- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let’s discuss the French Revolution, please
Posted on 7/17/25 at 11:48 pm to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 7/17/25 at 11:48 pm to grizzlylongcut
The French and American Revolutions couldn't have been more different despite happening around the same time and obstensibly fighting for the same things (liberty, equality, democratic representation of the people etc.)
The biggest difference is that with the American revolution, once there was agreement that the British had to go, everyone who wanted "change" wanted basically the same thing... for the Americans colonists to rule themselves. There was a clear and common enemy and a clear and common goal (more or less).
With the French Revolution, there were a million different factions among those who wanted "change". Some wanted the king to stay but to implement reforms, some wanted a constitutional monarchy where the king shared power, some wanted a constitutional monarchy where the king was just a figurehead, some wanted to get rid of monarchy entirely.
Where it went wrong was that after initially pretending to be sympathetic to calls for reform, Louis eventually made it clear he had no plans to change anything. This pissed of everyone which resulted in an increase in support for those who wanted to do away with the monarchy entirely (Jacobins).
The Jacobins used this new found support to gain majority power in the "change" camp. Instead of using their newfound power to build consensus and a stable Republic they unleashed an orgy of violence and revenge against the former oppressors and forced through a whole bunch of policies that everyone hated (eliminating the Catholic Church, complete incompetance running the economy etc.) and soon everyone hated them.
In turn they became extremely paranoid, started instituting ideological purity tests (sound familiar?) and started Guillotining anyone suspected of non-conformity (including former allies). The result was civil war, the rest of Europe invading, and an almost certain return of Absolute Monarchy if history's most talented human being (Napoleon) hadn't gained power and found a middle ground between the radical Jacobins and the Ancienne regime.
The biggest difference is that with the American revolution, once there was agreement that the British had to go, everyone who wanted "change" wanted basically the same thing... for the Americans colonists to rule themselves. There was a clear and common enemy and a clear and common goal (more or less).
With the French Revolution, there were a million different factions among those who wanted "change". Some wanted the king to stay but to implement reforms, some wanted a constitutional monarchy where the king shared power, some wanted a constitutional monarchy where the king was just a figurehead, some wanted to get rid of monarchy entirely.
Where it went wrong was that after initially pretending to be sympathetic to calls for reform, Louis eventually made it clear he had no plans to change anything. This pissed of everyone which resulted in an increase in support for those who wanted to do away with the monarchy entirely (Jacobins).
The Jacobins used this new found support to gain majority power in the "change" camp. Instead of using their newfound power to build consensus and a stable Republic they unleashed an orgy of violence and revenge against the former oppressors and forced through a whole bunch of policies that everyone hated (eliminating the Catholic Church, complete incompetance running the economy etc.) and soon everyone hated them.
In turn they became extremely paranoid, started instituting ideological purity tests (sound familiar?) and started Guillotining anyone suspected of non-conformity (including former allies). The result was civil war, the rest of Europe invading, and an almost certain return of Absolute Monarchy if history's most talented human being (Napoleon) hadn't gained power and found a middle ground between the radical Jacobins and the Ancienne regime.
1
Posted on 7/17/25 at 11:56 pm to thedisciple315
It’s a lot easier to have a clean break from a regime when 1. you already had representative government in the colonies 2. You are colonies that are an ocean away.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 3:48 am to minimal
quote:
3. If you have to bring the American founders into this, they were mostly deists
Posted on 7/18/25 at 5:31 am to grizzlylongcut
When it comes to head, the French are more give and take.
This post was edited on 7/18/25 at 5:33 am
Posted on 7/18/25 at 5:49 am to LSUtoBOOT
Main difference? Our revolution wasn't a revolution. It was a war for independence. Didn't have one part of society trying to overthrow another part of society, creating hatred and retaliation
This post was edited on 7/18/25 at 5:51 am
Posted on 7/18/25 at 6:03 am to grizzlylongcut
This would have been more topical a few days ago.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 6:13 am to grizzlylongcut
French Rev It sort of showed how the leftwing planning and thinking turn out. Starts with a few real grievances and ends with everyone killing everyone over petty personal disputes and finally a dictatorship.
