You should both read up on the history of the French Revolution, as well as the definition of the word "conceived". Yes, the parent was off in calling out the French Revolution specifically, but the actual statement made was spot-on.
The American Revolution was, in fact, built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas, found in myriad writings of mostly non-American Enlightenment thinkers who had been working out various new, altered, subversive, or otherwise novel ideas, studies, and classifications in political theory (among other topics) for nearly 125 years before American founders built upon them in both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. A basic review of political theory in the Age of Enlightenment would both confirm for you the correctness of the parent's statements (despite the errant inclusion of the French Revolution), as well as help you see exactly where the American Revolution got the whole of its ideas. America's founders very much imbibed on the Enlightenment, particularly works of political theory.
The French Revolution was not in any way "conceived of" as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, it had been growing in its own specifically French/European manner among the salons and their philosophes, and was quite in step with the march of Enlightenment across much of Western Europe. Ultimately this was brought to a head when, seeing that the Americans' disregard for English rule was something they, too, could emulate in order to bring Enlightenment ideals to practical fruition in France, shit got started in the Estates-General in May 1789 (just two months after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, bringing the fully Montesquieu-esque political system into reality).
I apologize if I seem overly pedantic, but when you call out someone to check a timeline based on two words in an otherwise sound comment that added something to the discussion, you should at least ensure you have your own timeline correct--particularly if you are going to be bandying about the idea that Historical Event X "was not even conceived of until after" Historical Event Y. History rarely works like that, especially when it is happening but a handful of years apart.
Ultimately, what Abbé Sieyès said in his famous pamphlet, "What is the Third Estate?", is so applicable to both revolutions as to further indicate that a revolutionary wave was both forming and interacting on both sides of the Atlantic (trans-Atlantic intellectual and cultural history is an eye-opening field of study):
"What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something."
The Americans espoused the same sentiment. Neither the American founders nor the Estates-General were owners of that idea, though. They both took it from 125 years of hundreds of intellectuals hammering it out.
That's not entirely right. The American Revolution and the Founding Fathers borrowed some ideas from the French Revolution, which would make that revolution the first in line. Yes, it was major, but it wasn't the first.
Yes, but the original claim was that the French Revolution codified the idea of the separation of powers, which is clearly false. The evidence of that is that America already existed with this structure and was obviously known to the west.
They were also familiar with the concepts and theories that had not long before been published in France by Montesquieu, Rousseau, Diderot and others.
Jacques Barzun argues that "Revolution" is the wrong term for what happened in the USA, even as a convenient shorthand. There was no widespread transfer of property and no wholesale breakdown of social order. It was a struggle of a local elite against a remote elite. He exclusively uses "War of Independence" in his historical writing.
Clearly factually my statement is incorrect. However there certainly was a lot of cross-polination of enlightenment ideas between the early US, France and England.
The french rights pronounced by the French Revolution had nothing to do with the idea of a Creator and were very similar in concept with many of the Founding Fathers'. So this does not seem like a reasonable argument to make.
Indeed. I have heard it said that the French Revolution marked the end of the Enlightenment.
No doubt that the founders of the French Revolution didn't quite have the intellectual framework they needed.
Neither did the US Founding Fathers---their "natural rights" (granted by a "Creator") was extremely close, but has not withstood the test of time.
edit: I wrote a long and thoughtful response to a grandchild of this comment, but then could not post it because I am "submitting too fast"---fuck you too, HN.
The US independance was completely inspired by the "Lumières" (the philosophical movement of the Enlighteners), which originated in France and led to the French revolution as well as the emergence of true democracy accross Europe. So even if the US was already independant by the time the French Revolution happened, this is only because it was way more complicated to achieve the latter. But let's not be mistaken about its origins.
The revolution set the stage for the modern world though, a world separated in sovereign states (instead of kingdoms) the three branches government etc
I'm fairly certain that the US was already independent and had adopted the current Constitution by the time the French Revolution happened.
