Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BeBro
Which would only reinforce my point.....

... no. You said "if the French needed a foreign model to pull off such a revolution, why didn't the Americans?" and the answer is "because the American Revolution was a different type, one which didn't require a foreign model." Your wording, at least, implied that the question was assuming the revolutions were the same type.

[BeBMan]

Hairsplitting

Why would the French one requiring a foreign model at all - different or not?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro


Why would the French one requiring a foreign model at all - different or not?

The French of course didn't need a 'foreign' model.


After all, in the 17th Century there had been the previous revolts against the centralizing Crown- the Frondes.

Even further back was the Jacquerie.

The French Revolution was a much more fundamental revolution than the American one- people who had been seen as radicals and extremists at home, such as Tom Paine, were only moderates in Revolutionary France.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by molly bloom


and had still been trading with French colonies in the West Indies when Great Britain was at war with France.

As had ports in GB, IIRC from Braudel. Smuggling was common on both sides of the pond, in all countries. Many of the sea dogs England/Britain was most proud of smuggled to the Spanish colonies.

Given the restrictiveness of the Navigation acts, its not suprising there was smuggling.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


IMO that's highly debatable, for many reasons. One being - if the French couldn't pull off such a revolution without a foreign model, how could others have been able to do so, notably those Americans.

The answer of course is that the Americans had several such models, including the Andros rebellion, the Glorious Revolution, and the Puritan revolution.

Whether those would have served adequately for the French revolution in the absence of an American Revolution is another matter. While its likely that a French revolution would have happened anyway, and its true the French revolution soon became far more radical than the American, its also true that many key players in the early years of the French revolution DID look to America as a model.

Its also true that the French had a post American revolution model - the Dutch Revolution.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by molly bloom

The Crown had had the right to tax colonies;

that of course is what the argument was about. Does anyone suppose we could address the question of historical inevitability without arguing the substance of who was right? Suffice it so say that the colonials and the Brits had different views of their constitutional history, and that was ONE of the factors, in combination with Britains NEED to tax post-1763, just when the absence of France on the continent made Britain seem less valuable to the colonies, that made the revolution so likely.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark


that of course is what the argument was about. Does anyone suppose we could address the question of historical inevitability without arguing the substance of who was right?

If the crown had the right to tax the colonies and the argument was about taxes, then maybe the revolution was inevitable. When you want to revolt you will find an issue to revolt over.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by Kidicious


If the crown had the right to tax the colonies and the argument was about taxes, then maybe the revolution was inevitable. When you want to revolt you will find an issue to revolt over.

I dont understand the relationship of these two sentences. I also dont know why the crown actually having the right, vs the crown and its supporters on both sides of the Atlantic believing it had the right, matters in terms of determining the inevitability of the revolution.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The answer of course is that the Americans had several such models, including the Andros rebellion, the Glorious Revolution, and the Puritan revolution.

Whether those would have served adequately for the French revolution in the absence of an American Revolution is another matter. While its likely that a French revolution would have happened anyway, and its true the French revolution soon became far more radical than the American, its also true that many key players in the early years of the French revolution DID look to America as a model.

Its also true that the French had a post American revolution model - the Dutch Revolution.

I don't believe in these revs being explicit "models" at all. I used the term model to describe what Strangelove said - that "The likelihood of a French Revolution I believe rests upon both the economic situation in France, but also on the success of the American Revolution".

That there are foreign developments that had a certain impact in every of this cases is pretty clear, the question is really how big that influence was, and if that influence could have been the major reason for success or even for making a rev in the first place.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont understand the relationship of these two sentences.

It's kind of like the neo-cons wanting to spread democracy in the ME, or whatever their real motivation is. The issue presented to the people was that there was WMD, WoT blah blah blah. In reality they just wanted a war.

The colonies never liked being ruled by the crown. They wanted to rule themselves. Making the issue about taxes makes it look like they were being exploited, not just that they didn't get to rule like they wanted to.

Some people want war just for the sake of war, and they never say so. There is always another reason that they use to justify the war. War is inevitable.

I also dont know why the crown actually having the right, vs the crown and its supporters on both sides of the Atlantic believing it had the right, matters in terms of determining the inevitability of the revolution.

It doesn't make it inevitable. The American Revolution was inevitable I think because it was not possible for the crown to rule indefinitely from across the ocean. The colonies never felt apart of England.

[Zkribbler]

Both Franklin while he was still in London, and later a Philadephia delegate to the First Continental Congress (Gillespie??) proposed a two Parlimentary system, one for the British Isles and one for the Americas, with the King reigning over both. That compromise had the potential of working. However, the longer the disputes went on, the more each side dug in its heels.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Both Franklin while he was still in London, and later a Philadephia delegate to the First Continental Congress (Gillespie??) proposed a two Parlimentary system, one for the British Isles and one for the Americas, with the King reigning over both. That compromise had the potential of working. However, the longer the disputes went on, the more each side dug in its heels.

Theres a problem with that from the view of royal power though. Britain in 1775 has a system of rotten boroughs, which made it relatively easily for an incumbent govt to bring in the House of Commons it wanted to. Which is why when George III ascended, the Whig majority passed to a Tory majority. Without historical anamolous constituencies, its hard to see such a system being implemented in America, which means a US parliament will be genuinely independent - ergo the Crown will not have the power in America it would have if the the London parliament is considered to have sovereignty.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by Kidicious

The colonies never liked being ruled by the crown.

Thats simply not true. There are few signs of discontent with the status quo before 1763. Even after 1763 there are strong signs of pride in being part of the Empire, and most discontent is with the assertion of parliamentary sovereigntly, the tightening of effective British control, etc. There was little sentiment for independence till AFTER war broke out in 1775.

I suggest reading Bernard Bailyn on "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution"

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There was little sentiment for independence till AFTER war broke out in 1775.

True. The delegates of six colonies (NY, NJ, Penn, MD, Delaware, and er So. Carolina?) were sent to the Second Continental Congress with specific instructions NOT to vote for independence.

The surge in support for independence didn't really start until the Payne's 1776 publishing of his best-selling Common Sense.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thats simply not true. There are few signs of discontent with the status quo before 1763. Even after 1763 there are strong signs of pride in being part of the Empire, and most discontent is with the assertion of parliamentary sovereigntly, the tightening of effective British control, etc. There was little sentiment for independence till AFTER war broke out in 1775.

I suggest reading Bernard Bailyn on "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution"

Of course there was no discontent before 1763. The Crown let the colonies govern themselves until then. There was no reason for discontent. It's because of this lack of imposed control over the colonies that the colonists thought of themselves as independent. If the imposed control were continuous there would have been no discontent at all.