French Revolution Precedes the American Revolution

In another thread, Thande made an interesting statement.

Thande said:

...Napoleon himself said the [French] revolution was an inevitable trend, and in his view that without Marshal Saxe's victory in the War of the Austrian Succession to restore faith in the monarchy, the revolution would have happened thirty years earlier.

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that this might make a very cool POD for a timeline, if someone with a good background in the 18th century would care to write it. What would the world look like today if the French Revolution had happened in 1759 (or possibly in 1763, after the humiliation of the loss in the Seven Years War) instead of 1789 and had preceded the American Revolution? Would there even have BEEN an American Revolution, especially if the earlier French Revolution's course paralleled that of the OTL version of same (i.e. it has its own Reign of Terror and aggressive Republican Imperialism, and ends with a military coup which installs an emperor), or would the comparatively conservative American Founders have been so shocked by what had happened in France that they would abandon the idea of revolution entirely? Of if the Americans did pull off their own Revolution, would they opt for a monarchy instead of a Republic, pointing to France as further proof that "Republics always end in tyranny?"

I've actually been thinking of something similar recently. A suggested way of getting there: Pitt wanted an extra year of war in the 1760s and then a tough peace to prevent France from regaining her greatness. If the SYW had gone on Britain could have very feasibly taken Lousiana and and the rest of their Caribbean possessions.

That would have made the French King very unpopular. It would also have exhausted French finances earlier. If you really want to screw France, you can have her try to fight on longer to regain something back and fail. We could probably get a French Revolution in the early 1770s.

In terms of its development, it would not have the American example, so would be entirely dependent on a couple of not that radical republics (Netherlands, Corsica), British constitutionalism, and Enlightenment philosophers in the salons. I'm not sure when the latter really got going - can anyone else give a view?

I think the effect is likely to cause the British to stamp down more on dissent (as they did at home IOTL), but also make the Continental Congress more conservative as you say. What could be the deciding factor is that the Empire is likely to be at war with France in short measure, and I think the colonists would feel too patriotic to declare rebellion during a war. Another thing that would likely put the Americans off would be fears of a slave revolt a la Haiti if something similar happens here.

An earlier French revolution might be an interesting timeline.

Socrates said:

I've actually been thinking of something similar recently. A suggested way of getting there: Pitt wanted an extra year of war in the 1760s and then a tough peace to prevent France from regaining her greatness. If the SYW had gone on Britain could have very feasibly taken Lousiana and and the rest of their Caribbean possessions.

That would have made the French King very unpopular. It would also have exhausted French finances earlier. If you really want to screw France, you can have her try to fight on longer to regain something back and fail. We could probably get a French Revolution in the early 1770s.

In terms of its development, it would not have the American example, so would be entirely dependent on a couple of not that radical republics (Netherlands, Corsica), British constitutionalism, and Enlightenment philosophers in the salons. I'm not sure when the latter really got going - can anyone else give a view?

I think the effect is likely to cause the British to stamp down more on dissent (as they did at home IOTL), but also make the Continental Congress more conservative as you say. What could be the deciding factor is that the Empire is likely to be at war with France in short measure, and I think the colonists would feel too patriotic to declare rebellion during a war. Another thing that would likely put the Americans off would be fears of a slave revolt a la Haiti if something similar happens here.

Click to expand...

Louis XV was particularly disliked already. The main reason we could see a revolution earlier is because popular discontent (at least in France) against political policies began with the War of the Austrian Succession. Louis XV conquered the Austrian Netherlands anad gave them back. This promptly brought up a Parisian saying that went something like "Stupid as the peace." Libelles and newspapers were notoriously against Louis XV's move to give back what they had rightfully conquered, not to mention that his public life was debauched. He has the name of the 'Well Beloved,' but that name was considered tarnished when he was near death at Metz and forced to confess his sins and send his present mistress away. His confession shocked France and caused great discontent. There was also a lot of jibbs against him; in the early 1770s a monument was erected of the King on horseback surrounded by the various virtues. Satrists could not help but take a shot at him: "Grotesque Movement! Infamous Pedestal! Virtue on foot, vice on Horseback." This was a huge reason that Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were initially popular. They were young, the bright young things of the period, so to speak. They had a monogamous marriage, and gave hope. Especially after the long, debauched reign of his grandfather.

