The American Revolution vs. The French Revolution

A Leap of Faith vs. A Walk Through Hell

 

            The word “revolution” is a celebrated tribute of the American way of thinking; it is a celebration of strength, character, and above all, freedom. Putting the French revolution under the same light, and drawing a parallel, the apparent conclusion is that the French revolution is a celebration of chaos. More aptly, it was a mishandled endeavor resulting in a state of anarchy. As the man that gained the most from the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Anarchy is the stepping stone to absolute power.” He could not have been more on the mark with regards to this instance and how he applied it.  The great upheaval produced by the French Revolution came at great cost to both humanity and France itself, whereas the American Revolution was a successful battle for ideals; France played with fire and got burnt, America distinguished itself by lighting the torch of revolutionary ideas that is still burning today in modern day America.

            America’s revolution had its trying times, no doubt – but it had nothing that could compare with the tragedies and horrors that took place during the French Revolution. The American Revolution was carefully approached and had a definite goal; it was not the result of hundreds of years of poverty and hardships under an absolute monarch. It began with peaceful colonial protests and boycotts then shifted into violent responses, open civil war and finally war against England. It did not, however, create multiple vacuums in power: the American Dream was still shining with the First Continental Congress taking firm hold. Equal rights between States deterred a dictatorial central government from taking control, which was unlikely anyway due to the previous government under British rule. Radical rebellions, such as that by Daniel Shays, were met by national leaders convinced that the nation’s well being required a strong and protective constitution protecting individual and state’s rights and liberties.[1] A radical presence was also lacking in the convention, allowing for more moderate reforms and ideology to take shape. The final result of the Revolution was a free nation, “for the people and by the people” – the exact goal of the Revolution itself. Producing a free economy and limited government, it was by and large an outstanding success - one that had given birth to what would become the world’s most powerful country.

            The French Revolution, on the other hand, was, according to Russian naturalist, author and soldier, Prince Petr Kropotkin, “the source of all the present communist, anarchist and socialist conceptions.”[2]  In the 18th century, France was the most prominent European country; mercantilism and the Old Regime, however, could not stave off the cries of change due to widespread poverty. Those cries spurred a revolution that overturned all of the present orders of its time, but in doing so sent France first into anarchy and then into dictatorship.

 Even with the National Constituent Assembly of France already formed, the Revolution only truly began with the bloodshed during the storming of the Bastille, the first of many anarchical and unreasoned acts that would occur during the revolution. This led to a series of peasant uprisings throughout France as manorialism was overturned via burning, pillaging and murdering.[3] As if to return to the voice of reason, the Assembly issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, promising free speech, press and religion. Twenty-eight days later the Assembly confiscated all church property, setting a dangerous precedent despite its justification – a telltale sign of a hypocritical, power thirsty body.[4]  After two years of controversy and conformation control, the Assembly produced the Constitution of 1791, which, although ending feudalism and absolute monarchy, failed to make all citizens equal before the law. As wars broke out between France and Austria/Prussia, any hopes for the Revolution to retain some sense of sanity fell in ashes. Despite a brief declaration as a Republic, the radical Jacobins gained control of France, executing King Louis XVI. The Jacobin dictatorial period and the “reign of terror” under the Committee of Public Safety was the most distressing and clearly failing period of the French Revolution. It brought with it not only change, but radical terror, death and destruction. “Between September 1793 and July 1794, some 25,000 victims were dragged to public squares in carts-the famous tumbrels-and delivered to the guillotines.”[5] During this period, revolutionary leaders began to turn on each other, and were eventually swallowed by the period itself. The Girondins fell to the Jacobins, while at the same time federalist revolts were put down. A democratic constitution was drawn up yet never implemented. On September 17th the Law of Suspects was passed, allowing counter-revolutionaries to be charged and executed with vague definitions of “crimes against liberty.” The Jacobin government lasted barely a year without restraint – partly because no-one really controlled it.[6] These actions were the heart of the anarchy taking control in France, anarchy that would soon give way to Napoleon and dictatorship; the necessary vacuum of acceptable power was being created.

            After the fall of the Jacobin government, the Directory took place, established a constitution it was only too willing to violate whenever necessary. After years of inconsistency, the Directory lost all respect and support, and put the final pavement on the way for the war hero Napoleon Bonaparte’s military coup in 1799, giving rise to his dictatorship and ending the Revolution. The hopes of establishing a liberal parliamentary government that was intended by the revolutionaries of 1789 died with the directory; in its place was a dictator with more power then any French king.[7]

By tracing the events in the American and French revolutions, the contrast between the two is exceptionally clear. The French Revolution became the model for future modern revolutions, but what it brought forth was by no means success or liberty. The French people still lacked liberty, equality and fraternity, and even the small gains won by women during the revolution were overturned by Napoleon. While it did end the long standing Old Regime, it did not replace it with the ideal they were searching for; it instead rode a long, bloody route through anarchy and into despotism. The American Revolution, in comparison, was essentially bloodless and conservative, a winning fight for security as opposed to a losing fight with anarchy. It was kept in control by a sense of restraint and a single, respectable body of leadership that was completely lacking throughout the French revolution. “There was no 'revolutionary justice'; there was no reign of terror; there were no bloodthirsty proclamations by the Continental Congress."[8] The American Revolution was a successful leap into “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – its French counterpart was but a stepping stone to dictatorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

·        T. Walter Wallbank…[et al.]  Civilization: Past and Present. (New York:

      HarperCollins College Publishers, 1996)

-This was an invaluable source for factual information as well as      critical insight into both revolutions. It provided a wide range of applicable information.

 

·        Petr Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution (New York: Putnam's Sons), 1909, Introduction.

-This was a second hand source used solely for the citation of a quote.

 

·        http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8908pete.htm

-This was another invaluable source for providing some excellent insight as well as second-hand sources for applicable quotes. While it contained some bias, it also contained thorough research on the two revolutions that served to support points as well as make new ones.

 

·        http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=761557826&page=3

-This source was valuable for providing facts and summaries that were not found in the other sources, especially regarding the latter stages of the Revolution and specifics.

 

·        Benjamin Hart, Faith and Freedom, (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1988), p. 301.

-This was just another second hand source used solely for the citation of a quote.


[1] T. Walter Wallbank…[et al.]  Civilization: Past and Present. (New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1996), pp. 569

[2] Petr Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution (New York: Putnam's Sons), 1909, Introduction.

 

[3] T. Walter Wallbank…[et al.]  Civilization: Past and Present. (New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1996), pp. 575

 

[4] http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8908pete.htm

[5] T. Walter Wallbank…[et al.]  Civilization: Past and Present. (New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1996), pp. 582

[6] http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=761557826&page=3

[7] http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=761557826&page=4

[8] Benjamin Hart, Faith and Freedom, (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1988), p. 301.