What if the USA adopts most of the Ideas of the French Revolution

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

What if the USA adopts most of the ideas of the French Revolution? Among those were the complete abolishment of slavery, laïcité, etc.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

..... murdering your political opponants ...... using the metric system for days / weeks / months .........

The American Revolution had a significantly different ethos to the French Revolation so whilst both could get behind the idea of Liberty the American's would never have gone as far as the French did 20 years later.

The whole slavery thing was a much bigger issue in America than in France, and the Americans do have the seperation of church and state (although there does seem to be a religious test in elections these days).

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

..... murdering your political opponants ...... using the metric system for days / weeks / months .........

I've said most and not all. Ideas that were completely impractical or idiotic should not be adopted. But there are enough other ideas that were adopted by other countries (even if it happened two centuries later).

The American Revolution had a significantly different ethos to the French Revolation so whilst both could get behind the idea of Liberty the American's would never have gone as far as the French did 20 years later.

The whole slavery thing was a much bigger issue in America than in France, and the Americans do have the seperation of church and state (although there does seem to be a religious test in elections these days).

But it was possible in the US that laws were passed that were based on a religious text and AFAIK this speaks against a strict separation of Church and state.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The problem is that the American Revolution wasn't. A Revolution, that is. It was a civil war where one part of the country (the 13 colonies) decided they wanted to leave the rest of the country (the rest of Britain).

The leaders behind the American revolution were not in favour of radicalism or mob rule, and so wouldn't be at all interested in the French excesses.

IMO. YMMV.

 

[Laplace's Demon]

Perhaps with less influence from certain Virginians, the natural republican model from the standpoint of radical patriot New Englanders, with their long history of town hall democracy but their intellectual fears of direct democracy as a system of government, would not be the Roman model but instead the revolutionary council as demonstrated in France?

Perhaps instead of a Constitutional Convention, Shay's Rebellion could cause the Congress to establish a Republican Council with emergency powers.

I see the revolutionary council as being the most significant difference between the two revolutionary systems, in terms of concepts that could be adopted rather than long-standing cultural attitudes.

Having some equivalent all or nothing moment like the French did with voting for regicide would help cement the revolutionary council model as it did there.

 

[Tripwire]

The problem is that the American Revolution wasn't. A Revolution, that is. It was a civil war where one part of the country (the 13 colonies) decided they wanted to leave the rest of the country (the rest of Britain).

The leaders behind the American revolution were not in favour of radicalism or mob rule, and so wouldn't be at all interested in the French excesses.

IMO. YMMV.

This, pretty much.

Hmm. Maybe if the American Revolution happened after the French Revolution. Of course there's the huge chronological issue of France then having more time to sort out its financial problem and the British political scene changing completely, but handwaving that away I could easily see a later American Revolution absorbing far more radical ideas from the French. The ARW attracted a fair number of radicals as it was.

 

[MAlexMatt]

The problem is that the American Revolution wasn't. A Revolution, that is. It was a civil war where one part of the country (the 13 colonies) decided they wanted to leave the rest of the country (the rest of Britain).

The leaders behind the American revolution were not in favour of radicalism or mob rule, and so wouldn't be at all interested in the French excesses.

IMO. YMMV.

This isn't really that true. The Revolution radically altered the way the average person thought about their relationship with their government. Whereas, in the past, 'to be left alone' was the most the vast majority of the population could ask, after the Revolution active participation became a much, much more important thing.

The problem with the US adopting the ideals of the French Revolution is that the Americans already had a ready ideology of Republicanism rooted in the English tradition. Continentals and Classical Republicanism might have had some influence, but the Commonwealth ideal was much deeper rooted in the American consciousness at this point in time.

Not to mention the most serious problem with a French model of secularism (versus the more pluralistic model we got IOTL) was the centrality Christianity played in the lives of every American from top to bottom in this time period. I'll have to look for it, but there was a study done examining various period documents (letters, pamphlets, etc etc) for references to various ideological sources and the Bible comes out far ahead, with English common law/natural liberty, Classical Republicanism, and a few other sources jockeying for a distant second.

