More Important to Modern Western Liberalism:1776, 1789, 1848

[Strike For The South]

What say you?

Pros:

1776
-First free country in the Americas (In the European sense, the natives had very advanced and complex socities but that's neither here nor there)

-First country to throw off colinial tyrrany

-The United States DOI and constitution are the base for nearly all others (esp in the western hemisphere)

Cons:
-Very much a top heavy revolution, The landless and minorites were swepped under the rug.

1789
Pros
-A true peoples revolution no Bourgeoisie here

-Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen expands on the American one

-First nation with any identity to completley transform itself.

Cons
-No Bourgeoisie because they were all killed off usually after helping those ungreatful Parisians.

-France became a dictatorship soon after and tried to conquer all of Europe, How German of them

1848
Pros
-Laid groundwork for a unified Italy and Germany

-First signs of self determantion in the Habsburg dominion

-Started concessions that would eventually evolve into a work week, min wage, ETC.

-Metternich was put in his place and forced to resign

Cons
-Only truly succesful in Denmark and Holland

-Groundwork is one thing groundbreaking is another

I'm just jotting down thoughts feel free to rip this post apart. I am forced to say 1789 simlpy because I feel the Americans had to make concessions to make our country work. Not there is anything wrong with that it just is what it is.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Out of those, 1776 followed by 1848. The French Revolution may have started out as liberalism, but especially in the end phase and in the Jacobin phase was anything but.

[Aemilius Paulus]

1848. I do believe that had a larger effect on European politics than the US "noble experiment". I could be wrong of course, but this is my opinion. The American Revolution is definitely the second place though. French Revolution was important in its own right, but its effects were very different, even though it had its own role in liberalisation.

[Fragony]

1848, so children what did we learn from 1848. This being 2009.

nothing :no:

[Beskar]

I thought the French Revolution was before the American Revolution.

You learn something new.

[Kralizec]

I picked 1789. No other event led to such a dramatic change in the relationship between the people and the state.

The American revolution was in itself a major historical event, but as far as the history of liberalism is concerned it's not as significant as the aftermath of the French revolution.

1848... The second French republic regressed back into a monarchy a couple of years later (a rather striking example of history repeating itself), and the German assembly wich was supposed to draft a framework for a new unified state was forcibly dispersed as soon as the "revolution" had lost its momentum. Other than that, nothing significant happened in 1848 that wouldn't have happened sooner or later anyway.

[HoreTore]

I pick.........


1968.

[Fragony]

I thought the French Revolution was before the American Revolution.


Depends on which one, there have been 5, unruly bunch these froggies got to love theem

[Husar]

1789, or can anyone tell me why we talked about it at least three times, usually in great length, at school? :juggle2:
I'm sooo bored of it (probably why I forgot a lot of it) but I think it was the most important nonetheless.
Going by that rating system, 1848 must be second and the ACW we hardly even mentioned so forget about that. ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

1789
Pros
-A true peoples revolution no Bourgeoisie here

-Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen expands on the American one

-First nation with any identity to completley transform itself.

Cons
-No Bourgeoisie because they were all killed off usually after helping those ungreatful Parisians.

-France became a dictatorship soon after and tried to conquer all of Europe, How German of them
I agree with all of what you say, except that none of it is true.


The bourgeoisie seized power in the Revolution. The Third Estate is the bourgeoisie. (Yes, bourgeois has many meanings, nowadays it refers more to the settled classes. In socialism, the bourgeoisie is the possesing class as opposed to the unpossing proletariat)

All of Europe tried to conquer France, not the other way round. Then we defeated them all, several times. Spreading revolution, liberty and human rights from Cadiz to Moscow. :knight:
(But reality was far more complex than this simplification. In most states, the lines were divided between pro-French and pro-liberty, and reactionary, anti-liberty, anti-French)

Etc.

[Louis VI the Fat]

those ungreatful ParisiansYes, merely a spelling mistake, I know.

However, the centre of the universe can not stand for insolence, however unintentional. 'Ungreat' does not do for a city that completely razes itself to the ground every 25 years, only to spring up more beautiful and grand than before, re-inventing Western civilization in the process while the world holds its breath and looks on in awe.


Paris works differently. Paris is the only measure for Paris. What to lesser cities is a mere tool, a mundane object, judged solely by how well it performs this mundane function, is to Paris a means of artistic expression and political contention. See examples below.

There is no mundane in Paris. Nor 'ungreatness'.




'Rain Pipe'


https://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1163/stlouis.jpg (https://img42.imageshack.us/i/stlouis.jpg/)



'Hospital'


https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7733/hospital08.jpg (https://img12.imageshack.us/i/hospital08.jpg/)




'Bridge'


https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3225/20080811080750pontalexa.jpg (https://img12.imageshack.us/i/20080811080750pontalexa.jpg/)

[gaelic cowboy]

Louis your bound to know were did this western liberalism come from 1848 keeps coming up but I always thought that was a consequence of beliefs held before that date.

I don't hold the view america was the first country to institute western liberalism I feel that Englands civil war planted seeds in people that spread through the early settlers from Ulster and Scotland to America

[Strike For The South]

I agree with all of what you say, except that none of it is true.


The bourgeoisie seized power in the Revolution. The Third Estate is the bourgeoisie. (Yes, bourgeois has many meanings, nowadays it refers more to the settled classes. In socialism, the bourgeoisie is the possesing class as opposed to the unpossing proletariat)

All of Europe tried to conquer France, not the other way round. Then we defeated them all, several times. Spreading revolution, liberty and human rights from Cadiz to Moscow. :knight:
(But reality was far more complex than this simplification. In most states, the lines were divided between pro-French and pro-liberty, and reactionary, anti-liberty, anti-French)

Etc.

You took your best and brightest, stole there ideas and then lopped there heads off. I will admit they the rest of Europe would've been happy squash you (lord knows they tried) but you let the corissican come in and run things for a few years.

As per Pairs. Vastly overated. San Antonio is better

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis your bound to know were did this western liberalism come from 1848 keeps coming up but I always thought that was a consequence of beliefs held before that date.

I don't hold the view america was the first country to institute western liberalism I feel that Englands civil war planted seeds in people that spread through the early settlers from Ulster and Scotland to America

Not so much the Civil War as the Restoration and then the Coming of William of Orange. We had a Bill of Rights more than a Century before America. The idea of fettered power was re-invented in England in the latter half of the Seventeenth Century, that idea was then exported to America and France.

[gaelic cowboy]

So would that mean that the earlier Reformation in England was a constituent of the later ideas

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So would that mean that the earlier Reformation in England was a constituent of the later ideas

The Reformation? No, that was all about the increase of Royal power, not it's regulation.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Reformation? No, that was all about the increase of Royal power, not it's regulation.

Not the King the fact that people were now debating religous led to debate of politics by the common man the letters back to Ireland by the presbyterian settlers in America a choc full of ideas straight from liberalism ironic seeing as there a very restrictive religon

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis your bound to know were did this western liberalism come from 1848 keeps coming up but I always thought that was a consequence of beliefs held before that date.

I don't hold the view america was the first country to institute western liberalism I feel that Englands civil war planted seeds in people that spread through the early settlers from Ulster and Scotland to AmericaThe roots of liberalism run deep. The furthest origins depend a good deal on one's interpretation of 'liberalism'. Since it is so old and contentious, it has meant many different things.

As for America, my recipe:
- mix some dough out of Anglo-Saxon freemen
- throw in Puritanism
- bake both for a lenghty time in the Frontier until it becomes nice and crusty
- cover this with some Locke sauce
- use French enlightenment for cheese
- Scottish enlightenment for topping
- And don't forget to use Dutch herbs at every stage

Which reminds me. The poor overlooked Dutch. They started the conflagration of 1789. Their revolution of 1787 was the template for the French, the first on the continent.

[King Henry V]

1789.

And by 1789, I mean 1789, and not the whole of the French Revolution. For to understand that you have to distinguish two years, '89 and '92.

'89 was the great year, the year when the King's power was limited, the old feudal privileges abolished and the declaration of the rights of Man adopted. '89 was the work of the great, of liberal aristocrats and the bourgeoisie influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. '89 was the benchmark for personal liberty for the next hundred years.

'92 on the other hand was when things got messy. Rabble-rousers such as the Jacobins rode the wave of populist mobocracy to seize power and butcher anyone who stood in their way. '92 and its aftermath was the Terror, the civil war, all the horror stories that one hears from the French Revolution. In the end, after years of bloodletting, Bonaparte took command and another 15 years of war followed.

1848 was '89 Mark II. After the Congress of Vienna, reactionaries like Metternich wanted to turn the clock back to 1788. Liberals were of course not happy, and 1848 was their attempt to apply the tenets of the first phase of the French Revolution in their country. They failed for the most part. The conservatives won, or in the case of France, another Bonaparte. Out of three possible outcomes, I suppose it wasn't the worst. For unlike '89, '48 had no '92.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You took your best and brightest, stole there ideas and then lopped there heads off. I will admit they the rest of Europe would've been happy squash you (lord knows they tried) but you let the corissican come in and run things for a few years.

As per Pairs. Vastly overated. San Antonio is betterWhere's your sense of fun? Can't have a good revolution without some heads rolling, eh?
How many people died in the American Revolution? :sweatdrop:

I agree that pairs are overrated.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The conservatives won, or in the case of France, another Bonaparte. Out of three possible outcomes, I suppose it wasn't the worst. For unlike '89, '48 had no '92.Yes, but what if the liberal revolution had succeeded in Germany in 1848? One can not begin to imagine how history for Europe would've developed in this case. But would it have been worse than what actually happened?

