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

[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.

[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 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 and one of the Alien & Sedition Acts, two of the others having expired less than a month since Jefferson's election and the last, the Alien Enemies Act 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 three cases amnesties and pardons were issued, and in the fourteen year period over which they occurred only two people were executed.

Contrast this to when the French "stuck to their guns" in their "orgy of freedom", 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 only go back to 1920.

I am talking about presidential elections

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDeta...l?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 and one of the Alien & Sedition Acts, two of the others having expired less than a month since Jefferson's election and the last, the Alien Enemies Act 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 three cases amnesties and pardons were issued, and in the fourteen year period over which they occurred only two people were executed.

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", 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.

[Cecil XIX]

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

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDeta...l?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.

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...

[HoreTore]

Contrast this to when the French "stuck to their guns" in their "orgy of freedom", 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.