High water mark for the French Rev was their metric calendar. Today would be the 30th of Messidor, Year 233! LINK
High water mark for the French Rev was their metric calendar. Today would be the 30th of Messidor, Year 233! LINK
Posted on 7/18/25 at 6:15 am to grizzlylongcut
This is not true...most were Christians, a few diest but most were members of a Christian church. They were just men of the enlighten age and the ability to combine logic with their faith, as most of that eras scientist did.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 6:21 am to minimal
quote:
If you have to bring the American founders into this, they were mostly deists
That discussion gets pretty deep, pretty quick. You have to start with the conversation about who even composes the “founders”. In reality, there were a very small number of brilliant men who were primarily responsible for the founding of the United States:
Jefferson
Franklin
Adams
Madison
Washington
Hamilton
John Jay
And a handful of others
Some of these guys were deists (or at least went back and forth); others were Christian. However, denomination aside, what is truly incredible from historical perspective is how either the Hand of God or extremely luck dictated that these unbelievably brilliant men came together to form the Republic.
Another major reason the US came to be, and came to be so successfully, is that two of the most influential founders - Jefferson and Franklin - prioritized the political philosophy of John Locke in their writings and construction of the government and were well-learned in Roman history. These two components formed the basis of the United States.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 9:39 am to grizzlylongcut
The American and French revolutions were vastly different in that the American revolution wasn't about over throwing the English monarchy but about winning their freedom from English rule. The French revolution was about over throwing the government and instituting a new one.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 9:47 am to grizzlylongcut
French Revolution was WAY WORSE than I expected it to be. They executed EVERYBODY.
It was madness.
It was madness.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 11:11 am to grizzlylongcut
The American revolution succeeded bc it was led by good solid educated Anglo Saxon men.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 11:19 am to SammyTiger
In the US we have to cut Louis XVI some slack. His war against the British during the French and Indian War led to conditions creating the American Revolution and his support of the US during the American Revolution was invaluable. Yorktown was won partially because of the French Fleet. We in the US owed him a lot of gratitude.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 11:21 am to Ralph_Wiggum
Well the way Duncan puts it he wasn’t really a bad guy, but he conservative or progressive enough to deal with the revolution.
He neither brutally suppressed it nor gave into enough reform to appease them.
Probably would have been a forgettable king any other time
He neither brutally suppressed it nor gave into enough reform to appease them.
Probably would have been a forgettable king any other time
This post was edited on 7/18/25 at 11:24 am
Posted on 7/18/25 at 11:30 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
In the US we have to cut Louis XVI some slack. His war against the British during the French and Indian War led to conditions creating the American Revolution and his support of the US during the American Revolution was invaluable. Yorktown was won partially because of the French Fleet. We in the US owed him a lot of gratitude.
We named plenty of cities after Lafayette in thanks
Posted on 7/18/25 at 12:28 pm to Dire Wolf
Louis XVI was actually a good man. Kind, loved to work with wood in his shop. He was unable to have sex at first with his wife and underwent a painful operation to fix the problem.
He was too decent to become a tyrant and crush the revolution. He was too timid to engage in serious reforms. A decent man, like the Tsar, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He was too decent to become a tyrant and crush the revolution. He was too timid to engage in serious reforms. A decent man, like the Tsar, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 12:35 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Louis XVI was actually a good man. Kind, loved to work with wood in his shop. He was unable to have sex at first with his wife and underwent a painful operation to fix the problem.
He was too decent to become a tyrant and crush the revolution. He was too timid to engage in serious reforms. A decent man, like the Tsar, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And both inherited a broken political system that they were incapable of reforming.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 12:37 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
He was too decent to become a tyrant and crush the revolution. He was too timid to engage in serious reforms. A decent man, like the Tsar, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
the Tsar was by all account a great family man and loving father and devout Christian.
But as a leader he was way more rigid to releasing authority than Louis XVI
Posted on 7/18/25 at 12:41 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
But as a leader he was way more rigid to releasing authority than Louis XVI
He tried to lead by going to the front lines in WWI but ended up causing more problems leaving his wife and Rasputin in control.
Posted on 7/18/25 at 12:46 pm to minimal
quote:
If you have to bring the American founders into this, they were mostly deists
Incorrect. The only true deists among them were Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine. Jefferson was heavily influenced by deist thought but was more of a Christian moral philosopher along the lines of Jordan Peterson. Franklin was a theist by the end of his life, John Adams was 100% a theist as was George Washington, though the latter was more private about it.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News