What if West German liberalism would've unified Germany, instead of Eastern Prussian autocracy and militarism? :wall:


Also, however shortlived, 1848 created a second Republic. Alas, it was not to be and in a repeat of history, a Bonaparte took the prize. In another repeat, the Empire was far more enlightened and liberal than it got credit for.

[Rhyfelwyr]

1848 for me.

1776 - The colonies were always going to cause disruption before it appeared back in Europe. 1776 is too narrow in its focus to pick as the single most important date in modern western liberalism. As to where the Yanks got all their idea from, I'm going to go against what's been said so far, and put it down to one process - Anglicisation. The rhetoric on liberalism in the US at this time is all about the ancient Anglo-Saxon constition, and the fact that they, as Englishmen, should be taxed under their own institions alone.

1789 - This is obviously another big date, however again it's focused on one country. France was well ahead of the rest of the continent in terms of developing a sense of nationhood, with only England coming close. When it did export the revolution, it never had the grounds to last in its puppet states, and it's clear that the rest of Europe was going to develop in its own time.

1848 - Although these revolutions failed for the most part, it's the first time we see the signs of discontent on such a large scale across the Old World. It really marked the beginning of the end for the old multinational monarchies, the suppression of the working classes, and removed the last elements of feudalism. And in doing this it laid the groundwork for the development of populist ethnic nationalism, and all the fun with the totalitarian regimes of the next century. But it was necessary to go through this process before modern western liberalism could really become dominant.

[Strike For The South]

Where's your sense of fun? Can't have a good revolution without some heads rolling, eh?
How many people died in the American Revolution? :sweatdrop:

I agree that pairs are overrated.

Not many, less than 50,000 IIRC.

So there was never anythnig between us?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I pick.........


1968.

That wasn't liberalism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not many, less than 50,000 IIRC.Is that all? Amateurs!

Good grief. We managed 50000 on a good day. From now on, I'm going to call yours the 'Pink Pie-eating Yankoweenie Revolution'.


So there was never anything between us?What can I say? Banquo's got a castle and, more importantly, tickets to all the good rugger matches. He wins.

[Strike For The South]

Is that all? Amateurs!

Good grief. We managed 50000 on a good day. From now on, I'm going to call yours the 'Pink Pie-eating Yankoweenie Revolution'.


Dang those kind of numbers could impress ze Germans.


What can I say? Banquo's got a castle and, more importantly, tickets to all the good rugger matches. He wins.

https://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1462/sady.png

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is that all? Amateurs!

Good grief. We managed 50000 on a good day. From now on, I'm going to call yours the 'Pink Pie-eating Yankoweenie Revolution'.

Napoleon perhaps, if you consider him a part of the French Revolution during his wars, but Robespierre never came close. OK, maybe 50,000 total.

[Meneldil]

Which reminds me. The poor overlooked Dutch. They started the conflagration of 1789. Their revolution of 1787 was the template for the French, the first on the continent.

There were several events in 80's that were just as important as the Dutch Revolution. But yes, these often tend to get overlooked, between the American and French one.


'92 on the other hand was when things got messy. Rabble-rousers such as the Jacobins rode the wave of populist mobocracy to seize power and butcher anyone who stood in their way. '92 and its aftermath was the Terror, the civil war, all the horror stories that one hears from the French Revolution. In the end, after years of bloodletting, Bonaparte took command and another 15 years of war followed.
What? This view that jacobins were "rabble-rousers" and that previous revolutionnaries were nice and what not is silly as hell. The loathed Robespierre started his career in 1789, and so did most of the Jacobins. He never supported a republic (and not many people actually did) until the King repeatedly shown he didn't want to play by the new rules.

The French Revolution became more and more radical as it felt more and more threatened, both from within the country and from outside. The people who begun the Terror, the people who started pillaging Vendée were the Girondins. The Jacobins just took up the job.
In september 1792 the Girondins were still the main political power in the country.
This spiral of self-destruction can hardly be blamed on a single party. It's sad to say but the Revolution probably only "succeeded" (as in maintening itself for ten years) because of it. Had the revolutionnaries decided to play nice, they would have been stomped by the King and his allies. It was a game in which you often had to play dirty, and in which failure meant death.

As for the topic at hand, I'd say 1789 was ideologicaly the most important, as it spread the idea of liberalism in Europe, but that 1848 was technically more important, as this time people took up the arm for freedom by themselves.

[King Henry V]

Yes, but what if the liberal revolution had succeeded in Germany in 1848? One can not begin to imagine how history for Europe would've developed in this case. But would it have been worse than what actually happened?

What if West German liberalism would've unified Germany, instead of Eastern Prussian autocracy and militarism? :wall:


Also, however shortlived, 1848 created a second Republic. Alas, it was not to be and in a repeat of history, a Bonaparte took the prize. In another repeat, the Empire was far more enlightened and liberal than it got credit for.

I said that out of the three possible outcomes (which, grossly simplified, would have been a) Liberal victory b) Conservative victory, but nevertheless incorporating liberal elements into the new status quo and c) Working class revolution à la Marx) the conservative victory was not the worst one. A liberal victory, i.e. the establishment of a liberal and unified Germany, the partial dismantlement of the Habsburg empire, would probably have been the best outcome and spared Europe much of the pain of the 20th century.
Nevertheless, the eventual outcome, the Bismarckian unification of Germany, did create a state which by the 1900s, though more autocratic than other Western European powers (yet it was still a constitutional monarchy, unlike the far more repressive Russian empire), had the one of the most advanced welfare systems in the world.

[King Henry V]

What? This view that jacobins were "rabble-rousers" and that previous revolutionnaries were nice and what not is silly as hell. The loathed Robespierre started his career in 1789, and so did most of the Jacobins. He never supported a republic (and not many people actually did) until the King repeatedly shown he didn't want to play by the new rules.

The French Revolution became more and more radical as it felt more and more threatened, both from within the country and from outside. The people who begun the Terror, the people who started pillaging Vendée were the Girondins. The Jacobins just took up the job.
In september 1792 the Girondins were still the main political power in the country.
This spiral of self-destruction can hardly be blamed on a single party. It's sad to say but the Revolution probably only "succeeded" (as in maintening itself for ten years) because of it. Had the revolutionnaries decided to play nice, they would have been stomped by the King and his allies. It was a game in which you often had to play dirty, and in which failure meant death.


I am merely stating the few that from 1792 the Jacobins gained power because they were able to harness the power of the sans-culottes to eleminate their enemies, whether Royalists, moderates or Girondins.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The French Revolution became more and more radical as it felt more and more threatened, both from within the country and from outside. The people who begun the Terror, the people who started pillaging Vendée were the Girondins. The Jacobins just took up the job.
In september 1792 the Girondins were still the main political power in the country.
This spiral of self-destruction can hardly be blamed on a single party. What? This view that Girondins were the original "rabble-rousers" and that other revolutionnaries simply continued their work is silly as hell.

The Girondins were clear-headed liberals, rational hommes d'Etat, unlike the rabble-rousing Jacobine scum. As for the Girondins starting the Terror and the wars - the Girondins simply understood better and earlier than the others that the Revolution had to succeed. And that in order for it to succeed, its opponents would have to be fought sooner or later. So make it sooner while the momentum is theirs.
Then the rabble took over. The illiterates and their hotheaded leaders, the Jacobins. That pityful alliance of adventurers and sans-culotte masses. Which forced the inherently progressive force of liberalism to the right, where it remains to this very day.

The Girondins had a grasp of international reactions and of internal realities. Plus a policy. Bring about the revolution and spread it from the Pyrennees to the Rhine, and from Spain to Warsaw. Perfectly rational. They didn't radicalise, they simply followed through their ideas, seizing opportunities and bearing in mind shifting political realities. Which forced them to the left in the beginning, to the right during the Terror and, what was left of them, further right still during the Thermidor.



I saw on Facebook that Sarkozy was there, and picked away at the Bastille. :beam:

[gaelic cowboy]

What? This view that Girondins were the original "rabble-rousers" and that other revolutionnaries simply continued their work is silly as hell.

The Girondins were clear-headed liberals, rational hommes d'Etat, unlike the rabble-rousing Jacobine scum. As for the Girondins starting the Terror and the wars - the Girondins simply understood better and earlier than the others that the Revolution had to succeed. And that in order for it to succeed, its opponents would have to be fought sooner or later. So make it sooner while the momentum is theirs.
Then the rabble took over. The illiterates and their hotheaded leaders, the Jacobins. That pityful alliance of adventurers and sans-culotte masses. Which forced the inherently progressive force of liberalism to the right, where it remains to this very day.

The Girondins had a grasp of international reactions and of internal realities. Plus a policy. Bring about the revolution and spread it from the Pyrennees to the Rhine, and from Spain to Warsaw. Perfectly rational. They didn't radicalise, they simply followed through their ideas, seizing opportunities and bearing in mind shifting political realities. Which forced them to the left in the beginning, to the right during the Terror and, what was left of them, further right still during the Thermidor.



I saw on Facebook that Sarkozy was there, and picked away at the Bastille. :beam:

Typical isnt it a movement comes about and the extremists highjack it usually because there ideals are easier to spread or the origanal moderat ideas are swatted by the establishment.

Girondins become Jacobins Menshviks become Bolsheviks the Irish Home rule party becomes Sinn Fein

[HoreTore]

That wasn't liberalism.

Not economical liberalism, no, but it sure was social liberalism.

Free sex for everyone!!! Sounds kinda liberal to me....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not economical liberalism, no, but it sure was social liberalism.

Free sex for everyone!!! Sounds kinda liberal to me....

