When the shot heard around the world fired from the battlefields of Lexington and Concord in the British colonies, the world knew this land would never be the same. However, nobody could've predicated what would happen in the following decades. With the help of the French, these radical and courageous rebels termed Americans, took down the mighty British crown and implemented their fist into this new called land the United States of America. Just years after the Declaration of Independence was signed this new America would be home to many and be governed by some of the brightest and best of the time, including George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to name a few. This American experiment for fighting what was right and for liberty turned out to be positive. However, when we cross over the mighty Atlantic to France their revolution was not the same. The French cringed to the idea of "oneness" and "unity" where this country of millions could work in unity for the benefit of everyone. Contrasting between each revolution, the American revolution insisted on a top-down revolution with the legacies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson leading the charge, while the French Revolution was led by the people, peasants and specifically the third estate making up twenty-five million of the population, because of this it would qualify as a down-up revolution. After a decade of terror, "the people of France had voted for the constitution that guaranteed the autocracy of Napoleon, the vote was 3,011,007 to 1,562." These French people would not know republic government until 1871. This analysis will compare and contrast the similarities and differences of these respective revolutions through the text of Sister Revolutions by Susan Dunn.
One of the many things that is comparable between these respective revolutions is the political experience of the leaders and the country in which the revolutions were taking place. The political experience differs greatly when talking of the leaders of the American revolution compared to the French revolution. Within the British territory each of the thirteen colonies had an elected assembly which acted like a parliament, in these self-government structures, these future Americans gained political experience and quickly learned how to self-govern. Furthermore, thirty-one out of the thirty-five members of the continental congress in 1787 had been educated at some institution, they were intellectual men who held aspects of self-government. These men included John Adams who was a Massachusetts legislator, along with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who were both in the Virginia houses of Congress.
With this experience in self-government in American led to increased positivity in government along with systems of checks and balances, separations of power, and the separation of church and state which were implemented by these men. However, on the other hand the French did not possess this same kind of experience that the founding fathers of our country had the luxury of. French sociologists and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville attributed the failure of the French revolution not to the utopian theories of the "men of letters" or philosophes, but rather pointed to their lack of experience in politics and government. Furthermore, he pointed to the monarchical regime that excluded them along with the rest of the population for political participation up until the revolution. Additionally, the Americans had followed the aspects of British colonial institutions with their constitutional democracy to create some aspects of their own government. For Alexander Hamilton and Governor Morris of New York at the time of the creation of the United States, they Believed that the strength of American democracy lay in its continuity with colonial past and English institutions, the experience of these founding fathers and their practical wisdom were only even more positives. France had no guide to follow, their intellectual and political leaders had never experience democracy, so it was virtually impossible for these French men to produce the leaders that could become reliable within a democracy. John Adams, another strong American founding father blamed the French philosophes abstract system, and their lack of practical experience in politics, along with presumption and arrogance for the catastrophic revolution in France. When meeting with these French revolution leaders, Adams remarked on the total ignorance they had for the science of government. Likewise, the Americans followed the path of experience, that was led by the founding fathers to promote a capable democracy. While the French followed the guide of experimentation, which in the end proved to be a fatal blow at true democracy. With that being said, Experience is a safe pilot, while experimentation is a dangerous ocean full of rocks.
Being stable versus energetic is a question that many governments or republics have to answer when deciding how they will approach their own government and various situations. This is another thing that contrasted differently between the American and the French Revolutions. As stated before, the United States believed in a system of checks and balances so not one person or branch of government could become too powerful. Along with this, there are separation of powers within the branches of the executive, federal, and judicial branches. This leads to supposedly perfect political equilibrium. This system was designed from the Madisonian belief that checks and balances was a perfect way to fragment authority and prevent a combination of power. While the Americans had opted for governmental stability, the French hungered for energetic, decisive, and effective government. They feared stagnations and not the concentration
of power. Furthermore, the French society really wanted from their government was the opposite of inertia and deadlock, they demanded innovation, action and impact. When the French revolution started, and these leaders wanted to implement their changes they questioned on what type of government would be most beneficial. They decided that the king would make up an executive branch, but this king would not have an absolute veto on the legislature of the national assembly or the "third estate." It was decided that the will of one meaning the king's decision could not outweigh the general will of all. This turned catastrophic when the French national assembly became a monster that destroyed the revolution, they swallowed up all the other branches of government, which permitted no independent judiciary and created no place for the dissent and opposition that is necessary. Therefore, what drove American politics proved to be fatal for their French counterpart. The dissent and political opinion of one within America is what fuels American politics. Madison said it the best when he realized energy posed a problem, it required the concentration of power either in the hands of the few or in the hands of many. In an energetic form of government, when power is executed by a single hand, such an energetic leader can easily then become a dictator. Within this stable government, there can be a considered energy which can be provided by opposing political parties. Jefferson believed that his model of party politics used conflict to empower the majority, and his ideology included that conflict between two competition political parties and not conflict among the branches of government provided the Energy through conflict within a stable government. What these two revolutions provided was two different modes of thinking. For the Americans they believed that they could get the best of both worlds while being considered more stable with more checks on power. While the French disagreed and wanted more freedoms for their leaders along with less stagnation and deadlock.
