Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Biggest Impact on Modern Liberalism
Voters: 37. This poll is closed
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
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.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.
Girondins become Jacobins Menshviks become Bolsheviks the Irish Home rule party becomes Sinn Fein
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
That wasn't liberalism.
Not economical liberalism, no, but it sure was social liberalism.That wasn't liberalism.
Free sex for everyone!!! Sounds kinda liberal to me....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.Not economical liberalism, no, but it sure was social liberalism.
Free sex for everyone!!! Sounds kinda liberal to me....
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.
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.
The British Digger movement had a lot going for it. Don't overlook that.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
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.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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
.........As I said, social liberalism.
...which is relatively unrelated to true classical liberalism..........As I said, social liberalism.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
...which is relatively unrelated to true classical liberalism.
Times change....which is relatively unrelated to true classical liberalism.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Times change.
For the worse, apparently.Times change.
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX:
For the worse, apparently.
Nonsense!For the worse, apparently.
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"...
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.Also EMFM, I do believe the title says "modern western liberalism", not "true classical liberalism"...
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
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......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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
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.I dispute the relevance of the protests of 1968 to increased freedom.
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.
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again:
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. 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?
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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.
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.
And to me that was the biggest thing. It was a rich mans revolt so to speak. The early constitution screams this.
You dirty commie! Your parents ought to drag you away from college. Your picking up all sorts of subversive ideas.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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?!'? 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So......
Yeah, that Rosa Parks was a bitch.
No, but that's completely related to what I said, I'm sure.So......
Yeah, that Rosa Parks was a bitch.
Originally Posted by :
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).Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression.
Originally Posted by :
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.Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and such people took care of that.
My post can be summarized by saying that whatever 1968 was, it wasn't really liberalism by the common definition.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression.
That is not true. Ben Franklin was President of The Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and emancipated the two slaves he owned. Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a clause denouncing the King's role in the slave trade. George Washington 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.Let's face it; none of the earlier men, no matter how great, cared about ending racial oppression.
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again:
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. 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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. 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again:
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.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.
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!
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
95% of the population couldn't vote.
Care to back that number up?95% of the population couldn't vote.
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX:
Care to back that number up?
38,818 votes were cast in the 1790 election Care to back that number up?
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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 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!
80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO