The comparison between the American and French Revolutions is a long-standing intellectual exercise, dating back to the very moments these transformative events unfolded. As the French Revolution erupted across the Atlantic, Americans immediately began drawing parallels and contrasts, seeking to understand their own revolution in light of the dramatic events in France. This early comparative analysis, however, was often influenced by immediate political agendas, a factor that continues to shape interpretations even today.
Historical Perspectives on Comparing Revolutions
Initial comparisons in the 1790s, and for decades afterward, were frequently marked by political motivations and limited perspectives. As historian Philipp Ziesche has noted, the Federalist party in the United States quickly used the French Revolution as a cautionary tale, highlighting what they saw as French excesses to underscore American exceptionalism. This narrative presented the American Revolution as a beacon of order and success, while portraying the French Revolution as descending into chaos and failure. In the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of “Democracy in America” further contributed to this comparative discourse. While Tocqueville aimed to understand democratic society more broadly, his focus on the American experience was partly driven by a desire to glean lessons applicable to France, often implicitly framing America as a more successful model.
In essence, many early attempts to compare the French and American revolutions were driven by a desire to promote particular domestic political viewpoints, frequently leaning towards conservative interpretations. This resulted in a prevalent narrative contrasting American stability and achievement with French turmoil and collapse.
A shift in perspective emerged in the mid-20th century, particularly during the Cold War. The alliance of Western democracies against the Soviet Union fostered a renewed interest in shared revolutionary origins. Historian R.R. Palmer, for example, conceptualized an “age of democratic revolution,” placing both the American and French revolutions within a broader context of democratic upheaval. This approach, in contrast to earlier comparisons, emphasized trans-Atlantic solidarity and common revolutionary ideals in a world divided by ideological lines.
Despite this shift, the simplistic dichotomy of American success and French failure persisted, especially within American scholarship. Susan Dunn’s 1996 book title, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light, neatly encapsulates this enduring contrast, portraying the French Revolution as volatile and destructive (“lightning”) and the American Revolution as enlightened and constructive (“light”).
Critiques and Nuances in Revolution Comparison
More recent scholarship has questioned the very foundations of these traditional comparisons. Jordan Taylor’s research into trans-Atlantic information networks in the early American republic reveals that Americans in the 1790s received a fragmented and often distorted picture of the French Revolution. This raises a critical question: if understanding of events was so flawed, how reliable are early comparisons made between the two revolutions? Furthermore, incorporating the Haitian Revolution into the narrative adds another layer of complexity. As Ashli White points out, American perceptions of the French Revolution were frequently filtered through the lens of the Haitian Revolution and the influx of refugees from Saint-Domingue, a third site of revolutionary upheaval.
The potential pitfalls in comparing the American and French Revolutions are indeed significant. To conduct meaningful comparisons, we need a wider framework, one that necessarily includes the Haitian Revolution as a crucial element that complicates any straightforward bi-national analysis. Even when focusing solely on the American and French Revolutions, it’s essential to acknowledge substantial qualifying factors.
The contexts, underlying causes, social dynamics, and timelines of each revolution differed considerably. For instance, the continued presence of a monarchy in France as revolutionaries embarked on drafting a constitution in 1789 created a fundamentally different dynamic than that faced by American framers in Philadelphia in 1787, who were operating in a republic already in formation. Another key divergence lies in the timing of military conflicts within each revolution. The American Constitution was crafted after the conclusion of major hostilities, while the French revolutionaries grappled with constitution-making amidst ongoing warfare. Crucially, and highlighted by including the Haitian Revolution, the French abolished slavery throughout their colonies, a step the Americans did not take. These are vital distinctions to consider.
Finding Parallels: Shared Challenges and Ideas
Despite these significant differences, important parallels remain that warrant careful comparative analysis. My book, Democracy in Darkness: Secrecy and Transparency in the Age of Revolutions, argues for the continued value of such comparisons. Although the circumstances surrounding their formation were distinct, both the American Constitutional Convention and the French Estates General, which transformed into the National Assembly, exceeded their original mandates and undertook the task of writing a constitution in the name of the people. In establishing new systems of representative government, revolutionaries in both contexts encountered shared challenges and pursued similar objectives.
Benjamin Franklin at the Court of Louis XVI
Perhaps more fundamentally, revolutionaries in both the United States and France engaged with comparable intellectual currents and even employed similar terminology. As explored in Democracy in Darkness, concepts and phrases like “representative democracy” emerged almost simultaneously in both nations. Thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic recognized this parallel development as interconnected. Examining the evolution of these ideas and the language used to express them in both contexts allows us to recover the initial uncertainties and nuances in their articulation and their lasting impact.
Therefore, comparing the French and American Revolutions remains a valuable endeavor. Careful comparison can be instrumental in addressing specific historical questions. However, it is crucial to avoid value-laden or normative judgments – framing one as inherently “good” and the other “bad,” or one as a “success” and the other a “failure.” We must be mindful of the purpose of our comparison, diligently consider significant differences, and remain open to incorporating broader revolutionary contexts, such as the Haitian Revolution. Ultimately, engaging in comparative historical analysis allows us to learn from both revolutions, moving beyond simplistic judgments of morality or strategic efficacy to a deeper understanding of the complexities of revolutionary change.
References:
[1] Cotlar, Seth. Tom Paine’s America: The Rise and Fall of Transatlantic Radicalism in the Early Republic. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press, 2011.
[2] Ziesche, Philipp. Cosmopolitan Patriots: Americans in Paris in the Age of Revolution. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press, 2010.
[3] Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated and edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[4] Palmer, R.R. The Age of Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969-1970.
[5] Dunn, Susan. Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1996.
[6] Taylor, Jordan. Misinformation Nation: Foreign News and the Politics of Truth in Revolutionary America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2022.
[7] White, Ashli. Encountering Revolution: Haiti and the Making of the Early Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.
[8] Rosenfeld, Sophia. Common Sense: A Political History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.