It involved social democrats, anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, and so on. It wasn't a liberal thing, and I doubt very many of the participants voted for liberal parties.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh but liberalism in the early 19th century has very little to do with (modern liberal) political parties which are a terrible practical joke compared to the freethinkers they claim intellectual heritage of. Liberalism is about breaking down certain barriers in the form of artificial restrictions imposed on you at birth and sometimes also by social convention. It is by extension also about empowering individuals to question and participate in their government; and about the purpose & mandate of institutions.

And some true 19th century context socialists would make you blush at how (especially morally) conservative their ideas really were. Socialism has at that time *nothing* to do with Marxism/Leninism and the like. In 19th century context, socialism is mostly about a certain disappointment with the state of the world and a search for an ideal politeia which typically involves a small scale supposedly self-sustaining commune adhering to a set of principles (ranging from absolute equality to a religious dogma to combinations of that). Essentially not at all unlike Amish communities.

[Beskar]

The British Digger movement had a lot going for it. Don't overlook that.

[KukriKhan]

With respect, and due humility, 2001.

That was the year "Modern Western Liberalism" was shaken to its roots. Roots found lacking in an acknowledgement of a triumph of individual, personal rights, unalienable, to rights 'granted' from outside the body politik.

1776, 1789, 1848, all mighty years in the struggle, '01 trumps 'em (in my opinion) because of the the challenge and response.

[HoreTore]

It involved social democrats, anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, and so on. It wasn't a liberal thing, and I doubt very many of the participants voted for liberal parties.

.........As I said, social liberalism.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

.........As I said, social liberalism.

...which is relatively unrelated to true classical liberalism.

[HoreTore]

...which is relatively unrelated to true classical liberalism.

Times change.

[Cecil XIX]

Times change.

For the worse, apparently.

[HoreTore]

For the worse, apparently.

Nonsense!

The 60's was the times all of us were given freedom; women, minorities, etc. All the previous dates mentioned here only gave freedoms to white, heterosexual males.

1968 made freedom universal.

Also EMFM, I do believe the title says "modern western liberalism", not "true classical liberalism"...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nonsense!

The 60's was the times all of us were given freedom; women, minorities, etc. All the previous dates mentioned here only gave freedoms to white, heterosexual males.

1968 made freedom universal.

I dispute the relevance of the protests of 1968 to increased freedom.


Also EMFM, I do believe the title says "modern western liberalism", not "true classical liberalism"...

Well then, what is modern Western liberalism? According to most definitions of liberalism as a whole, 1968 was certainly not it. It was a variety of flavours of socialism. As such, you are taking a group of young socialists and saying their contribution to liberalism was more important than that of actual real liberals.

[HoreTore]

I dispute the relevance of the protests of 1968 to increased freedom.

Well then, what is modern Western liberalism? According to most definitions of liberalism as a whole, 1968 was certainly not it. It was a variety of flavours of socialism. As such, you are taking a group of young socialists and saying their contribution to liberalism was more important than that of actual real liberals.

So......

Yeah, that Rosa Parks was a bitch.

Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and such people took care of that. They gave people real freedom, freedom those earlier people either refused them, didn't care about or were too weak to give.

1968 rocked.

[Vuk]

I say 1776 for these reasons:
First of all, it set a precedent and gave others something to follow. Without it, the French revolution would not have happened, and it is likely that the Hungarian revolution in 1848 would not have either (or which ever revolution you are referring to, several happened in 1848).
Look at the importance of the experience with the American revolution in people like the Marquis De Lafayette and the Duke Mathieu De Montmorency in urging the National Assembly to author the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.
Look at how men like Kossuth Lajos took inspiration from the American Revolution. It is highly likely that without the American Revolution these revolutions would not have taken place.
Also, after the American revolution against the British the different factions were able to settle their disputes relatively peaceably and establish a lasting government with a good Constitution that made sure that what they fought for was preserved. Even when the Articles of Confederation did not work they were able to use thought instead of terror or force to make a new government.
By contrast, the French revolution was a disaster. It did not accomplish what it set out to do, and instead of avoiding unnecessary bloodshed, it reveled in it as political factions used terror and murder to gain control for themselves. They also plunged all of Europe into a war that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Hardly a victory for man kind. What started as a peaceful revolution with good ideals soon turned into a bloody massacre being hijacked by one group and then the next, going from one government and then the next, and finally, back to square one with a dictatorship. Sure, it can be argued that after ALL that some stuff did improve, but was it worth all the human life when it could have been done with far, far less bloodshed and in a civilized manner?
Look at when the Founding Fathers had disputes, they settled them through debate and compromise like civilized people. When different French politicians had arguments, they settled it with Madam Guillotine. I would consider that revolution an utter failure for human rights and reason.
As far as revolutions of 1848, the only one I know in any depth is the Hungarian revolution. The Hungarians peaceably secured their sovereignty and had their own nation. Unfortunately they came to blows with Austria, Croatia, and eventually Russia, and lost their independence. While I do not say anything bad about the motivation for or the way in which the Hungarians conducted their revolution, the sad truth is that it was a failure and that a lot of people died. Still though, not only was it a civilized revolution, but good results did end up coming in the next few years which makes it somewhat of a success, and I would definately rank it as 2nd out of the choices.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I dispute the relevance of the protests of 1968 to increased freedom.For consideration, I should like to draw your attention to the Prague Spring of 1968. As an anti-communist, anti-Soviet revolt, it should appeal to you.

It was well connected to events in France, Italy and elsewhere. Freedom, anti-authoritarianism, anti-communism, and 1968 did go hand in hand.



Edit: Poor Kukri, no replies to his interesting post.

Yes, 2001: liberal Odyssey, was an important year. Liberalism shaken to the core. September 11th is, at least, the symbol of the end of the delusion of liberal triumph.

[Louis VI the Fat]

By contrast, the French revolution was a disaster.

was it worth all the human life when it could have been done with far, far less bloodshed and in a civilized manner?France is a republic and most of Europe is a liberal democracy with human rights. Yes, it was worth everything and nobody said it would be easy.


Look at when the Founding Fathers had disputes, they settled them through debate and compromise like civilized people. When different French politicians had arguments, they settled it with Madam Guillotine.I learned in this thread that the US Revolution cost 50.000 lives. Both revolutions resulted in civil wars. For yes, a British civil war is what the US Revolution was.

The difference is that there was no foreing interference in the US once the revolution had succeeded, as there was in Europe. I wish I could proudly boast that France set Europe ablaze in 1792, but alas, the wars started when foreign powers attacked France, not the other way around.

[Strike For The South]

I would also point out the founding fathers were an elite group of d00ds.

And to me that was the biggest thing. It was a rich mans revolt so to speak. The early constitution screams this.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You dirty commie! Your parents ought to drag you away from college. Your picking up all sorts of subversive ideas.

[Vuk]

France is a republic and most of Europe is a liberal democracy with human rights. Yes, it was worth everything and nobody said it would be easy.

I learned in this thread that the US Revolution cost 50.000 lives. Both revolutions resulted in civil wars. For yes, a British civil war is what the US Revolution was.

The difference is that there was no foreing interference in the US once the revolution had succeeded, as there was in Europe. I wish I could proudly boast that France set Europe ablaze in 1792, but alas, the wars started when foreign powers attacked France, not the other way around.

You are assuming that it was the French revolution that resulted in most of Europe being a liberal democracy. Also, I am not bashing France for being a bloody revolution, most are. I am saying that it was an uncivilized one. One which they allowed to be hijacked again and again. What it really worth that bloody, horrible, uncivilized revolution when they could have (with a little less greed and a little more foresight) had a civilized revolution with far, far less violence, and without the terror and barbarism? It is not the fact that France had a revolution that I think was a failure, but how they did it. I respect and admire anyone who wants to work for their own liberty and freedom, but they need to do it correctly or else it will be counter-productive. And you brag about Frances wars with the rest of the war, Napoleon absolutely hated French! He despised them! It is not a victory for the French when a foreigner takes control of their country and their lives, and then spends their lives in his wars. Sure, not wars that France chose (not all of them at least), but there was not a heck of a lot of liberty there.

[Vuk]

I would also point out the founding fathers were an elite group of d00ds.

And to me that was the biggest thing. It was a rich mans revolt so to speak. The early constitution screams this.

So is a good thing bad if the wealthy support it? Isn't this discussion about what did the most for Modern Liberalism, not 'wear can wee find dem evil rich wite men hiding?!'?
The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution of 1848...they really were all revolutions of the Middle/Upper class. It was aristocrats, clergy, and middle class responsible for the French revolution. It was Upper/Middle class men giving speeches to the son-culottes (don't think I spelled that correctly. :P Don't speak French and haven't studied the French Rev in a long time), and it was lawyers like Robespierre who were playing god.
Sorry, but when all three have the same thing in common, it really is not a factor.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

For consideration, I should like to draw your attention to the Prague Spring of 1968. As an anti-communist, anti-Soviet revolt, it should appeal to you.

It was well connected to events in France, Italy and elsewhere. Freedom, anti-authoritarianism, anti-communism, and 1968 did go hand in hand.

Prague Spring was not quite the same thing as the protests in the West. I would argue that 1968 protests in Europe (I'll leave America for my response to HoreTore) paved the way, not for more rights, but for less, for more intrusive government and for more regulation. You can make an argument that it was good, but I disagree that it was liberalism.


So......

Yeah, that Rosa Parks was a bitch.

No, but that's completely related to what I said, I'm sure.


Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression.

Incorrect. Many didn't have the room to do so, and true, many didn't care, but there were quite a few liberals who did care (not socialists).


Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and such people took care of that.

Ending racial oppression was not a liberal-only thing. Conservatives, liberals, and even socialists were all key players in eliminating it. The 1968 protests in Europe, regardless of the good they brought, weren't really liberal, but leftist. The protests to end racial segregation in the United States, on the other hand, as well as Prague Spring, crossed lines on the political spectrum.

