The difference between France and America

I'm curious as to what people think the reason was that the United States became a Republic while France turned into a Dictatorship?
 

boredatwork

Banned
purpose of their respective insurrections.

1. The American insurrection was led by local upper & middle class, intended to reassert historical rights, and focused primarily on securing those rights, and only secondarily (if that) on vengeance for past slights. The Americans changed as little as they could, and were generally cautious about the risks involved.

2. The French insurrection was led by local intellectuals against the upper class. It was intended to establish new rights, and significantly focused on vengeance for past slights. The French changed anything they could (including units of time, religion, etc), and were very optimistic about the possibilities.

At least, that's the synopsis of what I recall from the various things I've read about both revolutions. Though my bias between the two is probably most heavily influenced by both 20/20 hindsight (the terror and the directorate) and some books from that general time period (particularly some works from Burke & Hume).

then again, I'm sure some of our French board members might know of a basis to disagree with your characterizations of the two outcomes. Change that assessment and things shift considerably.
 
then again, I'm sure some of our French board members might know of a basis to disagree with your characterizations of the two outcomes.

You can say that again.

Also two fundamental difference between the french and US revolution were :
1)that French revolution had to continuously fight for it's existance, alone against the world, while the US one was left alone to develop its inditutions without foreign threats ( after it was saved by France a few times during it's initial creation war, )

2) the US revolution was one of status quo, trying to upset the existing order, internally or externally, as little as possible, while the french one was trying to get equality for all men, by force of bayonets if necessary, ( vide the different treatment of slavery and right of black men ).

In short, the US revolution wasn't really one, but an independence war, limited to change the notables on top, while the french one, was one of idealistists, who tried to change everything in as little time as possible. The US independence then led to a stable Republic ( aka slave-based oligarchy ) much more quickly than the french one, but the french became a democracy ( if an unstable one ) much more quickly than the US. In fact, you can say the US revolution was finished in the 1960s, with the civil rights ( and count the secession war as part of the delayed cost of the US revolution ).
 
Last edited:
You can't define revolution like that because it resolves nothing and complicates everything, you need a simple straight definition of both dictatorship and republic. In order to make myself clearer, my definition of Dictatorship means "A government with a single head of state with legally unrestricted powers of legislative, executive, and judicial authority" and my definition of Republic "A government by elected officials selected by the citizens of that nation, possibly with appointed officials chosen by those elected officials". Given these definitions, I do not believe one could place the early constitution (even Articles of Confederation) of America as anything other then a republic or the Napoleonic french government as anything but a dictatorship. I don't mean to give offense with these words, I mean to designate what exactly each government and what caused those governments.

Its great to talk about which government achieved the ultimate egalitarian democratic goal first (I'm not getting into that), but that wasn't my question. You can say that the republic of the US is inadequate, or poor, or corrupt, but it was a republic, selected by its citizens.
 
You can say that again.


2) the US revolution was one of status quo, trying to upset the existing order, internally or externally, as little as possible, while the french one was trying to get equality for all men, by force of bayonets if necessary, ( vide the different treatment of slavery and right of black men ).

I agree. But one has to remember that the French society was much less equal than the American one*. In Norht America, the mayority was formed by free middle-class farmers. In France, the vast mayority were peasants working in the land of their noble masters (who didn't pay taxes). The nobles and clerics, who held most of the land, pay no taxes.

The Americans already have a fairly equal society, well suited for democracy. The French didn't.

In order to "correct" a situation as the one that existed in France, a certain degree of force was probably inevitable. After the Revolution had ended (by "revolution" I mean the period that goes between 1789-1815), after nobles had run away, the peasants had occupied their former masters lands, and the Napoleonic Code had guaranteed them property rights over these lands, France had a more Just and homogenous society, better suited for democracy. But it was only achieved at an enormous cost.

* If we don't count Indians and slaves, of course.
 
How about different thinkers. I get the impression that the French enlightment thinkers and philosophers had a slightly different outlook on things and they leaned more toward what ahppened in the end.
 
The main difference is, that you can hardly compare the whole area of the French Revolution, the Revolution Wars and the Napoleonic Wars (1789 - 1815) with the American War of Independence.
During the French Revolution there were several groups involved, which all tried to reach different goals (for example: constitutional monarchy for the upper middle class; freedom and land for the peasants; true democracy for the Jakobians; etc.) These groups cooperated from time to time or fought each other. All of these while France was constantly fighting a war against most of Europe since 1792. Such a chaos will very likely result in a dictatorship. And if the dictator even guarantees an awefull lot of civil rights to the people, most people will be very glad by the outcome.
I hope it's not necessary to mention that the whole situation was slightly different... :p
 
How about different thinkers. I get the impression that the French enlightment thinkers and philosophers had a slightly different outlook on things and they leaned more toward what ahppened in the end.
Actually, most French enlightenment thinkers were appalled by the results of the French Revolution (From the Terror onwards) because of its use of violence and terrorism to impose its beliefs.

Personally, I think that, beyond the ideological differences between the two, the situations were completely different: the stability that followed Independence allowed the USA to establish a working system, even allowing them to falter at first (Articles of Confederation...). The French however did not have that luxury, and by rushing things they never managed to find an adequate balance, meaning that they had an imperfect democracy, an imperfect republic, and eventually the imperfections in the system allowed Napoleon to take over as easily as he did, since traditionally (in France at least) instability has allowed strong men to impose their personal rule.
 
