World History

Unit 4: The Emergence of Modern Nations

Chapter 17: The American and French Revolutions

Mon, Jan 20, 2014

36. Tue, Jan 21, 2014

The events of this chapter could be described as a tension between two quotations:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." — Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence

and

"I found the crown of France lying on the ground, and I picked it up with my sword." — Napoleon Bonaparte

Or, in other words, these events were a tension between ideals and power, between "consent of the governed" and naked force… not that those were always on opposing sides.

First, where did this idea of "consent of the governed" come from? To a great extent, of course, the consent has always been there. Recall our conversations about the first Mesopotamian kingdoms and why ordinary farmers went along with them, or about feudalism. Sometimes it was because the men with spears would kill the farmers if they didn't give in; other times it was because there was an advantage to having friendly men with spears around. The political scientist Gene Sharp posits that people give their consent to governments for a wide range of reasons, not force alone. The fact remains, however, that people usually do consent, willingly or grudgingly. And so for the vast majority of the history we have studied, violent transfers of power came about through powerful men fighting each other, sometimes without really affecting the people at ground level, except in the way that a ball is affected by the players in soccer or football: getting kicked around by one side or another. In this era, however, things changed.

Where did that change originate? Why did people start to withhold their consent from governments? The Enlightenment played a strong role, particularly in North America, where the leaders of the fledgeling United States practically wrote the Constitution with copies of Locke and Montequieu on their knees. As we saw in the last chapter, Locke was absolutely writing in reaction to the excesses of the Stuarts and Cromwell, and in defense of the more limited English system. Montesquieu and Rousseau were lashing back at Louis XV and his fellow absolute monarchs. The endless and usually futile wars; the corruption, venality and extravagance of the absolutist royal courts; and above all the limits on speech and thought all enraged the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment. Voltaire, often censored, was not being merely rhetorical when he said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" — his words had been kept from the public because there had not yet been enough people defending to the death his right to say what they dissaproved of in turn.

It is not difficult to say that the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries had overreached. And yet, oddly, the first great eruptions of personal liberty came in the most free places in the European sphere: first England, then America. England had Parliament and the ever-expanding protection of Magna Carta; the thirteen colonies had that tradition and more. In both cases a fairly stable government was worked out. The French Revolution was begun under rather worse circumstances, and ended up rather worse as well. The differences have fascinated historians ever since.

• With the idea of consent in mind, how do revolutions get started in general?
• Why were England and the thirteen colonies more quick to react against absolutism and in defense of liberty? Does it take liberty to foster liberty?
• How did the US War of Independence inspire and ignite the French Revolution? Does that count as "liberty fostering liberty"?
• In the last question I (Mr. C) used the term "US War of Independence" instead of the more familiar "American Revolution." This is because I feel that the US was not, in fact, revolutionized — things did not actually change dramatically for the Americans, as they moved from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic. They had a limited government either way. Is that a reasonable assessment?
• The French Revolution was a more true upheaval and fundamental alteration. What factors went into that upheaval? Did those factors also lead to the end of the French Republic?

Contents of this page © Copyright 2011, 2012 by Paul Christiansen and Bruce A. McMenomy.
Permission to download or print this page is hereby given to members of Scholars Online for purposes of personal study only. All other use constitutes a violation of copyright.