funding the war in America, and so they were expecting that, as America had not paid back the debt, that it would provide some sort of support.

Personally, I think it best that America stayed out of the Revolution, but I definitely think America should have allied with Revolutionary / Napoleonic France, out of both obligation to their alliance and out of principle.

**Tiberius Tosi** · April 29, 2009, 09:07 PM

America did not really intervene or anything because America was itself split on the issue. Hamiltonians (Federalists) felt that it was a terrible thing or thought it was good but that it was being executed (no pun intended) in the wrong manner; whereas Jeffersonian (Democratic-Republicans) supported it whole-heartedly and wanted to throw the US support behind the revolutionaries.

George Washington being to cool calm guy he was, decided it was in the US' interests to stay out of the affair because of later repercussions (from Britain or a victorious French Monarch).

It was the best decision to stay out of it.

It's rather ironic that in some ways the American revolution contributed to the French Revolution. The French monarchy was glad to have us as an ally against Britain, but the peasants could care less and were pissed about France spending money and military resources (mostly the money to supply them lol, they didn't care about the troops much in this context) on an American affair.

**Erebus Pasha** · April 29, 2009, 09:48 PM

If I remember correctly the French were a little peeved with the US and Britain signing the Treaty of Paris in 1783 as they felt that Ben Franklin had gone behind their backs by not consulting them first.

I don't think that the US was in any position to give anything but limited support to Revolutionary France. Militarily the US was still active against Indian tribes in the Old North West but their armed forces weren't capable of aiding an ally against a coalition of European enemies. The prospect of angering Britain was a factor as well. Trade with Britain was very profitable but the old concerns of the impressment of American sailors by the Royal Navy, and the indirect support of Britain for Indian tribes hostile to the US government would come to a head sooner rather than later.

**Frankie88** · April 30, 2009, 04:08 AM

The American War of Independence was both an inspiration to the French revolutionaries and a cause of the revolution itself. For example ''The Declaration of the Rights of Men and of the Citizen'' shows several simular provisions like those in the United States Constitution. The equality and freedom preached in the US constition was an inspiration to the englithened upper middle class of Paris that basicly had no power in the Estates General. The French support of the American revolutionaries on the other hand also left France with a huge debt that came on top of an existing

ty financial situation from Louis XIV wars with half of Europe. A huge debt combined with bad harvests and a large group of citizens ignored by the clergy and nobility were among the causes of the revolution.

**Mar77** · April 30, 2009, 06:39 AM

The US was in no way ready to fight a war at that point, let alone one across the Ocean. In addition, it would have been very unpopular with a large number of Americans (New Englanders/Federalists) who were more pro-British, and after they started chopping people's heads off at a fast rate, opinion against them continued to go down.

The US was in a poor financial state at this point too. It still had tons of debt left over from their Revolution so they could not even consider fighting...though there were a number of American privateers who did inflict some damage on the British fleet (recruited by French ambassador to France, Edmond-Charles Genet, which really got Washington mad)

**Farnan** · May 01, 2009, 09:10 AM

I disagree with the last line of Lysimachos11

The reason there wasn't a successful rebellion of such type is not that Britain was liberal enough already, but that movements that tried it (such as the Chartists) lacked popular support. This was due to a low level of literacy in Britain compared to the US so the ideals couldn't spread as far.