The radicalism of the American Revolution was just a bit different in kind from that of the French Revolution. It probably has a lot to do with the differing relationships between the many social institutions that people were revolting against and revolting in favor of. In France, the Church was an ally of the oppressive monarchy, while in America the churches were a tool of the people themselves, etc etc.

 

[MikeA]

More executions!

 

[longtimer]

napoleon law code

In fact, american revolution is just a war of independance. French Revolution is a total collapse of order. From july to septembe 1789,, everything change. Monarchy and her backups are destroyed by a majority of french people with the help of some noble and some clergymen. It s a real nightmare for politicians. They try to stop the mob in the next few year but there is always a group who want more and are ready for violence.

In US, it will be ASB. No paris mob and the victory satisfied a large part of the americans.
You can obtain more power for the executive branch. On the long run, why not try to apply the napoleonic code ?

 

[Socrates]

The leaders behind the American revolution were not in favour of radicalism or mob rule, and so wouldn't be at all interested in the French excesses.

That doesn't necessarily matter. Often when revolutions become radical its because the initial moderates leading the thing get pushed aside by hardliners, who in turn get pushed aside by extremists. Particularly when purges start.

 

[MerryPrankster]

But it was possible in the US that laws were passed that were based on a religious text and AFAIK this speaks against a strict separation of Church and state.

Lemmon v. Kurtzman, which required any laws have a "clear, secular purpose," had not happend yet. IIRC the case was not made until the 1960s.

Furthermore, until the 14th Amendment and its associated court cases incorporated the bill of rights, the states could openly flout the "separation of church and state" part. Some states had state churches until the 1840s IIRC.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The radicalism of the American Revolution was just a bit different in kind from that of the French Revolution. It probably has a lot to do with the differing relationships between the many social institutions that people were revolting against and revolting in favor of. In France, the Church was an ally of the oppressive monarchy, while in America the churches were a tool of the people themselves, etc etc.

That's why laiciste (sp?) is a lot less likely to be part of the American Revolution or adopted later. The Church in the United States was not part of the oppressive power structure, for the most part.

(There were instances of religious abuse, but that was mostly low-church Protestants being persecuted by Anglicans and Calvinists rather than the whole "mutilate people because they don't bow to a procession of monks" sort of thing.)

 

[MerryPrankster]

By the time the French Revolution happened, the United States had been independent and established for some time.

And although the failures of the Articles of Confederation necessitated the writing of the Constitution the same year of the French Revolution, the factors influencing the Constitution were much different from those in the FR.

Plus there's the tradition of English republicanism to draw on, rather than the need to create something entirely new.

The most realistic aspect of the French Revolution I can think of being adopted is a greater stance against slavery, since even slave-owning Founders like Jefferson didn't like it much. The need to avoid driving the slave states into seceding would obviate against nationwide abolition.

Maybe as a symbolic gesture, the slave trade is banned in Washington D.C.? Or perhaps a compensated-emancipation fund is established? Given how slaves were expensive and a status symbol, it might not make very many inroads, but it could be used to free a few slaves here and there depending on how it's funded.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That doesn't necessarily matter. Often when revolutions become radical its because the initial moderates leading the thing get pushed aside by hardliners, who in turn get pushed aside by extremists. Particularly when purges start.

But that's part of the point. The 'radicals' in the ARW were very, very different from the radicals in France.

Sam Adams was a brewer, i.e. a business owner, for crying out loud. There wasn't the whole class of urban poor at the time the way there was in Paris.

 

[MAlexMatt]

But that's part of the point. The 'radicals' in the ARW were very, very different from the radicals in France.

Sam Adams was a brewer, i.e. a business owner, for crying out loud. There wasn't the whole class of urban poor at the time the way there was in Paris.

There was, but they actually tended to be of different ethnicity/religion than the middle and upper classes. The working class in Philadelphia at this time was majority Scots-Irish Presbyterian (with an increasing influx of German Lutherans and English Quakers/Puritans/etc from both abroad and the countryside), whereas the middle classes were mostly English Quakers, with a smattering of others mixed in.

However, their conditions were also not quite as desperate as those of the Parisian poor. America at this time was probably the best place in the world to be poor, even if the opportunity to own land was diminishing year over year. Radicalism of the French type tends to be driven by one's stomach before one's ideals.

