Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Biggest Impact on Modern Liberalism
Voters: 37. This poll is closed
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.
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.
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.
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.
1848, so children what did we learn from 1848. This being 2009.
nothing
nothing
I thought the French Revolution was before the American Revolution.
You learn something new.
You learn something new.
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.
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.
I pick.........
1968.
1968.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
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 theemI thought the French Revolution was before the American Revolution.
1789, or can anyone tell me why we talked about it at least three times, usually in great length, at school? 
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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.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
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.
(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.
Originally Posted by SFTS:
those ungreatful Parisians
Yes, merely a spelling mistake, I know. those ungreatful Parisians
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'.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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
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
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
(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.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.
(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.
As per Pairs. Vastly overated. San Antonio is better
Originally Posted by 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
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.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
So would that mean that the earlier Reformation in England was a constituent of the later ideas
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.So would that mean that the earlier Reformation in England was a constituent of the later ideas
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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 religonThe Reformation? No, that was all about the increase of Royal power, not it's regulation.
Originally Posted by 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
The 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. 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
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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
Where's your sense of fun? Can't have a good revolution without some heads rolling, eh?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
How many people died in the American Revolution?
I agree that pairs are overrated.
Originally Posted by King Henry V:
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? 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.
What if West German liberalism would've unified Germany, instead of Eastern Prussian autocracy and militarism?
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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?
I agree that pairs are overrated.
Not many, less than 50,000 IIRC.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?
I agree that pairs are overrated.
So there was never anythnig between us?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I pick.........
1968.
That wasn't liberalism.I pick.........
1968.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Not many, less than 50,000 IIRC.
Is that all? Amateurs!Not many, less than 50,000 IIRC.
Good grief. We managed 50000 on a good day. From now on, I'm going to call yours the 'Pink Pie-eating Yankoweenie Revolution'.
Originally Posted by SFTS:
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.So there was never anything between us?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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. 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'.
Originally Posted by :
What can I say? Banquo's got a castle and, more importantly, tickets to all the good rugger matches. He wins.
What can I say? Banquo's got a castle and, more importantly, tickets to all the good rugger matches. He wins.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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'.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
'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.'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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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?
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.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?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
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.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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO