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

[Vuk]

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

New boss same as the old boss.

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

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

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

[Vuk]

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

New boss same as the old boss.

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cecil XIX]

95% of the population couldn't vote.

Care to back that number up?

[Strike For The South]

Care to back that number up?

38,818 votes were cast in the 1790 election

That means 98.79% of the population didnt vote.

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

So it looks like I shorted myself.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

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

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

[Azathoth]

80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.

[Beskar]

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

[Strike For The South]

80% voter turnout for the 1840 election.

And?