 

[Claudius]

Lemmon v. Kurtzman, which required any laws have a "clear, secular purpose," had not happend yet. IIRC the case was not made until the 1960s.

Furthermore, until the 14th Amendment and its associated court cases incorporated the bill of rights, the states could openly flout the "separation of church and state" part. Some states had state churches until the 1840s IIRC.

That phrase, as is well known, was from a private letter from Jefferson to a group of clergymen in Danbury, Connecticut in which he assured them that the Federal government had no right to interfere in the affairs of churches and had no power to do so legally. There was nothing to "flout" because there is no such language in the Constitution. The operative phrase is "Congress shall make no law" in establishing a religion, but that left the states full latitude to establish any religion they wished under their own constitutions. Jefferson's phrase was dredged up by Justice Hugo Black, who had his own prejudices about the Catholic church and the use of public resources for parochial schools.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

That phrase, as is well known, was from a private letter from Jefferson to a group of clergymen in Danbury, Connecticut in which he assured them that the Federal government had no right to interfere in the affairs of churches and had no power to do so legally. There was nothing to "flout" because there is no such language in the Constitution. The operative phrase is "Congress shall make no law" in establishing a religion, but that left the states full latitude to establish any religion they wished under their own constitutions. Jefferson's phrase was dredged up by Justice Hugo Black, who had his own prejudices about the Catholic church and the use of public resources for parochial schools.

Except of course, for everything else we know about all of them.

For instance, you forgot Madison, the other guy who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and should therefore know what it means. "The number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." And "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

You also neglected Reynolds v. U.S., the 1879 decision in which the Supreme Court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

Context: the "dere iz no separashun ov church an stayt" people don't seem to haz grasped it.

And fortunately, enough of the other states saw it that way and wrote similar phrases into their constitutions (those that didn't were pwned by the 14th Amendment anyway, as in "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States") that we can shoot this silly revisionist theory in the head and let it die in the gutter where it belongs.

 

[MAlexMatt]

He's kind of right: The modern version of 'separation of church and state', really better phrased as 'separation of religion and state', similar to the French version of secularism, had almost nothing to do with what the vast majority of the Founding generation had in mind. The Church Clause in the First Amendment is a matter of preventing the kind of denominational conflict that tore Europe to shreds for centuries. You can find quote, after quote, after quote from pretty much anybody of note from the time about how important religion is to running a country.

Their issue was with religious organizations dictating policy, not with displays of religion period.

 

[Serenissima]

Much as others have pointed out, the American Revolution wasn't (which is why it's more accurately called the American War of Independence). The same people were in charge of the country afterwards as they had been before; the faces on the coins just changed.

It was essentially about the wealthy mercantile class wanting not to have to pay their taxes, with the 'freedom and liberty' part being brought up later to sway the masses, whose lives, for the most part, were only very slightly affected by the change.

That isn't to say that it did not set up some things which were important later - such as a wider voting franchise than Britain at the time had. Fundamentally, however, the USA was unlikely to ever adopt later French revolutionary ideas. They'd never been ruled by a somewhat oppressive and bankrupt absolute monarchy, nor were any of the same religious/social problems present.

 

[MAlexMatt]

Much as others have pointed out, the American Revolution wasn't (which is why it's more accurately called the American War of Independence). The same people were in charge of the country afterwards as they had been before; the faces on the coins just changed.

It was essentially about the wealthy mercantile class wanting not to have to pay their taxes, with the 'freedom and liberty' part being brought up later to sway the masses, whose lives, for the most part, were only very slightly affected by the change.

Like I said earlier this is emphatically not true. In every colony except Rhode Island, Patriot disobedience regimes were set up as alternative governments which quickly overthrew the colonial regime in a series of brief Civil Wars. People with overly close ties to and/or sympathies for the old Crown governments were harassed, assaulted, and driven out of the colonies.

A lot of the old Tory faction did return after the Revolution was over, and became part of a driving force behind the movement to adopt the Constitution, and stalwarts of Hamilton's High Federalist faction, but the American Revolution most certainly was revolutionary in a multitude of ways. The way its taught in a lot of non-American schools today is just more propagandizing; in a different direction than American schools propagandize, but propagandizing nonetheless.