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

[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

[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

[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]

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?


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.

[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 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.

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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!

[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, which I strongly encourage you to read, it's pretty awesome. This 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.