When thinking of being in a consensus, it means that there is an agreed-on decision that represents all interests of all parties involved. When thinking of conflict, we tend to think of a bitter struggle between differing factions trying to get what they want. Almost all may want this consensus piece, but is it the right decision? Having conflict within government rather than consensus was another thing that differed within both the French and American Revolutions. The French believed in unity, they believed the momentum of the revolution was toward order, not turmoil, toward oneness, not multiplicity. In this case the three portions of citizens the nobility, clergy and the third estate would become one, forming a group of unitary people, where they would all sacrifice their own self-interests for the common good of all and the nation. While the French believed in consensus and unity together, this was not the same case for their American counterpart. James Madison, one of America's greatest founding fathers believed that diversity and division were inevitable, but he believed that they could be useful in government in becoming an effective protection against tyranny. Furthermore, he believed that self-interested and passionate factions given freedom would check and balance each other, therefore, creating social and political equilibrium. This sounds similar within the American frame of government, with different branches of government having the ability to check and balance each other to protect against a heavy hander ruler. What these founding fathers proposed hundreds of years ago we are still using today within our society. As stated before, the notion of division, conflict and equilibrium became the foundation for Madison's plan for the structure of government. Madison says that "Power would always be fragmented and a certain balance and stability in government could be achieved." Emmanuel Sieyes, who was Madison's French counterpart differed in the fact that he believed in unity versus conflict. The main question asked for Sieyes was whether twenty-five million people possess a single will, his answer was yes. Sieyes believed this large amount of people would be a homogenous mass devoted to the common good. However, For Madison, there was no single common good, in society, what drives this world and country he believed would be the interests and wills of diverse citizens and factions all competing for power and influence. When this is looked at, it may be asked at how the American government succeeded while the French did not achieve what they may have wanted. Machiavelli offers a good insight by saying that "a republic is energized by conflict, without conflict there is no politics and no freedom." He says that the nature of politics is conflictual and only tolerance for political conflict can guarantee the survival of political freedom. Within the American frame of government where differing opinions constitute the conflict that is needed, the French frame despises this, within unity there has to be one opinion, the opinion that serves the country the best. However, within the French frame there is no conflict all consensus, it cannot be the same stated for the Americans which can hold true for both aspects. During the American continental congress convention, after this founding moment of their government, unity would never again be the goal of government. This federal government would be structured so therefore, people and interest groups would collide rather concur. Meaning that Consensus and conflict would coexist. The consensus is found within the interest groups or political parties that fight together for the people that they represent. Therefore, consensus and conflict can work together to create political equilibrium, just not in France.
Temperament and behavior largely depends on the situation that a person or a group of people are in. Some stay calm and cool under pressure while others fight fire with fire. The similarities and differences of the American and French Revolutions cannot be said without talking about the temperament and behaviors of those who led these revolutions. The Americans were calm and cool under pressure while fighting for their freedom. The individually elected parliament like governments within the colonies met and decided to withdraw from their mother country England, while issuing the declaration of independence. However, the French responded in various ways within their revolution which included the storming of the bastille which encompassed killing the governor of the bastille and carrying his head on a stick throughout the French crowds. The reign of terror also followed in the French Revolution which contained the imprisonment and killing of the opposing groups of the revolution. 17,000 people were executed during the terror, the death penalty was mandated not only for those who spoke out against the revolution but also for those who displayed indifference to it along with those who did not participate with sufficient excitement. Two different paths taken in two very distinct but very similar revolutions. Could you attribute these major differences in approach due to the basis of experience within self-government and handing situations? Additionally, you can say that the American Revolution was radical in behavior and temperament in its own unique way. Within the American Revolution, their radical approach on separating from England, creating their own form of government with a constitution, bill of rights and a democracy was bold. Separating from other English institution models was also radical, which included going away from land inheritance laws, and the separation of church and state. Other revolutions throughout the centuries to come would model their own fights after the American fight for independence, the pursuit for freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness is one that will forever be engraved within our world.