My post can be summarized by saying that whatever 1968 was, it wasn't really liberalism by the common definition.

[Cecil XIX]

Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression.

That is not true. Ben Franklin (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html)was President of The Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and emancipated the two slaves he owned. Thomas Jefferson's original draft (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html#_edn11) of the Declaration of Independence contained a clause denouncing the King's role in the slave trade. George Washington (http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/) left a provision in his wil that all of Mount Vernon's slaves be emancipated after the death of his wife, as he could not legally emancipate hers at the the time and their slaves had intermarried. He also made provisions for his estate to cloth and feed the infirm slaves and educate others.

[Strike For The South]

So is a good thing bad if the wealthy support it? Isn't this discussion about what did the most for Modern Liberalism, not 'wear can wee find dem evil rich wite men hiding?!'?
The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution of 1848...they really were all revolutions of the Middle/Upper class. It was aristocrats, clergy, and middle class responsible for the French revolution. It was Upper/Middle class men giving speeches to the son-culottes (don't think I spelled that correctly. :P Don't speak French and haven't studied the French Rev in a long time), and it was lawyers like Robespierre who were playing god.
Sorry, but when all three have the same thing in common, it really is not a factor.

Deary me. It's fine if the rich support is but its so clear that the men with the more "radical ideals" (Sam Adams, Patrick Henry) were pushed out of the national scene. The revolution was more about representation and taxes than ideals. None of this makes this more clear than the 3/5ths comprimise. Sure some of the men deplored slavery but it simply wasn't worth it to free the blacks yet. Same goes for proptery rights to vote, these men made sure they insulated themselves from the commoner. Men who fought for rights in the revolution ended up trampling on them later when they had the power.

New boss same as the old boss.

Not that any of these things are bad. They were trying to keep their fortunes and protect a fledging state. They did what they had to.

The French on the other hand simply went balls to the wall. It was an orgy of freedom and they are to be commended for that.

They cared about ideals not a nation and that is why France is the most important thing.

[Vuk]

Deary me. It's fine if the rich support is but its so clear that the men with the more "radical ideals" (Sam Adams, Patrick Henry) were pushed out of the national scene. The revolution was more about representation and taxes than ideals. None of this makes this more clear than the 3/5ths comprimise. Sure some of the men deplored slavery but it simply wasn't worth it to free the blacks yet. Same goes for proptery rights to vote, these men made sure they insulated themselves from the commoner. Men who fought for rights in the revolution ended up trampling on them later when they had the power.

New boss same as the old boss.

Not that any of these things are bad. They were trying to keep their fortunes and protect a fledging state. They did what they had to.

The French on the other hand simply went balls to the wall. It was an orgy of freedom and they are to be commended for that.

They cared about ideals not a nation and that is why France is the most important thing.

No, I think you are wrong. They did not care about their country more than their ideals, they were just smart enough to know that they needed their country for their ideals. If they did not bring everyone together, then they would have nothing at all, so instead they compromised and made a system where most people had real freedom, and where it was possible to work peaceably to get freedom for those who did not. Ideals are fine, but if you believe in them enough, then you will do what is necessary to make sure that the government best represents them. New boss definately not the same as the old boss. Sure, they still had priviledge, but the fact that blacks are no longer slaves and that you do not have to have property to vote shows that they cared enough to make a system that enough support to work, and where there was political freedom enough to change the old way of doing things.
You work with what you got. If they could not get the slave holding states into the Union, then America would have fallen apart and the Brits would have hit us while we were down.

As far as the French, I have no doubt that lots of them (I think many of their writings show this) truely believed in their ideals, but they were not smart enough to do it correctly and opportunists took over in the chaos. Everyone wanted what they could get. I know that many would disagree with me, but I think it was a total disaster. Robespierre and all the others cared about the nation (that they would have absolute control of), but not so much the ideals. It was all corrupt politics.

[Strike For The South]

No, I think you are wrong. They did not care about their country more than their ideals, they were just smart enough to know that they needed their country for their ideals. If they did not bring everyone together, then they would have nothing at all, so instead they compromised and made a system where most people had real freedom, and where it was possible to work peaceably to get freedom for those who did not. Ideals are fine, but if you believe in them enough, then you will do what is necessary to make sure that the government best represents them. New boss definately not the same as the old boss. Sure, they still had priviledge, but the fact that blacks are no longer slaves and that you do not have to have property to vote shows that they cared enough to make a system that enough support to work, and where there was political freedom enough to change the old way of doing things.
You work with what you got. If they could not get the slave holding states into the Union, then America would have fallen apart and the Brits would have hit us while we were down.

As far as the French, I have no doubt that lots of them (I think many of their writings show this) truely believed in their ideals, but they were not smart enough to do it correctly and opportunists took over in the chaos. Everyone wanted what they could get. I know that many would disagree with me, but I think it was a total disaster. Robespierre and all the others cared about the nation (that they would have absolute control of), but not so much the ideals. It was all corrupt politics.

Most people had real freedom? That's a crock. Blacks were enslaved, Indians were being murderd daily and 95% of the population couldn't vote. I haven't even mentioned Shays or the whsikey rebillion or the Alien and Sedition acts.

Early America was nothing but an unadulterated power grab. To say we embodied Libreal and enlightinment ideals is silly. We ruled worse than the British ever did.

The French stuck to there guns and in the short run it hurt but in the long run they freed all of Europe.

Edit: People think Obamas bad. I would love to see what they though of Adams!

[Cecil XIX]

95% of the population couldn't vote.

Care to back that number up?

[Strike For The South]

Care to back that number up?

38,818 votes were cast in the 1790 election

That means 98.79% of the population didnt vote.

Even if we assume a 50% turnout rate. Whcih would be frighteningly low that still means 97.58% of the population didn't vote.

So it looks like I shorted myself.

[HoreTore]

Most people had real freedom? That's a crock. Blacks were enslaved, Indians were being murderd daily and 95% of the population couldn't vote. I haven't even mentioned Shays or the whsikey rebillion or the Alien and Sedition acts.

Early America was nothing but an unadulterated power grab. To say we embodied Libreal and enlightinment ideals is silly. We ruled worse than the British ever did.

The French stuck to there guns and in the short run it hurt but in the long run they freed all of Europe.

Edit: People think Obamas bad. I would love to see what they though of Adams!

Don't feel too bad, SFTS, you redeemed yourselves in the 60's ~;)

[Azathoth]

80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.

[Beskar]

The USA has always been on the slow-curve when it came to equal rights for BEM's etc.

[Strike For The South]

80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.

And?

[Azathoth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.

And?

It's a nice statistic?

[Strike For The South]

It's a nice statistic?

It is. I wish we had that kind of turnout in the here and now.

[Centurion1]

People are ironically more politically active in more time consuming ways these days. However, as a graph shows you voting has only decreased over time.

[Cecil XIX]

That's more specific, but it's not a source. I assume you're talking about elections to the House, in which case the Office of the Clerk's records (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html) only go back to 1920.

As to your other examples, Shay's rebellion led to reform in the shape of the US Constitution, while the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien & Sedition Acts undermined the Federalist government and led to Jefferson, Madison and Monroe of the Democratic-Republicans winning the next six presidential elections. After Jefferson's election, the new government repealed the Whiskey Tax (http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/special_feature.shtml)and one (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html) of the Alien & Sedition Acts, two (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=693) of the others (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719) having expired less than a month since Jefferson's election and the last, the Alien Enemies Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_66) is still in effect today because it is not a bad law.

What all these cases prove is that the American system at the time actually worked. These three incidents led to significant reform of the government, both with the creation of the US Constitution and the destruction of the Federalist Party. In all (http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/shays-rebellion.htm) three (http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml) cases amnesties and pardons were issued, and in the fourteen year period over which they occurred only two people were executed (http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/shays-rebellion.htm).

Contrast this to when the French "stuck to their guns" in their "orgy of freedom" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588360/Reign-of-Terror), and excuted nearly 10,000 times as many people in the space of eleven months, the first example of the totalitarianism that Europe would become (in)famous for in the 20th century.

[Strike For The South]

That's more specific, but it's not a source. I assume you're talking about elections to the House, in which case the Office of the Clerk's records (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html) only go back to 1920.
I am talking about presidential elections

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=59542




As to your other examples, Shay's rebellion led to reform in the shape of the US Constitution, while the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien & Sedition Acts undermined the Federalist government and led to Jefferson, Madison and Monroe of the Democratic-Republicans winning the next six presidential elections. After Jefferson's election, the new government repealed the Whiskey Tax (http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/special_feature.shtml)and one (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html) of the Alien & Sedition Acts, two (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=693) of the others (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719) having expired less than a month since Jefferson's election and the last, the Alien Enemies Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_66) is still in effect today because it is not a bad law.

They were underminded because they were exactly what we were fighting against. The fact that one of the 5 most impoptant founding fathers would fight a war and then turn right around and smash the same ideals is tantamount to how worried these men were about losing there power.



What all these cases prove is that the American system at the time actually worked. These three incidents led to significant reform of the government, both with the creation of the US Constitution and the destruction of the Federalist Party. In all (http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/shays-rebellion.htm) three (http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml) cases amnesties and pardons were issued, and in the fourteen year period over which they occurred only two people were executed (http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/shays-rebellion.htm).


That's all well and good. I'm not saying the American system didn't work just that it wasn't the strike for enlightenment ideals we think it is.

I am actually happy we deconstructed over time but that doesn't make it any more right


Contrast this to when the French "stuck to their guns" in their "orgy of freedom" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588360/Reign-of-Terror), and excuted nearly 10,000 times as many people in the space of eleven months, the first example of the totalitarianism that Europe would become (in)famous for in the 20th century.[/QUOTE]

The French overeached and that is to be noted, however the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is so much more important.