French finances were also ruined after the Seven Years War: that's the huge reason for the financial meltdown decades later. The French financed their expedition to aid the Americans by floating expensive loans, rather than raising taxes. But the huge deficit that existed came from the debts of the Seven Years War. Financial problems go back to Louis XIV actually, from all his wars, especially the War of the Spanish Succession... but the South Sea Bubble Bust allowed France to write off it's public debts. France was actually much richer than England, in terms of population and it's finances: but England lacked the internal tariffs that existed in France that hindered trade and was able to more effectively manage it's debt. The Royal Bank was founded in England in c. 1695 I believe; France had no National Bank until Napoleon.

So I believe Thande's post was right: everything was there for great discontent to boil over... it just never did. Louis XV seemed to know what was going to happen, which makes it even worse that he never tried to do anything. His saying, after all was: "After me, the deluge."

With an earlier (and possibly bloodier) French Revolution, I'd think that the Brits would want to try and keep the Americans on side, just to prevent having to fight two wars at once...

Also, the *French Revolution is going to affect French participation in any American revolt. It'll depend on what the outcome actually is, of course - a successful revolution could be eager to open up an American front. But a post-revolution, crippled France isn't going to be able to intervene, and a newly-empowered royalist on the throne after a generation of turmoil may even be inclined to support the British (to whom he'd surely owe some measure of his crown).

There's also the issue that an earlier Revolution would be happening before the regular famines at the end of the century started occurring. That may well make it much more of a educated class rebellion, with less support from the masses. That could either make it end in a constitutional monarchy with less radicalism, but could also mean the King can afford to crush the revolt (perhaps by appealing to the masses).

Also, the military's view may well be different, as they haven't been serving in America and impressed with revolutionary ideas.

In fact a (failed) revolution in the Netherlands preceded the French revolution.
It was the conflict between the orangists and the republicans (called patriots).

The patriots wanted to get rid of the stadtholder William V of Orange, when it finally came to a conflict, the revolution was suppressed with help of Williams brother in law, the king of Prussia. Many of the patriots subsequently fled to France (and I always wondered what their role was in bringing the revolution to France).

So instead of the French revolution have the dutch one occur a few years early and be successful. There you have your example for the American revolution.
It would be rather fitting because after all in OTL the American declaration of independence was modeled after the dutch declaration of independence after the 80 year war.

The American Declaration of Independence already is modelled on the Dutch DoI two centuries before. Hence I think it's very plausible that a revolution in the Netherlands could spur one across the Atlantic.

However, if we have an earlier *French Revolution, would that impress the American colonists so much?
The whole process which led to French-American friendship in this time would be put upside down; so I'm not sure whether we can assume it would be established similarly to OTL ...

At least I'd say the French revolutionaries would have little interest in what goes on in North America. This was different with the Americans and France ...

wietze said:

In fact a (failed) revolution in the Netherlands preceded the French revolution.
It was the conflict between the orangists and the republicans (called patriots).

The patriots wanted to get rid of the stadtholder William V of Orange, when it finally came to a conflict, the revolution was suppressed with help of Williams brother in law, the king of Prussia. Many of the patriots subsequently fled to France (and I always wondered what their role was in bringing the revolution to France).

So instead of the French revolution have the dutch one occur a few years early and be successful. There you have your example for the American revolution.
It would be rather fitting because after all in OTL the American declaration of independence was modeled after the dutch declaration of independence after the 80 year war.

Click to expand...

The struggle of the patriots against the Orangists was heavily influenced by the American Revolution though, although I must admit that something was about to happen in the Netherlands anyway. The Dutch republican system was corrupt and broken, while the Netherlands was slowly losing its influence and wealth during the 18th century. There was a general unhappiness with the way the stadholder and the regents ruled the country.

I wonder if the Loyalists or counter revolutionary forces would be stronger in this scenario?

Although I guess an earlier revolution in France may not necessarily get really bloody, Red Terror style