SaintStone said:
;1970080 my definition of Dictatorship means "A government with a single head of state with legally unrestricted powers of legislative, executive, and judicial authority"

Well, by that definition, the french revolution never became a dictatorship, since none of the heads of state ever had legally unlimited powers, not even Robespierre, and definitely not Napoleon.

SaintStone said:
and my definition of Republic "A government by elected officials selected by the citizens of that nation, possibly with appointed officials chosen by those elected officials".

And given that one ( without even going into who is a citizen and isn't, with separation by age, sex, race or former ( or existing ) slavery ), early US definitely wasn't a Republic. When exactly was the property requirement removed from voters? UNtil it was done everywhere ( and there's the matter of citizens living in the territories also ), at best you have ' A government by elected officials selected by SOME of the citizens of that nation'. ANd Jim Crow made that alive again.

Definition can be very dangerous things. Maybe you want to alter them.

ALso, remind me, out of the first, let's say the five first presidents of the USA, how many were from Virginia planters stock?


But, I agree. USA was a Republic ( even if not by the definition above ). On the model of the Roman or Venice ones - neither of which would be counted a republic by XXIst century standards, BTW ( or by the definition above ) -. With all that implies ( including restricting plebe power and voting, support for slavery, oligarchic power..... ). Then it evolved, over some time.

SaintStone said:
Given these definitions, I do not believe one could place the early constitution (even Articles of Confederation) of America as anything other then a republic or the Napoleonic french government as anything but a dictatorship.

In fact, when you look at the actual historical situation, they most definitely were not, according to your definitions ( see above ). Belief has nothing to do with it. Agains, I believe you need to change your definitions ( or your ideas of historical conditions, if you want to keep such black and white definitions ).
 
Last edited:
It may partly have stemmed from the fact that the americans were colonists who had no monarchy, selected their leaders from amongst themesleves (with the exceptions of leaders who just came to the fore through their passion or abilities) and had just liberated themselves from what they saw to be a tyranical regime. Wheras the french had existed under a monarchy for a long time after having removed the aristicracy they probably didn`t know what to do without a powerful figure to lead them.
 
American 'Revolution' was reactionary, supposedly about a restoration of English rights and liberties. The American colonies were dominated by a middle class of urban professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc) and yeomanry farmers (small free-holders). They had rather extensive experience with democratic self-governance and the whole thing was really about replacing the central government of a group of colonies.

French Revolution was revolutionary, all about the creation of rights and liberties where there had been none before. The French nation was dominated by a class of landed gentry and urban nobility. Democracy had never really existed in France except, possibly, on the level of individual towns and cities and the whole thing was about a complete revolutionary change in society.

Nationalist Frenchie said:
2) the US revolution was one of status quo, trying to upset the existing order, internally or externally, as little as possible, while the french one was trying to get equality for all men, by force of bayonets if necessary, ( vide the different treatment of slavery and right of black men ).

In short, the US revolution wasn't really one, but an independence war, limited to change the notables on top, while the french one, was one of idealistists, who tried to change everything in as little time as possible. The US independence then led to a stable Republic ( aka slave-based oligarchy ) much more quickly than the french one, but the french became a democracy ( if an unstable one ) much more quickly than the US. In fact, you can say the US revolution was finished in the 1960s, with the civil rights ( and count the secession war as part of the delayed cost of the US revolution ).

:rolleyes:

Massachusetts abolished slavery almost a decade before France, Vermont almost two decades prior to France. New York abolished slavery only a slight bit after France did (and it stuck, rather than being re-instituted). You commit a grievous sin of ignorance in not knowing the basis of the American government in this period (extensive Federalism), and a sin of arrogance in presuming to be able to comment on that which you are ignorant of.

In fact, New Jersey, of all places, was the first state the to allow women's and black suffrage, just about the same time France was transitioning into a Napoleonic dictatorship.

EDIT: In fact, emancipation of slaves in US states, in order:

Vermont: 1777, by Constitutional precedence
Massachusetts: 1783, by judicial fiat
Connecticut: 1784, by manumission
Rhode Island: 1784: by manumission
Pennsylvania: 1790, by act of assembly
New York: 1799, by act of assembly
(Quick note: France re-institutes slavery in 1802)
New Jersey: 1804, by act of assembly
Ohio: 1804, by Constitutional precedence
Indiana: 1816, by Constitutional precedence
Illinois: 1818, by Constitutional precedence
New Hampshire: While slavery did not actually end legally in NH until the 1850's, there were no slaves in the state by 1790

Note that Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois did so upon organization into states, so they could not have abolished it earlier.
 
Last edited:
During the French Revolution there were several groups involved, which all tried to reach different goals (for example: constitutional monarchy for the upper middle class; freedom and land for the peasants; true democracy for the Jakobians; etc.) These groups cooperated from time to time or fought each other.

one of the most important differences indeed. The ARW was fought by a disparate group of colonials; different customs, religions, etc. They were forced to work together to win the war, and out of that eventually came the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One of the big reasons the Founding Fathers wrote in the 'freedom of religion' part was because they knew that trying to impose a single state religion on the new nation would tear it apart. The oft quoted remark by Benjamin Franklin about 'we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately' (or something like that) was very apt; fear of losing the war went a long way in making the colonies get along....
 
Top