Why do some reject the French Revolution?

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
It directly established a liberal society. Democracy would have been nice but has nothing on the fundamental shift in societal model. The Revolution effectively got rid of feudalism.

Again, you simply don't seem to realize how profound these changes were. And by the look of it because no one in the history of the American colonies or the US has even encountered them and so have never had to wrap their heads around the implications.
Some interesting points here, but at the same time, I think it’s best to remember that the “Americans” we are speaking of were really all Europeans mostly from Great Britain, a goodly number from the Netherlands, and lost of Germans. This wasn’t a population that lived in complete isolation or came from a different planet - they were Europeans. So I don’t take very kindly to any suggestions that Americans couldn’t possible understand the issues facing Europeans since they were, um, Europeans.
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
And specifically British Europeans in the C18, the British share the same semi-detached view of the French Revolution as Americans do, because they were going their own way toward proper democarcy, a liberal society, equality under the rule of law etc etc.; and neither take kindly to the view that the world owes all of these things mainly or exclusively to the French Revolution! One notices how touchy some people on the Continent get if casts the slightest aspersion against this precious revolution.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
And specifically British Europeans in the C18, the British share the same semi-detached view of the French Revolution as Americans do, because they were going their own way toward proper democarcy, a liberal society, equality under the rule of law etc etc.; and neither take kindly to the view that the world owes all of these things mainly or exclusively to the French Revolution! One notices how touchy some people on the Continent get if casts the slightest aspersion against this precious revolution.
There was a member in here who basically said that the American Revolution wasn’t a real revolution. Not sure why he said that, but my impression is that it didn’t qualify because not enough people lost their heads or were otherwise murdered. Sad.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,499
Athens, Greece
There was a member in here who basically said that the American Revolution wasn’t a real revolution. Not sure why he said that, but my impression is that it didn’t qualify because not enough people lost their heads or were otherwise murdered. Sad.
I think that was me, and I believe I explained my view adequately enough. Nothing to do with rolling heads. This is what I wrote (post 155):

The American revolution was more of a war for independence, not a radical socio-political breakthrough from the past, and in that sense, not a true revolution like the French one. In my opinion, the truly remarkable thing regarding the American revolution is not how and why the Americans won their independence, but what they did with it, meaning the Constitution and Rights setting the political and social frame of their newly founded Republic. But again, influential as those may be, they were not even close to the influence the French Revolution have exerted in European affairs for years to come, ever since. The Americans showed that those Enlightened ideals could be adopted in state creation, but their fight against the British empire, their revolution, was not for these ideals, it was a fight for independence. The French showed that those ideals could and would fight back against those repressing them, forever changing the world around them.

Why do some reject the French Revolution?

If you need any clarifications on my post I would be glad to elaborate.
 
Likes: sparky

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
Here you go again. Monarchy was no longer the same as before 1789. France and it's society would never return to state of things before 1789.
Whether there were rivers of blood doesn't really matter in definition of Revolution. Look up the term ,, Revolution '' please and see for description of what processes term ,, Revolution'' is used. Trust me, you will never find in any definition a statement : ,, if 10 000 people die in process, it is no longer Revolution''.

Hm. Never said it would not be revolution if the number of people killed exceeded a certain number. But never mind. When studying history in college, my appreciation of French royalty, was rather low and I found myself agreeing with the need to remove the French royal house from power. I still believe that the French monarchy had outIived its usefulness to the mass of French people, quite without knowing much about or appreciating how the rest of Europe perceived France’s place on the Continent. It clearly varied from country to country but the French monarchy was no cool drink of water when it was hustled off of the world stage.

Considering France’s position at the time as being in possession of the “cockpit of Europe”, the fall of the royal family was bound to have cataclysmic effects throughout Europe. In reading the submissions here, I have to modify my observations somewhat and agree with other posters who have kindly pointed out the fact that the American Revolution came at a time when a nascent United States on a new continent did not have the impediment of being obliged to deal with many other contiguous states all run by other royal houses. More to the point, perhaps, many, if not all soon-to-be former colonies already had functioning colonial governments, but had no “national” government and these state governments were not generally controversial.

There was a movement afoot in colonial America to make George Washington king of America. It is to his immense credit that he put the kibosh to that ill-starred notion. Thank Heaven.

Back to France, my objections to the French Revolution have to do with the extremely bloody nature of their revolution, not the French goal of wanting to get rid its monarchy. To this day I have a difficult time understanding why the whole bloody business was, well, so bloody. I guess I’m not very used to the idea of French people offing so many of their fellow countrymen instead of just clapping their erstwhile countrymen in irons, or whatever, or putting them on trial. French contributors here can certainly enlighten me and put me on the right path.

Oh, and the French Revolution did seem to devour its own, and did not come to completion until a long time after.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
I think that was me, and I believe I explained my view adequately enough. Nothing to do with rolling heads. This is what I wrote (post 155):

The American revolution was more of a war for independence, not a radical socio-political breakthrough from the past, and in that sense, not a true revolution like the French one. In my opinion, the truly remarkable thing regarding the American revolution is not how and why the Americans won their independence, but what they did with it, meaning the Constitution and Rights setting the political and social frame of their newly founded Republic. But again, influential as those may be, they were not even close to the influence the French Revolution have exerted in European affairs for years to come, ever since. The Americans showed that those Enlightened ideals could be adopted in state creation, but their fight against the British empire, their revolution, was not for these ideals, it was a fight for independence. The French showed that those ideals could and would fight back against those repressing them, forever changing the world around them.

Why do some reject the French Revolution?

If you need any clarifications on my post I would be glad to elaborate.
Thank you.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,082
Lisbon, Portugal
The US owes the success of its revolution to the French monarchy and the crucial support the French provided. Most Americans are probably blissfully unaware of the vital support received from the French. Of course, the French were acting in their own interests in opposing the British, but any port in the storm was good enough for the Americans. The Dutch and a few others provided vital assistance as well.

The US Revolution - the first of its kind in “modern” times - resulted in fighting on a continental scale, but one thing it did not do was result in the rivers of random blood and chopped off heads during the so-called French Revolution. That level of brutality never happened here.

I’ve never Understood how the French Revolution can be held up as an example of a “democratic revolution”. The French monarchy definitely needed to go, but the manner in which this was carried out did not bring credit to the French and, in fact, ended up with another “monarch” who then proceeded to attack all of his neighbors. Really?
Who declares that the French Revolution is an example of "democratic revolution"?
Who says that the French Revolution had its principal objective to just overthrow the monarchy?
Again, this is a very shallow view of what this major historical event signifies, and totally ignores the overwhelming impact and influence the series of events and political turmoil - dubbed as the "French Revolution" - had in the world.
 
Likes: Gvelion

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,719
Sydney
The revolution is a wrong term , there were several quite different phases , driven by different characters

one could think of several revolutions
the anti feudal , pro constitutional monarchy
the purely republican
the terror
the return at a purely republican form
a military coup of the former eventually morphing into an absolute personal rule