The Legacies left behind from the French and American Revolutions are endless, as stated above, the pursuit for freedom and liberty could be examples that have happened in the last hundreds of years. Furthermore, the modern revolutionary leaders around the world have turned to these two sister revolutions for the inspiration and guidance that is founded in the foundational documents filled with universal ideals of freedom and equality, which is a radiant Enlighten promise of justice for all. After World War one within Russia a leader was looking and craving for some system that would promote oneness and unity. The French revolution was Lenin's type, he was the Russian leader directly after World War one. His guidebook for transforming Russian society was the French and not the American Revolution the utilization a feudal past, eliminating political opposition and institutionalizing terror. The Jacobin violence used within the French revolution is what Lenin consistently said what was necessary for a successful revolutionary movement. Lenin looked at the French revolution not as a failure but as an unfinished movement, this revolution led to the rise of the working class. He believed that the Russian revolution would fulfill the promise of the French Revolution of inaugurating the reign of equality. He learned from this how to establish a disciplined ideological map and not to concern himself with individual rights and liberties concentrated within democracy. When Ho Chi Minh, who was a major player in the Vietnam fight for independence, looked towards the United States for inspiration he hoped to accomplish the same principles of their fight that was only two-hundred years earlier. However, after World War two, Ho was changed into a communist enemy and he listed the betrayal on American's revolutionary ideals. He said that in the history of the United States and specifically of President Roosevelt, "you speak often of peace and justice, but in your actions toward Vietnam, your policy is the opposite." When feeling rejected by Americans and the French, he turned to the Russian leader Lenin where he then called Leninism a compass for the Vietnamese the radiant sun illuminating our path to final victory to socialism and communism. When studying the French revolution, Ho was taught how to wield political power mercilessly. The French revolution sacrificed many people without blinking. He wrote "if we want to wage revolution, we must not be afraid of sacrifices either."
Furthermore, in South Africa within the 1990's you can find aspects of the American Revolution contained in their own movement. It was a revolution that took place within the existing political framework, with no vengeance, and a desire of reconciliation. The both sides within the revolution wanted to work for the common good and what was best for their country. When Mandela was released from prison and deemed leader, he incorporated the best of American traditions within his government. For these modern revolutions of the day there are appeals for both the methods of the French and American revolutions. The appeal of the French revolution would be its clarity, it conceived itself in the term of a Manichean struggle between good and evil, and between believers and non-believers. While ambiguity or uncertainty characterizes the American Revolution making it a less popular model it evokes the principles of conflicting interest groups and competition political parties rather than an ideological clarity and struggle against traitors.
Every government or republic needs a binding document between its citizens and the government to portray who is responsible for what within society to make it run efficiently. At the Philadelphia Constitutional convention in 1787 is where the bill of rights came to fruition, being adopted and fully ratified by all of the states by 1791. However, the declaration of rights was brought up during the French revolution and fully adopted by 1793, this provided the French a foundation for the first constitution for the French Republic. Both documents aimed at the same principles of freedom of speech, of the press and of religion. Along with, the separation of powers, regards to equality, and the need for common defense. Although there are similarities, there are striking differences as well. The Bill of Rights restricted itself to make sure that individual rights would not be infringed on by the state. However, in the Declaration of Rights it not only advocated against the infringement of individual rights but how it defined the interdependent relationship between individuals and society, along with the role of government in protecting the welfare, protecting the poor and providing education, the same cannot be stated within the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, while the Bill of Rights holds the right to bear arms which gives the right of the people to bear arms if necessary shall not be infringed, the same cannot be found in the declaration of rights. Additionally, within the declaration of rights there is an amendment that allows for the taxation to benefit the state, while within the Bill of Rights it is not contained. While these documents may have similarities and differences, in essence they provided the framework to be firm, yet flexible in order to give a solid foundation to a newly created government.