The Revolutionary Approach:
A Contrast and Comparison of the American and French RevolutionsHIS 1210
Summer 2000
History is a fascinating thing. As a whole, it encompasses everything that has happened in the past, be it fifty years ago or five hundred, a complicated war or the passing of a legislative bill. Of course, it is people who make history. Therefore it is particularly interesting to study how a single person—or many persons—can have such power and influence over the future of a society, a nation, and a way of life. When a belief or a cause catches hold of enough people who believe they are in the right, they can change the world, even indirectly. One common occurrence throughout history is revolution. Defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, revolution is “a sudden, radical, or complete change” (Merriam-Webster 630). These changes can be of many different types. They can be technological or medical, or they could be changes in the way certain things are viewed. They can also be political revolutions, such as a change in government or control of power. It is the purpose of this paper to examine, compare, and contrast two such insurrections—the American and French Revolutions. These two major events have shaped the past and defined the present, and are instances of such great importance that they are worthy of close study.
To begin with, both above-mentioned revolutions were dedicated to a change in government and a shift in control. The colonists of the American Revolution were unsatisfied with the domineering British control they resided under, and they craved independence from the monarchy. In the French Revolution, the kingdom’s citizens were weary of having an incompetent leader and an economy that lay in shambles. These goals were eventually achieved, though they certainly were not accomplished in a short amount of time. It took years of hardship, struggle, and spilt blood before America and France attained their respective objectives.
The American and French Revolutions had something else in common as well. The beginnings of both were born in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment of the eighteenth century was itself a revolution that began years before the other two. The Enlightenment brought to Europe four innovative ideas: The first was that the entire universe is governed by natural laws. The second was the notion of using scientific methodology to solve problems and formulate solutions. The third idea was that education had to have a practical purpose. The final, fourth idea was that every person should be educated for the improvement of humanity (White). This movement also inspired both capitalism and Deism. Most importantly, though, it heralded a change in the way the Europeans viewed the universe. It encouraged people to look at the world around them and question the status quo. It was that last result that had the greatest impact on both the American and French Revolutions.
Along with the Enlightenment, the American Revolution also had roots in the Great Awakening. The Great Awakening was, basically, a revival movement throughout the American colonies. Over the preceding years, less and less people attended church, and the Great Awakening was intended to dispel growing religious indifference (Roarke, et al 187). The type of sermons preached changed to a fire and brimstone style, designed to inspire emotion and faith in the hearts of the congregation. Both of these social movements emphasized the power of the individual person, and it was this emphasis that was became such an important part of the American Revolution.
The main cause of the American Revolution was neither the Enlightenment nor the Great awakening; it was America’s rejection of British dominion. The colonists grew increasingly resentful of Britain’s economic impositions, such as taxes, duties, and other levies. The event that actually opened the door to war was the royal decision that America should pay for the debts Britain incurred during the French and Indian War (1754-1763). Britain spent massive amounts of money on sending troops to America to fight the French. When the war was over, Britain was, understandably, in great debt. Because the war was fought to save the Americans, and they were the reason Britain was in financial trouble, British resentment towards the colonists was strong (Lyon). Using this rationalization, Britain imposed several acts planned to reimburse itself for its troubles in America.
These acts required that payments be made on certain previously untaxed items. The Stamp Act of 1765 was one such act. This Act dictated that all official papers—such as wills, deeds, newspapers, etc.—needed an approved stamp. People were forced to pay a tax on these stamps in order to simply go about their daily business. This tax, however, was not for the purpose of trading or shipping; the sole intention of it “was plainly and simply to raise money” (Roarke, et al 211). While the colonists were willing to pay duties for shipping and other such things, they rebelled against this unnecessary taxation on stamped documents. To show their displeasure, the Americans refused to buy these stamps, boycotting them instead. Finally, the royal crown acknowledged that the Stamp Act was not working as planned and revoked it.
After the Stamp Act was repealed, several others, such as the Declaratory and Townsend Acts, soon followed. The Declaratory Act was, in fact, a direct follow-up to the failed Stamp Act; it stated that the English Parliament had no right to tax the colonies, but it asserted that the royal crown did still rule the colonists. Next, the Townsend Acts were a number of acts that charged duties for imports and exports in order to make money. It was these acts that led to the Boston Tea Party: the successful dumping of tea by disguised, disgruntled Americans into the Boston Harbor (Spielvogel 668). The Boston Tea Party led to a number of penalty acts imposed by the British, which in turn led to more resentment from the colonists. American citizens and militia began stockpiling weapons, and on April 18, 1775, the war for independence began with the now famous battles of Lexington and Concord.
Despite the fact that the British had a professional army full of efficient, well-trained soldiers, the American army—poorly trained, uncoordinated civilians and militia members—had the advantage. The colonists were in their homeland, fighting against an invading force. They knew the terrain better than their enemy, thus they knew the quickest routes to take to travel from point A to point B. Contrarily, the British troops were three thousand miles from home, in an unfamiliar territory where they were the enemy force. Surprisingly enough, despite the fact that their army was not very good, the Americans stayed in the war—even, at times, gaining the upper hand. In 1778 France, who had been America’s enemy during the French and Indian War, decided the Americans might actually win the war and allied with the colonists (Lyon). The support of the France, along with supplies, naval fleets, and thousands of French troops, gave the Americans the very edge they needed to keep the British at bay.