The US was an upstart nation with few people and in despreate need of national identity.

France had hundereds of years of history, power, and many more people.


A man whom uses sources in the backroom. Now I truly have seen it all.:laugh4:

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

All these Revolutions are meaningless... And tasteless too! But especially 1789.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The French overeached and that is to be noted, however the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is so much more important.


You mean that a couple of words on paper is more important than concrete facts and overeaching consequences?

The guy who wrote that 1789 was the prelude of modern totalitarianism is absolutely right; 1789 was the prelude of the pretty much everything that screwed up the 20th and would screw up the 19th wasn't for the same old "dominant" classes trying to preserve an autocratic structure, that while autocratic, was self-contained and tightly controlled. When they lost control the situation and were finally gone after 1914 then Europe became a boiling pot ready for anarchy and bloodbath in the true style of the Revolution: annihilation, genocide, mass executions and despotism. The still painful difference was that the "Revolutionaries" had smoothbore muskets and cannons while Hitler, Stalin, Franco and the thousand other warmongers and genocidal maniacs of the XX century, petty or big, had modern heavy artillery, machine guns and airplanes.

Seriously, there is no comparison. I ask you to refer to the book The Wars of Louis XIV by John Lynn. War was supposed to be an artificial, "chivalrous" and controlled process - so was pretty much everything else ranging from the administration to the ruling class. That it went out of control before 1789 was a symptom of failure, as opposed to the success of a deliberately annihilating process. It was only after the "Revolution" that annihilation, total warfare, mass indoctrination and all such things became a plausibility.

Alas, wasn't for the very possibility of the utter destruction of the planet in the form of nuclear weapons, the "Cold War" would degenerate into a Third World War very fast. A far cry from the sort of "chivalry" one would expect from a Trianon conflict, where not even half of the male population of a great belligerent would even be mobilized.

[Strike For The South]

You mean that a couple of words on paper is more important than concrete facts and overeaching consequences? .

Yes. Especially as it pertains to today.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Yes. Especially as it pertains to today.
Hah.

[Strike For The South]

Hah.

To just look at France or Europe in this context is where you fail.

1789 was important for the entire world. Nearly every other constitution on Earth is based on the French one and borrows heavily from French ideals

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To just look at France or Europe in this context is where you fail.

1789 was important for the entire world. Nearly every other constitution on Earth is based on the French one and borrows heavily from French ideals
Of course I am referring to the entire world...

And I am not interested if the doctrinaire ramblings of a Comte made orgasmic success on the mass of literati of the XIX and the XX century. For all good things, the "World" is ran by American business moral, which carries its own "democratic" political morality as an implicit addition. "Liberty, Justice, Fraternity", all these are mere words of little or no relevance in the main scheme of socio-political-economic struggle and dominance.

[Strike For The South]

Of course I am referring to the entire world...

And I am not interested if the doctrinaire ramblings of a Comte made orgasmic success on the mass of literati of the XIX and the XX century. For all good things, the "World" is ran by American business moral, which carries its own "democratic" political morality as an implicit addition. "Liberty, Justice, Fraternity", all these are mere words of little or no relevance in the main scheme of socio-political-economic struggle and dominance.

Those are some very jaded words.

[HoreTore]

Contrast this to when the French "stuck to their guns" in their "orgy of freedom" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588360/Reign-of-Terror), and excuted nearly 10,000 times as many people in the space of eleven months, the first example of the totalitarianism that Europe would become (in)famous for in the 20th century.

.....First example of totalitarianism? What...?

Are you somehow unable to understand what "Monarchy" actually means? I'll give you a hint, it does not mean "multiple leaders"...


Also, most of the people executed during the terror were nobles. And the nobility deserves the axe anyway. All of them.

[Ironside]

Of course I am referring to the entire world...

And I am not interested if the doctrinaire ramblings of a Comte made orgasmic success on the mass of literati of the XIX and the XX century. For all good things, the "World" is ran by American business moral, which carries its own "democratic" political morality as an implicit addition. "Liberty, Justice, Fraternity", all these are mere words of little or no relevance in the main scheme of socio-political-economic struggle and dominance.


You mean that a couple of words on paper is more important than concrete facts and overeaching consequences?

The guy who wrote that 1789 was the prelude of modern totalitarianism is absolutely right; 1789 was the prelude of the pretty much everything that screwed up the 20th and would screw up the 19th wasn't for the same old "dominant" classes trying to preserve an autocratic structure, that while autocratic, was self-contained and tightly controlled.

So... the words "Liberty, Justice, Fraternity" are words of little relevance, but caused the horrors of the 20th century?

And you go for a socio-political-economic position and take up the emancipation, yet forget the enlightenment, the demographics, the development of the state control, the development of capitalism, industrialism and probably a few other concepts needed to explain how and why 1914 spawned its many children.


When they lost control the situation and were finally gone after 1914 then Europe became a boiling pot ready for anarchy and bloodbath in the true style of the Revolution: annihilation, genocide, mass executions and despotism.

Seriously, there is no comparison. I ask you to refer to the book The Wars of Louis XIV by John Lynn. War was supposed to be an artificial, "chivalrous" and controlled process - so was pretty much everything else ranging from the administration to the ruling class. That it went out of control before 1789 was a symptom of failure, as opposed to the success of a deliberately annihilating process. It was only after the "Revolution" that annihilation, total warfare, mass indoctrination and all such things became a plausibility.

Alas, wasn't for the very possibility of the utter destruction of the planet in the form of nuclear weapons, the "Cold War" would degenerate into a Third World War very fast. A far cry from the sort of "chivalry" one would expect from a Trianon conflict, where not even half of the male population of a great belligerent would even be mobilized

Same thing here, give me a million men 1650 and I'll command an army of disease ridden corpses within a month. Give me a nation in total mobilization 1700 and I'll be ruling a crippled nation. It was simply impossible to do this before the time it showed up.
The concept of war as an artifical, "just" and controlled process is and was in many ways a myth created during the crusade era and raging in the minds of the people during the 30-years war, WWI and even today.
Annihilation, genocide, mass executions, despotism and total warfare are old concepts and the only new about the mass indoctrination is why you should follow the leader or do this war instead of simply doing the same thing because he's the king.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.....First example of totalitarianism? What...?...

He said "modern totalitarianism." The adjective is important because he is attempting to allude to the modern, "industrialized" version of tyranny and not its old-style antecedents. Cecil suggests thereby that the totalitarianism of a Stalin is qualitatively different than that of Sargon and that some of the reasons why -- levee en masse, revolution as labeled end goal rather than a process, etc. can be traced to the French Revolution. Arguable, of course, but you shouldn't dismiss the point so quickly.


All in all, Strike, I'd say 1789....but for what happened in the USA. In that year, our first Constitutional government was sworn in and began doing business. Neither 1789 nor 1848 (Go Whiteboys!) were really able to institutionalize a new way of doing things as was done in the USA. Sadly, as you note, not all of our motives were pure, and suffrage was denied for irrelevant reasons such as ethnicity and sex, yet the institutions begun in that year have grown and matured pretty well.

[Cecil XIX]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
I am talking about presidential elections

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=59542



They were underminded because they were exactly what we were fighting against. The fact that one of the 5 most impoptant founding fathers would fight a war and then turn right around and smash the same ideals is tantamount to how worried these men were about losing there power.



That's all well and good. I'm not saying the American system didn't work just that it wasn't the strike for enlightenment ideals we think it is.

I am actually happy we deconstructed over time but that doesn't make it any more right



The French overeached and that is to be noted, however the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is so much more important.

The US was an upstart nation with few people and in despreate need of national identity.

France had hundereds of years of history, power, and many more people.


A man whom uses sources in the backroom. Now I truly have seen it all.:laugh4:

Indeed, I seemed to have missed that your point was on the Founding Fathers rather than America writ large. To this I say that though Founders were responsible for those mistakes, they were also the ones who fixed those mistakes and provided the framework with which to do so. So I would say the balance for them is overall positive, as it was Jefferson's party which determined the course of early American government rather than Adams'.

Also, I would say that 'Revolutions, like trees, should be judged by the fruit they bear.' I know I'm not the first to say that, but for the life of me I can't remember who did...

[Kralizec]

This topic isn't about wether you'd prefer to live in the early USA or being put under the guillotine. The question is wich of these revolutions ultimately contributed the most to liberalism as an ideology.

And the answer is the French revolution.

[Meneldil]

What? This view that Girondins were the original "rabble-rousers" and that other revolutionnaries simply continued their work is silly as hell.

The Girondins were clear-headed liberals, rational hommes d'Etat, unlike the rabble-rousing Jacobine scum. As for the Girondins starting the Terror and the wars - the Girondins simply understood better and earlier than the others that the Revolution had to succeed. And that in order for it to succeed, its opponents would have to be fought sooner or later. So make it sooner while the momentum is theirs.
Then the rabble took over. The illiterates and their hotheaded leaders, the Jacobins. That pityful alliance of adventurers and sans-culotte masses. Which forced the inherently progressive force of liberalism to the right, where it remains to this very day.

The Girondins had a grasp of international reactions and of internal realities. Plus a policy. Bring about the revolution and spread it from the Pyrennees to the Rhine, and from Spain to Warsaw. Perfectly rational. They didn't radicalise, they simply followed through their ideas, seizing opportunities and bearing in mind shifting political realities. Which forced them to the left in the beginning, to the right during the Terror and, what was left of them, further right still during the Thermidor.