What led to the American Revolution was a lack of much governance by Britain of the colonies for generations, which led to the establishment of self-governance. When eventually the King didn't have enough money and needed to levy more taxes on the colonies, the new ruling class revolted. The American Revolution was not a revolution in the sense that France had or that we typically talk about. It was a War of Secession. Comparing it to attempts to overthrow the ruling class in one's own country is not appropriate. It was war to shake off a foreign oppressor from the other side of the world.
You are a bit unkind to the French: ideological affinity between American and French revolutionaires clearly went beyond their hatred for a common enemy, as proven by the overall shape of resulting Constitutions.
I do agree on the aims of the Eclipse project though.
Re: France and the United States, you have the timeline mixed up a bit. France & the French intellectuals of course played a large role in the American revolution, but it was America that became a democracy first. Lafayette, one of the key players in the French Revolution, served under Washington and lead troops in the US before coming back to France and playing a key role in the founding of the First Republic.
It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to end or augment monarchial rule.
The world in the 18th century was not -- and today still is not -- able to grow and nurture a powerful country towards "absolute moral good." The world is still a primitive and dangerous place full of despots at worst in inequality at best.
It's good to hold the US to a higher standard, but unfair IMO to critique with such loathing the way the OP did.
Finally: It's certainly true that many of the ideals of the American Revolution were inspired by European writing on the subject. Not surprising considering most colonists in North America then were Europeans themselves. We can never know exactly how the 19th century would've unfolded had the British Empire not been so immature and insecure with themselves. They were a relatively young world power and they seem to have believed in the same age old "Domino Theory" that still trips up the US today. Had they been more wise in their choices, they would've granted the colonies freedom from Parliament's authority in exchange for full economic participation in the empire. Most likely you would've seen this unfold over the 19th century and quite possibly maintain itself to this day. Had America been a Sterling country, the British economic situation during WWI & WWII would be so vastly different that it's hard to even speculate. And if that were the case, how would that have changed the pace at which democracy unfolds across the European continent and around the world?
I think it's easy and fair and accurate to argue that the spread of democratic and republican ideals was influenced and catalyzed by the 8 years of hot conflict during the American Revolution. I don't think you can over-state how inspiring a Saratoga or a Yorktown was.
Thanks. I've been away and Its not often one gets defended like this on HN.
Actually the parent is wrong. As we were talking about ideas and thinking in the revolutions (rather than the fighting), the two were contemporaneous in part and influenced each other. See for example the strong links between the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and the US bill of rights (1789-1791).
The American Revolution was, in fact, built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas, found in myriad writings of mostly non-American Enlightenment thinkers who had been working out various new, altered, subversive, or otherwise novel ideas, studies, and classifications in political theory (among other topics) for nearly 125 years before American founders built upon them in both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. A basic review of political theory in the Age of Enlightenment would both confirm for you the correctness of the parent's statements (despite the errant inclusion of the French Revolution), as well as help you see exactly where the American Revolution got the whole of its ideas. America's founders very much imbibed on the Enlightenment, particularly works of political theory.
The French Revolution was not in any way "conceived of" as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, it had been growing in its own specifically French/European manner among the salons and their philosophes, and was quite in step with the march of Enlightenment across much of Western Europe. Ultimately this was brought to a head when, seeing that the Americans' disregard for English rule was something they, too, could emulate in order to bring Enlightenment ideals to practical fruition in France, shit got started in the Estates-General in May 1789 (just two months after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, bringing the fully Montesquieu-esque political system into reality).
I apologize if I seem overly pedantic, but when you call out someone to check a timeline based on two words in an otherwise sound comment that added something to the discussion, you should at least ensure you have your own timeline correct--particularly if you are going to be bandying about the idea that Historical Event X "was not even conceived of until after" Historical Event Y. History rarely works like that, especially when it is happening but a handful of years apart.
Ultimately, what Abbé Sieyès said in his famous pamphlet, "What is the Third Estate?", is so applicable to both revolutions as to further indicate that a revolutionary wave was both forming and interacting on both sides of the Atlantic (trans-Atlantic intellectual and cultural history is an eye-opening field of study):
"What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something."
The Americans espoused the same sentiment. Neither the American founders nor the Estates-General were owners of that idea, though. They both took it from 125 years of hundreds of intellectuals hammering it out.
EDIT: Formatting & a couple extraneous words.
reply