In September of 1783, the American Revolution ended with the defeat of the British. The colonies became the United States, an independent nation. As were many countries, France was greatly affected by the war. The American people were a source of much interest in France; the idea that a nation could survive without a monarchy was new to them. The fact that the Americans actually accomplished this feat started the French people thinking in new ways about their own country’s ruler and the way in which it was governed. The American Revolution had a great impact on France, and that, plus several other key factors, led to the French revolution of 1789.
Like the American Revolution, the French Revolution started because of widespread disenchantment with current economic and governmental workings. Perhaps the biggest reason for this dissatisfaction was the abrupt decline in government finances and governmental control of finances (Spielvogel 675). France was broke for several reasons. One such reason was the French and Indian War. Like the British, France had spent large amounts of money on sending troops to America. Similarly, France was also lacking funds because of the money King Louis XVI had diverted to the American Revolution. While France was occupied with fighting the British in the war, its own citizens were neglected. Of course, America wasn’t the only reason why France’s economy was in such dire straits. Louis XVI, being the inept king that he was, spent his money unwisely. He lived a life of lavish luxury, pouring the kingdom’s finances into his own personal hobbies and paying off his rich friends’ exorbitant debts with royal funds.
Related to this issue of money is another aspect to factor into the formation of the Revolution: corruption. Specifically, the process of tax collection was filled with corrupt people and practices. Taxation rights were contracted out to independent companies, who then had the right—and often did—to raise taxes. In fact, the rates varied considerably, and it was nearly impossible to keep track of them. Nobles were exempt from these taxes. Also a frequent occurrence was the foreclosure of land by these tax companies. This continued for a number of years, and by 1780 half of the French population was in poverty (White). This stagnant economy was a sign of a decaying country, and it is no surprise that the French population decided to take action.
To understand the the people involved in the French Revolution one must understand something about the French social system. The French population was divided into three different categories, or estates. The first estate was the clergy: priests and ministers. Nobility comprised the second estate. Although there were poor nobles, most of them were well off and held positions of high social and economic status (Spielvogel 674). The third, and by far the largest, estate was the entire body of commoners. One important sociopolitical shift that took place shortly before the Revolution was that of the pre-established caste system—where it was impossible for a person to rise in status from one estate to another—to a modern class system—where it was possible for, say, a commoner to become a member of the bourgeoisie (the middle class). It is important to know that all of the causes of the Revolution were not linear; they all progressed at the same time until they reached a peak in 1789.
Due to the collapse of France’s financial stability, the Estates-General was called for the first time since 1614 (White). The Estates-General was a combination of representatives from each of the three estates: clergy, nobility, and commoners. The Third Estate wielded the most influence and voting power, due to its great size. Because of a conflict over whether or not votes should be counted by order (one vote per estate) or head (one vote per delegate—of which the Third Estate had the most), the Third Estate formed itself into the National Assembly. The Third Estate had no legal power to do what it did, however, and the fledging revolution was on shaky ground (Spielvogel 676). Seeing this formation of the National Assembly as a sign, other peasants and commoners staged rebellions all over the countryside, marking the beginning of the French Revolution.
In the following years, France underwent many changes. Civil wars broke out, as did wars with other European nations. Major political upheavals were frequent, such as the execution of King Louis XVI and the installation of a constitutional monarchy. Also of note were the Reign of Terror under Maximilien Robespierre, and his invention and following use of the guillotine.
In conclusion, the French Revolution appears more complex than the American Revolution. It had many different but interrelated causes, while in comparison, the American Revolution is somewhat easier to understand. The Americans wanted to be independent from the controlling force of the British. Despite this, both revolutions were highly intricate historical events. Although they may be more dissimilar than similar, there are common aspects to both. Both began slowly, building up until they reached a critical point where revolution was the inevitable path. Economic factors were paramount in both; the American’s rebelled against Britain’s unfair taxation, and the French rebelled against the collapsing economy of their country. The Americans wanted power over their own government, and to a certain extent the French wanted the same.
The results of these wars, as with so many other historical events, have made the world what it is today. These revolutions from the past are a part of human culture. If it weren’t for the American Revolution, the United States would not be an independent nation. If it weren’t for the French Revolution, France would have crumbled and all of Europe would be remarkably different. The impacts of these two revolutions have reached far and wide, and have left their mark on the world in such a way that they will never be forgotten.
Works Cited
Lyon, Robert. HIS 1210 American History to 1865 8 June 2000, 12 June 2000. Unpublished lecture notes.
Mish, Frederick C., Ed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1994.
Roarke, James L., et al. The American Promise: A History of the United States to 1877 Boston: Bedford Books, 1998.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: Vol. 2 St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1998.
White, Scott E. HIS 1020 Western Civilization: From 1789 to Present 2 June 1999. Unpublished lecture notes.