Err... I don't see where you got the idea that Girondins had a grasp of international politics. They went to war happily, against all odds. Robespierre opposed it from day one, claiming that this was futile and pointless as long as the country was still on the edge of a civil war.
They never followed their ideas, cause they simply had no idea where they were heading, just like pretty much anyone at the time. They first aimed for a Constitutional Monarchy (like guess who? Robespierre), understood that wasn't going to happen (due to a retard king), then created a new system largely based on the newly born American Republic, understood that wasn't going to work, decided to screw up said new system, claimed to liberate Belgium and the rest of Europe while pillaging it, and ultimately got booted and guillotinned.
They followed this spiral of self-destruction just as badly as the Jaconbins.

As for the Jacobins, they weren't really allied to the Sans-Culottes and illiterates masses. Dunno where you got that idea either. The main opponents to Robespierre were the Paris Commune, Hébert and Roux, the true leaders of the disgruntled masses. The Jacobins used them at several points (in august and september 1792 and to get rid of the Girondins), until they became too threatening for them (at which point they got rid of them too). Even Marat didn't care much for the "people". His articles were mostly aimed at the angry petty bourgeoisie, not at the masses (who as you said, were mostly unable to read). The Jacobins are clearly not the Sans-Culottes, they weren't the same political movement and despite the fact they at some point worked together, there was a whole world between them.

Short story long story, the Jacobins and the Girondins had the same political and philosophical background (may I remind you that most Girondins came from the Jacobin Club?). They only had different interests. The Girondins mostly represented the financial and trading bourgeoisie, while the Jacobins relied upon the petty bourgeoisie.
Both used the masses when it was convenient, both eliminated their opponents when it was convenient, both clearly had no idea where the were going but thought they were doing something glorious. The only reason why the Jacobins are seen as "ze evil doods" is because the situation was so bad when they took the power (partly because of the Girondins, who screwed up badly- but that hardly can be blamed on them, as they had to handle a completely new situation) that they thought they had to go crazy to save the country.

Edit: I never said the Girondins were the original rabble-rousers, because neither them, nor the Jacobins were rabble-rousers. Though each side had its share of opportunists, power-hungry maniacs and dictator wannabes, they were first and foremost enlightened people who wanted to change their country, against all odds, which ultimately led them to do the very things they opposed.

As for the rest of this topic, it's so full of misconceptions that it makes me sad. But still, I'm going to correct some of those:


The guy who wrote that 1789 was the prelude of modern totalitarianism is absolutely right; 1789 was the prelude of the pretty much everything that screwed up the 20th
The French Revolution was the prelude of all that because it was the prelude of the modern political era, in which the masses/people/population was to play a large role. This mean that it made democracy possible, just like it made fascism and nazism possible (though nazism was rather a reaction against this modernity than a direct outcome). It certainly also was the prelude of socialism, and all modern political ideas, ranging from the most respectable ones to the most despisable ones.

I agree that it gave birth to totalitarianism (though I think the whole notion of totalitarianism sucks), in that it allowed mass endoctrinement, total wars (as in the whole country is going to fight until annihilation or victory), ideology and what not. But I clearly don't think Revolutionnary France was a totalitarian regime, even during the height of the Terror. It's a dictatorship that slowly go out of his mind, and that's about it. It lacked the strong leadership (even at the heights of Robespierre's popularity), the defined goal and ideology to be a totalitarian regime as described by Harendt (and furthermore never really controlled the society).



Seriously, there is no comparison. I ask you to refer to the book The Wars of Louis XIV by John Lynn. War was supposed to be an artificial, "chivalrous" and controlled process - so was pretty much everything else ranging from the administration to the ruling class
That's all fine and dandy, but Louis XIV killed more people during his reign that all revolutionnaries altogether. Between his constant wars and the several famines that ensued, around between 1.5 and 3 million frenchmen died. Not to mention that he's probably responsible for the revolution in the first place, as he screwed up the economy so bad that none could fix the issue.


"Liberty, Justice, Fraternity"
I'm not sure you're taking about that, but just in case : the true motto was "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la Mort" (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death). But then again it was at the time only used by the Paris Commune and became the motto of France only under the 3rd Republic (in 1876 I think). They obviously dropped the "or Death", deemed as to offensive.


Also, most of the people executed during the terror were nobles. And the nobility deserves the axe anyway. All of them.
That's untrue. The nobles only provided around 7% of the beheaded population and the clergy 9%. The rest was made up of bourgeois, farmers, workers, soldiers and pretty much anyone suspected of being opposed to the Revolution.

As for Robespierre (as his name is coming up quite often), he wasn't the all powerful dictator that many people make him to be. He had quite some power, as the head of the Comity of Public Safety, but this power was rivaled by the Comite of General Security, the Paris Commune (when it opposed him) and even by the Assembly itself.
The journal of Paris executionner not only is a great read about the Revolution as a whole, but also shows how Robespierre had to deal with these various rivals, and didn't simply decide things secretly with Couthon and St-Just.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You waited a whole week with your reply just so you could read half a library of books and then smite me with lenghty well-informed posts! :furious3:

[Meneldil]

Yeah well, for all we know, I could be making all this up, as I haven't cited a single source (except for this one (http://www.laprocure.com/livres/charles-henri-sanson/la-revolution-francaise-vue-par-son-bourreau-journal-charles-henri-sanson_9782749109305.html), which I strongly encourage you to read, it's pretty awesome. This (http://livre.fnac.com/a285334/Jean-Tulard-Histoire-et-dictionnaire-de-la-Revolution-francaise) is good to in order to get a good overview of these 10 years, and is IMHO quite neutral).

I didn't care much about the Revolution until I went to study in Canada. Up to this point, I've always thought it was mostly a french-only event. But most of my professors in Canada kept talking about it, whether it was in my nationalism class, in my globalisation and nation-state one, or in my propaganda course. They even had a whole 2-semesters long French Revolution class.
So I came back, and finally decided to read all these books that have been on my shelves for quite some time. And I'm still not sure if the Revolution was the most glorious event of history or the roots of genocide, war, hatred and murder.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, well, it is unfair to read lenghty books and use this to beat other debaters. :shame:


Err... I don't see where you got the idea that Girondins had a grasp of international politics. They went to war happily, against all odds. Robespierre opposed it from day one, claiming that this was futile and pointless as long as the country was still on the edge of a civil war.I, for one, consider invading Belgium and pillaging it while pretending to liberate it genius foreign policy.

This only got a bad reputation after the evil plagiarising Germans stole this fanciful concept and started performing it with their usual lack of a sense of humour. :no:

[Papewaio]

1789 - The American Revolution happened prior to this, but a lot of the ideas (enlightenment) can be laid at the feet of the French. First the idea (French) then the act (American).

So the most important thing to Modern Western Liberalism the likes of Voltaire.

So if there was another option I would say it is the one-two punch of France and USA together, nicely summed up with the Statue of Liberty.

[Vladimir]

Exactly. I don't like the idea of using the date; I'd rather choose the countries. I'd say 1) France for the ideas 2) America for the actions and 3) England for the underlying structure.

[TinCow]

Why isn't 1787 on this list? IMHO, America's most important contribution is the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Any schmuck with a pitchfork can get uppity with their current rulers, but it takes something special to create an entirely new system of government from scratch, particularly one which has survived essentially intact for 230+ years. The French may have generated a lot of the ideas, but they utterly failed in the implementation. If you have to re-write your Constitution five times, you didn't do a very good job of it.

[Beskar]

I think the 1649 English movement was the most important contribution to Modern Western Liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

[Meneldil]

Why isn't 1787 on this list? IMHO, America's most important contribution is the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Any schmuck with a pitchfork can get uppity with their current rulers, but it takes something special to create an entirely new system of government from scratch, particularly one which has survived essentially intact for 230+ years. The French may have generated a lot of the ideas, but they utterly failed in the implementation. If you have to re-write your Constitution five times, you didn't do a very good job of it.

How is that related to liberalism? All french republican constitutions kept the same ideological basis: the Declaration of the Rights of Man of and the Citizen (which is still included in the current constitution).
French long hesitated between a Parliamentary Regime (1st, 3rd and 4th Republics) and a Presidential one (2nd and 5th Republic). There are even people thinking about creating a 6th Republic, but I clearly don't see how that is tied to liberalism.

[Brenus]

1789 is my choice. The American Independence and the following Constitution had no impact on the World at the time.

