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

[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?

[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.

[Centurion1]

People are ironically more politically active in more time consuming ways these days. However, as a graph shows you voting has only decreased over time.

[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 After Jefferson's election, the new government repealed the Whiskey Tax and one of the Alien & Sedition Acts, two of the others having expired less than a month since Jefferson's election and the last, the Alien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.

[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.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Yes. Especially as it pertains to today.

Hah.

[Strike For The South]

Hah.

To just look at France or Europe in this context is where you fail.

1789 was important for the entire world. Nearly every other constitution on Earth is based on the French one and borrows heavily from French ideals

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To just look at France or Europe in this context is where you fail.

1789 was important for the entire world. Nearly every other constitution on Earth is based on the French one and borrows heavily from French ideals

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

Those are some very jaded words.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Kralizec]

This topic isn't about wether you'd prefer to live in the early USA or being put under the guillotine. The question is wich of these revolutions ultimately contributed the most to liberalism as an ideology.

And the answer is the French revolution.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, well, it is unfair to read lenghty books and use this to beat other debaters.

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.

I, for one, consider invading Belgium and pillaging it while pretending to liberate it genius foreign policy.

This only got a bad reputation after the evil plagiarising Germans stole this fanciful concept and started performing it with their usual lack of a sense of humour.

[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.

[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.

[Beskar]

I think the 1649 English movement was the most important contribution to Modern Western Liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

[Meneldil]

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.

How is that related to liberalism? All french republican constitutions kept the same ideological basis: the Declaration of the Rights of Man of and the Citizen (which is still included in the current constitution).
French long hesitated between a Parliamentary Regime (1st, 3rd and 4th Republics) and a Presidential one (2nd and 5th Republic). There are even people thinking about creating a 6th Republic, but I clearly don't see how that is tied to liberalism.

[Brenus]

1789 is my choice. The American Independence and the following Constitution had no impact on the World at the time.

The French Revolution shook Europe and indeed created new concepts: UNIVERSAL human rights (LIBERTY TO EVERY MAN to come and go without being subject to arrest or detention: they abolish slavery, thing the US counterpart failed to do), the notion of Nation and the vote of all the Region Delegate to express the will to be part of France, the levée en masse, no reference to a God all mighty but the concept of NATURAL right (“The Constitution guarantees as natural and civil rights; The law no longer recognizes religious vows or any other obligation contrary to natural rights or the Constitution) and the emancipation of Jews (the last act of power of Louis the XVI as absolute monarch was to give the key of the Jewish Ghetto in a Catholic Guardian in charge to lock the door) but as well the end of the Protestants persecution initialised by Louis the XIV (That all citizens are admissible to offices and employments, without other distinction than virtues and talents).
And this is the Constitution of 1791, when France was still a Monarchy…

Louis, Menedil, the French Revolution happened by accident:
Brief summary for those who didn’t follow at school:
Ruined by the American War (the US having signed a separate Peace with UK against all agreement) Louis XVI couldn’t claim to have Canada, India and Antilles islands back as it was the norm at the time. So he had to ask for new taxes.
For doing this he had to gather the Etats Generaux (established in 1302 by Phillip IV Le Bel - the King of Iron, or Marble, depending opponents).
The Etats were organised on the 3 orders based on St Augutin doctrine: The Priests, The Warriors and the Labourers.
At the times, a part of the nobility wanted to have their Privileges re-established (taken by Louis the XIV) and thought it could be a good idea to blackmail the King in order to get their support for the new taxes therefore they demand the gathering of the Three Orders. They thought to have the support of the Priesthood and the vote was done by order, not by delegate.
So, Louis XVI was obliged to do so, and to organise the Cahier des Doléances, book of complains.
Until there, the French were ok, but it opened the Pandora box. They started to fill the pages of complains about how unjust the inherited system from feudalism was and the burden of taxes on one order, and the ownership of the lands by the Church etc…
So the Gathering was in chaos.
It turned bad and we all know “nous sommes ici par la volonté du people et nous ne sortirons que par la force des baionettes” (we are there by the will of the People and we will leave only by the force from the bayonets).
Louis went from bad decision to bad decision, panicked, was obliged to recognise the Constitutional Monarchy, upset the Parliament with its constant opposition (Monsieur Veto) then betrayed it (he gave the plans of the French Army to his Brother in Law who happened to be the Emperor of Austria-Hungary and enemy of France at the moment) and the Country, was arrested, put on trial then executed.
At no moment it was organised and that is why you have no leaders.
Power was shifting in second from the streets to Parliament, from Paris to the Counties (they had local Assembly at these times), and all problems spiralling in a twister (foreign invasions from Spain, Italy, England and Belgium, civil wars in Vendee, Brittany, Lyon, Toulon occupied by GB, the Emigrés problem –Quibron) religious unrests new laws, news concepts etc).
The Revolutionaries who started the Revolution were not prepared for it. They didn’t even know they were Revolutionaries.

[Slyspy]

The most important influence of 1776 on the growth of Western Liberalism was that it helped push French finances right over the edge, at which point political change became just about inevitable. If you want the event that made the most difference to the most people then I would suggest 1789, though to be honest I'm not that well up on 1848.