The French Revolution shook Europe and indeed created new concepts: UNIVERSAL human rights (LIBERTY TO EVERY MAN to come and go without being subject to arrest or detention: they abolish slavery, thing the US counterpart failed to do), the notion of Nation and the vote of all the Region Delegate to express the will to be part of France, the levée en masse, no reference to a God all mighty but the concept of NATURAL right (“The Constitution guarantees as natural and civil rights; The law no longer recognizes religious vows or any other obligation contrary to natural rights or the Constitution) and the emancipation of Jews (the last act of power of Louis the XVI as absolute monarch was to give the key of the Jewish Ghetto in a Catholic Guardian in charge to lock the door) but as well the end of the Protestants persecution initialised by Louis the XIV (That all citizens are admissible to offices and employments, without other distinction than virtues and talents).
And this is the Constitution of 1791, when France was still a Monarchy…:beam:

Louis, Menedil, the French Revolution happened by accident:
Brief summary for those who didn’t follow at school:
Ruined by the American War (the US having signed a separate Peace with UK against all agreement) Louis XVI couldn’t claim to have Canada, India and Antilles islands back as it was the norm at the time. So he had to ask for new taxes.
For doing this he had to gather the Etats Generaux (established in 1302 by Phillip IV Le Bel - the King of Iron, or Marble, depending opponents).
The Etats were organised on the 3 orders based on St Augutin doctrine: The Priests, The Warriors and the Labourers.
At the times, a part of the nobility wanted to have their Privileges re-established (taken by Louis the XIV) and thought it could be a good idea to blackmail the King in order to get their support for the new taxes therefore they demand the gathering of the Three Orders. They thought to have the support of the Priesthood and the vote was done by order, not by delegate.
So, Louis XVI was obliged to do so, and to organise the Cahier des Doléances, book of complains.
Until there, the French were ok, but it opened the Pandora box. They started to fill the pages of complains about how unjust the inherited system from feudalism was and the burden of taxes on one order, and the ownership of the lands by the Church etc…
So the Gathering was in chaos.
It turned bad and we all know “nous sommes ici par la volonté du people et nous ne sortirons que par la force des baionettes” (we are there by the will of the People and we will leave only by the force from the bayonets).
Louis went from bad decision to bad decision, panicked, was obliged to recognise the Constitutional Monarchy, upset the Parliament with its constant opposition (Monsieur Veto) then betrayed it (he gave the plans of the French Army to his Brother in Law who happened to be the Emperor of Austria-Hungary and enemy of France at the moment) and the Country, was arrested, put on trial then executed.
At no moment it was organised and that is why you have no leaders.
Power was shifting in second from the streets to Parliament, from Paris to the Counties (they had local Assembly at these times), and all problems spiralling in a twister (foreign invasions from Spain, Italy, England and Belgium, civil wars in Vendee, Brittany, Lyon, Toulon occupied by GB, the Emigrés problem –Quibron) religious unrests new laws, news concepts etc).
The Revolutionaries who started the Revolution were not prepared for it. They didn’t even know they were Revolutionaries.

[Slyspy]

The most important influence of 1776 on the growth of Western Liberalism was that it helped push French finances right over the edge, at which point political change became just about inevitable. If you want the event that made the most difference to the most people then I would suggest 1789, though to be honest I'm not that well up on 1848.

[TinCow]

How is that related to liberalism? All french republican constitutions kept the same ideological basis: the Declaration of the Rights of Man of and the Citizen (which is still included in the current constitution).
French long hesitated between a Parliamentary Regime (1st, 3rd and 4th Republics) and a Presidential one (2nd and 5th Republic). There are even people thinking about creating a 6th Republic, but I clearly don't see how that is tied to liberalism.

The foundation of the first modern, stable representative government isn't related to liberalism? I don't understand how you can say such a thing. Surely the actual transition from monarchy (even constitutional monarchy) to pure representative government is worthy of such a categorization. There have been liberal theories based on human rights and equality throughout most of human history, but praise for theories can only go so far when the people who came up with those theories failed to implement them. Even the French failed for a very long period of time... the 1st Republic was a total catastrophe, and France didn't achieve anything approaching a stable representative government until the 3rd Republic.

Not only did the US achieve such a stable representative government 2 years before the French Revolution even began, the government has remained in continuous operation without interruption or major structural changes ever since. Even during the US Civil War, the governmental system was stable enough for the USA to hold a free election in 1864. Even the CSA, with a constitution very heavily based on the US Constitution, was able to hold their own free election in 1861. That alone is major proof of the quality of the structure of the system.

Like I said, the significance of the American Revolution wasn't the revolution itself, it was the government that came out of that revolution. There have been thousands and thousands of revolutions throughout history, and few of those ever contributed to liberalism. The act of rebellion itself is not significant, so identifying 1776 as the date when the American Revolution contributed something important to liberalism is improper. The significance comes from the conversion of that revolution into an orderly and effective system of representative government. Theory is nice, but practical implementation is better.

Honestly, IMO if there's one nation that deserves the most praise for contributions to liberalism, it's England. The gradual development of the English Parliamentary system is absolutely crucial in the foundation of all subsequent representative governments. The only problem with implementing England into the question asked in this thread is that England does not have any clearly defined date on which something significant changed. English government evolved over about 700 years to reach its current form, with many steps along the way. They have no single defining moment of radical change that compares well to any of the dates listed above.

[TinCow]

The French Revolution shook Europe and indeed created new concepts: UNIVERSAL human rights (LIBERTY TO EVERY MAN to come and go without being subject to arrest or detention: they abolish slavery, thing the US counterpart failed to do), the notion of Nation and the vote of all the Region Delegate to express the will to be part of France, the levée en masse, no reference to a God all mighty but the concept of NATURAL right (“The Constitution guarantees as natural and civil rights; The law no longer recognizes religious vows or any other obligation contrary to natural rights or the Constitution) and the emancipation of Jews (the last act of power of Louis the XVI as absolute monarch was to give the key of the Jewish Ghetto in a Catholic Guardian in charge to lock the door) but as well the end of the Protestants persecution initialised by Louis the XIV (That all citizens are admissible to offices and employments, without other distinction than virtues and talents).
And this is the Constitution of 1791, when France was still a Monarchy…:beam:

This is exactly what I'm talking about... lots of pretty words without any implementation. Emancipation of the Jews? France was still so anti-Semitic that Dreyfuss Affair occurred 1894... while Britain elected a Jewish Prime Minister in 1874. Abolition of slavery? Napolean used armies to re-establish slavery in French colonies and it wasn't abolished again until 1848, long, long after Britain had done the same.

The history of French liberalism is a history of great ideas with total failures to enact them. I find it hard to rank liberal ideas higher than liberal actions.

[Brenus]

“Emancipation of the Jews? France was still so anti-Semitic that Dreyfus Affair occurred 1894” Who was Dreyfus? A captain in the French Army… So much for FRANCE being anti-Semitic…
An important fringe of the society was anti-Semitic, but that is why laws are important when they go against populism.:beam:

“lots of pretty words without any implementation”: Yeap. When in your British Army was commanded by General who had the right to flog their troops, most of the French Generals were from the rank. :yes:
One even became King (Bernadotte, son of a lavandière…).:2thumbsup:
Just go on the list of the French Generals during the Revolution.

By the way, “Britain elected a Jewish Prime Minister in 1874” you probably means co-opted by his pair… The British people had little to say in the 19th century…
:beam:
In 1795, the Jews are allowed to join the Army; Marc François Jérôme Wolff in 1808 the fist Jew to become Colonel. He will become general but converted to Catholic in between. However one of his colleagues Henri Rottembourg still being Jew, become general a little bit later.

Just read some books about the effects of the emancipation in France and outside, and make you mind…:book:

And we are still waiting for the British Monarchy the possibility to marry a Catholic…:beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

T Emancipation of the Jews? France was still so anti-Semitic that Dreyfuss Affair occurred 1894... while Britain elected a Jewish Prime Minister in 1874.

The history of French liberalism is a history of great ideas with total failures to enact them. I find it hard to rank liberal ideas higher than liberal actions.Ohlala. Nononon.

Benjamin Disraeli was an Anglican convert, not of a man of Jewish faith. (Which is not all that's to be said of Disraeli's Jewishness, but let's not digress)

Meanwhile, France did elect a Jew for head of state, during the Dreyfus affair. In fact, France has elected more Jews as head of government than the rest of the world combined, five times. (Diregarding, for obvious reasons, the state of Israel)


Two things:

I wouldn't mind, but for the onslaught against France by Israeli* and conservative American Jewry in recent years. I acusse them of being short of memory and facts.
*Keep yer hands off of our Jews, Sharon.

Secondly, I think the finer points of the Dreyfus affair are quickly lost. It is always brought up as an example of anti-semitism. I would say it equally well, and perhaps better, serves as an example of pro-semitism. What shocked Herzl so much, was not the injustice done to a Jew in itself. This was the 1890's. Pogroms were rampant. Much of European Jewry enjoyed litlle to no civil rights. America nor Israel had a large Jewish community yet. The hope of European Jewry was France. The one place on the continent were Jews could assimilate. The birthplace of Jewish emancipation, and the champion of Jewish rights.

No, what shocked Herzl, was to see the extent of anti-semitism in this France, with its Jewish head of state and its assimilated Jewry. If a fully assimilated Jew, with a career in the military, at the end of the day can still fall victim to anti-semitism, then all hope is lost and only a Jewish state itself can provide full rights to Jews.

The second fine point that is lost, is that what set apart Dreyfus from the countless millions of other mistreated Jews, is not that it happened, but that in the case of Dreyfus, half nation would risk civil war for the honour of a single, irrelevant Jew. This is crucial, and this is why we remember Dreyfus, but not the countless victims of pogroms, humiliation, the Jews who did not have the opportunity to assimilate and rise in the ranks of state, and for which the nations great writers did not write an 'I acusse'.


At Dreyfus, the divisions that would and had plagued France came to the fore, came to a head. Not until the fifth Republic would every Frenchman be conciled to a liberal republic. The Third in particular saw a large segment of Frenchmen irreconcilable to the Republic. Yet, the Third Republic was much more stable than contemporaries thought it was, and withered every storm. Until finally brought down by outside forces in 1940, after which the reactionaries could at last have their way with their Vichy state. Which would discredit them forever. But not before having to undergo the final humiliation of French Republicans: to stoically elect another Jewish head of state again in 1935, just to piss off the fascists at home and abroad, while celebrating jazz, avant-garde art and naked American negro dancers in a show of cultural defiance. If Europe was going down, Paris would do so celebrating, together with everybody who flocked to it: Spanish Republicans, American Blacks, Jews, communists, anarchists, socialists, artists. Then the curtain fell.

[TinCow]

Benjamin Disraeli was an Anglican convert, not of a man of Jewish faith. (Which is not all that's to be said of Disraeli's Jewishness, but let's not digress)

There is more to being Jewish than the house of worship you attend. Just as I do, Disraeli considered himself a Jew even though he did not follow the religion. I don't want to turn this thread into a Jewish discussion though, as it's incredibly off-topic.

My point is not that France was intolerant, it certainly was far more tolerant as a society than most other nations during the same time period. However, the French social tolerance was not a product of 1789; if anything 1789 was a product of French society.

The question asked in this thread is whether the American Revolution, the French Revolution, or the Revolutions of 1848 was the most important to western liberalism. I do not dispute that France led the way in the ideology of equality of men as a whole. It is very true that the earliest movements for equality of class, race, and religion either started or were heavily influenced by the French. However, it is my assertion that the French failed to manifest these liberal ideas in useful way for a very long period of time. Despite 1789, France did not truly become 'free' in any permanent sense until the Third Republic, about 80 years after the revolution. I contrast this with the United States, which managed to create a successful and workable representative government before the French Revolution even began, and has sustained it in continuous operation ever since.

So, for me it's a question of weighing France's ideological successes against American's practical successes. I admit, I'm having difficulty explaining why I think implementation is better than ideology. I've typed up a few paragraphs trying to explain it and I keep deleting them because the reasoning is always horrible and comes across poorly. I'll think on it a bit and see if I can find a way to explain my feelings in an actual decent manner.

I do agree with whoever said earlier that the Statue of Liberty is the best representation of what the real answer is: the joint work of both French and Americans. If you consider 1776 and 1789 as two parts of the same movement, that may be a better answer than either of them individually.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a yank, I am unsurprisingly in agreement with Tincow. The USA's great contribution was to institutionalize political liberality (note, I am NOT using the simplistic "liberal" label so beloved of right-wing talk radio, but liberal in its more classic sense). That framework was able to survive and surpass the mistakes of those who founded it.

[Brenus]

“I think implementation is better than ideology”:
I agree. :beam:
That is why I don’t count Napoleon reinstallation of slavery as a product of the French Revolution.
Then my dear US citizens, what happened with the slavery, followed by the segregation? Isn’t a pure denial of your Constitution, a flaw in your liberal approach?
To judge French Revolution of 1789 with what the Empire did is not adequate as they are different regimes.
However, as you said, USA didn’t change, had the same Regime from the start. So?

Just a word about Dreyfus affair: The owner of the newspaper which published THE “J’accuse” from Emile Zola was George Clémenceau. The future Père la Victoire, the man who led France to the victory during the WW1 risked his money, newspaper, honour and his political carrier in defending a men accused of treason. Which politician or journalist would do this today?
:inquisitive:

[Papewaio]

English government evolved over about 700 years to reach its current form, with many steps along the way. They have no single defining moment of radical change that compares well to any of the dates listed above.

I'd say it has quite a few radical changes so it is a bit hard to figure out. Starting with the way Saxons administered the land, then mixing in the Normans for a different version of feudalism, the status of Yeoman. The Commonwealth of England in 1649 lead to the American Colonies having more independence and Cromwell helping establish that religion wasn't to rule them, but all could privately chose their own. So the protocol of separation of church and state was established.

Also Cromwell turned down the crown... so his actions predate Washingtons. ~;)


I do agree with whoever said earlier that the Statue of Liberty is the best representation of what the real answer is: the joint work of both French and Americans. If you consider 1776 and 1789 as two parts of the same movement, that may be a better answer than either of them individually.

:beam:

[Beskar]

Magna Carta was the first ever consitution which influenced all after it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[HoreTore]

The USA's great contribution was to institutionalize political liberality

Yes.

....Unfortunately, it was only for a part of the population. Which is quite frankly nothing new, the nobility have had plenty of institutionalized freedoms for ages, the american constitution only expanded that to include a few more people than before.

It wasn't until 1968 and Martin Luther King that full freedom was achieved.

[TinCow]

“I think implementation is better than ideology”:
I agree. :beam:
That is why I don’t count Napoleon reinstallation of slavery as a product of the French Revolution.
Then my dear US citizens, what happened with the slavery, followed by the segregation? Isn’t a pure denial of your Constitution, a flaw in your liberal approach?
To judge French Revolution of 1789 with what the Empire did is not adequate as they are different regimes.
However, as you said, USA didn’t change, had the same Regime from the start. So?

It is definitely a flaw for the US. The Constitutional Convention quarreled over slavery a great deal specifically because it was directly contradictory to the ideals of the revolution. In the end, they just ignored it because they decided it was more important to keep the country united. That was a major failure and directly resulted in the Civil War 70 years later.

No country is perfect though. For every single 'free' nation on the planet, I can cite a hundred different examples of how its oppressed people or otherwise acted against the interests of freedom. With regard to the US, Winston Churchill summed up my feelings extremely well. "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes.

....Unfortunately, it was only for a part of the population. Which is quite frankly nothing new, the nobility have had plenty of institutionalized freedoms for ages, the american constitution only expanded that to include a few more people than before.

It wasn't until 1968 and Martin Luther King that full freedom was achieved.

I'm not opposed to restrictions on the suffrage. Basing those restrictions on utter irrelevancies such as biological plumbing, epidermal melanin content, or the the number of orbits completed by the planet since you vacated the womb is a bit idiotic, however. I'm glad we've gotten past most of the worst of these silly restrictions.


As to the timing, I'd note the following. The institutions and cultural mind-set (along with a good dash of economics) engendered by the foundation of the US republic combined to remove the formal prohibition against suffrage based on race after less than 9 decades as a polity; to remove the prohibition against XX-chromosome types voting within 14 decades; and to bring about political parity in less than 20 decades. By contrast, the English didn't really start getting past the "part of the population" enfranchised by Magna Carta for more than 40 decades. We bled quite a lot to expiate the sin of slavery, more of us having died in that conflict than in all of our other conflicts combined.

[Louis VI the Fat]

With regard to the US, Winston Churchill summed up my feelings extremely well. "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."That's a great quote, and to me an explanation of the origin of much of both philo- and anti-Americanism.

To make that clearer, let me quote my local baker: how can the Americans be so stupid and yet be so succesful?

(Edit: Come to think of it, I think I made that up. The quote is: 'how can Americans be so stupid and yet remember to draw breath twice a minute?')


It never ceases to amaze me how quickly, and how completely, American opinion can move on. One week, everybody thinks A. Then it fails, and the next week everybody's talking about B.

Try that in Europe. 'A' fails miserably. A hundred years later, half the population is still moaning that A really was the best idea. The other half denies that A happened in the first place, some argue that A has been the national tradition for centuries despite it being a hundred years old, others that if only 'the others' hadn't tried C then A would never had failed.
Most exhausting.


I am trying to find a clever sentence that reverses the Churchill quote. Which would them sum up France.
I can't quite nail it. Hmm: 'Always a bright idea, always overcome by even brighter means to fail its execution'?

[Papewaio]

France "Great at Philosophy, Not so great at application"
Germany "A little too efficient."
Great Britain "The great leveler. We help destabilize other nations to keep the whole stable"
New Zealand "The semi colon of the South Pacific ;"
Australia "The big pink bum on the bottom of the globe. If you sit around long enough everything will be alright mate."

[Husar]

Try that in Europe. 'A' fails miserably. A hundred years later, half the population is still moaning that A really was the best idea. The other half denies that A happened in the first place, some argue that A has been the national tradition for centuries despite it being a hundred years old, others that if only 'the others' hadn't tried C then A would never had failed.
Most exhausting.

Isn't that pretty much how Americans discuss their healthcare reform? :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

France "Great at Philosophy, Not so great at application"
Germany "A little too efficient."
Great Britain "The great leveler. We help destabilize other nations to keep the whole stable"
New Zealand "The semi colon of the South Pacific ;"
Australia "The big pink bum on the bottom of the globe. If you sit around long enough everything will be alright mate."

Funny how you forgot Norway there, as it should be quite obvious;

Norway "Isn't that the capitol of Sweden?"

[Meneldil]

The foundation of the first modern, stable representative government isn't related to liberalism? I don't understand how you can say such a thing. Surely the actual transition from monarchy (even constitutional monarchy) to pure representative government is worthy of such a categorization. There have been liberal theories based on human rights and equality throughout most of human history, but praise for theories can only go so far when the people who came up with those theories failed to implement them. Even the French failed for a very long period of time... the 1st Republic was a total catastrophe, and France didn't achieve anything approaching a stable representative government until the 3rd Republic.


Yeah, well that's all very nice. But there are two things that irk me in your post:

First, I still don't see how the fact France changed its constitution several times is related to the implementation of liberalism. For all I know, we could have been through 15 republics instead of 5, I still wouldn't see your point.
Now, had you been arguing that France failed said implementation of liberalism because it's still a quite "unliberal" country, I would have been willing to agree, or at least to discuss it. But the equation "many constitution = failed liberalism", that's something I don't understand.
Edit: actually, I would probably agree with such a statement, as France, despite all its revolutions, riots and what not, is far from being a liberal country.

Second, your comparison doesn't hold much value. After the war of independance, the huge majority of people who opposed independance (Loyalists, as they're called in UK and Canada) left the 13 colonies and moved to Canada. There was litteraly no political opposition to the Republic left.
France, on the other hand, had to deal with a rather large reactionary population. Counter-revolutionaries, royalists (later on joined by bonapartists), catholics, and what not, who later on became fascists and modern-days right-wing nutjobs. They still weight quite a lot nowadays.

Obviously, that being said, France modern history was much more troublesome. The people who opposed the Republic couldn't just move to the neighbouring country and start to hate their former opponents from here (as Loyalists did in Canada). They had to stay in France and plot against the hated-Republic, or move to another place and lose all that made their identity.

[Brenus]

France had a President of the Republic who was a Monarchist... If that is not be democratic (er.. almost) and liberal (in French meaning) was is it? (Marshal Mc-Mahon, Duke of Magenta, to avoid reseaching)...:laugh4: