Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Great Upheaval focuses on the American and French Revolutions and the bloody final days of Catherine the Great, Czarina of Russia. The author makes the argument that despite slow and sporadic communication over large distances, these events were heavily interconnected. It is well-known that during the 1790's many American leaders, particularly Federalists, dreaded the bloodshed of the French Revolution spreading the the U.S. Similarly a rebellion by a Cossack leader, Pugachev, aborted Catherine the Great's attempts to liberalize and westernize Russia.
These countries' evolution during this period of time in large part foreshadowed their futures. America at that time was a fragile republic clinging to the Eastern third of the modern United States. France and Russia were, as of 1788 well-established empires on the verge of implosion. What is remarkable is how their changes during this period foreshadow modern eras in these countries, but regretfully the author passes of the opportunity, other than through tantalizing hints, to explore this. In Winik's defense the book was copyrighted in 2007, before Putin had evolved into the modern-day Czar and monster that he is. The book makes glancing references to the fact that even in the early 1790's, as France began its hellish descent into the Terror, people were already talking about moving to America, and some were actually doing it or trying to. The Pugachev Rebellion terrified Catherine. The Polish rebellion under Thaddeus Kosciusko further terrified her. Of the Russian chaos, the French Revolution, only the American revolution ended pacifically.
To use an expression attributed to Mark Twain, History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes. France's history through 1945 was quite troubled, and even the 1968 rebellion was catastrophic. The L'Affaire Dreyfusse. Russia/USSR? Need I say more?
Has America been a paradise? Hardly. But still, where do most refugees in the world want to end up?
All these events, the American, French, and the events in Russia related to serfdom, are all related to what is now called The Age of Enlightenment. It can be further traced to the focus on humanism, or ethical and moral philosopy, in the Renaissance period, and even further into the studies of the culture of the antiquities.
France was inspired by the US Revolution but descended into it's own dark interpretation of liberation, which after 2 decades of warfare devolved into a dictatorship and eventually back into a monarchy. Russia I don't see as inspired by any of these events, and in fact were in armed conflict with Revolutionary France for most of that period. But still, the Age of Enlightment reached out and touched them, as Europe monarchies still looked down on Russia's reliance on serfdom, slavery in any other name. The turning point for Russia came later, with the emancipation of the serfs, and of course later still with it's own dark interpretation of marxism.
The US really stands alone as a sole experiment in individual rights. Even today, no other country, not even the Western European democracies, have a constitution based on, not what the government should do, but what the government should not do. Many people, many Americans in fact, still don't get that critical difference.
No Constitution is remotely perfect. No one sitting in the summer heat of Philadelphia in 1787 could foretell or forecast circumstances and events 235 years out. One major glitch was the combination of the President (or monarch) and Prime Minister functions. There is no neat and easy way to displace a sitting President when it becomes clear that he or she can no longer function. Nixon is the best modern example. His Presidency was crippled from at least late January 1973 until his exit in August 1974. Woodrow Wilson was another; it was not publicly known that his wife of fairly recent vintage was making most of the decisions. Another was the failure to see the re-invigoration of slavery with the development of the cotton gin.
The failure of both Russia and France to successfully democratize was based more on the failure to develop a civil society than in details of their written constitutions. The U.S. always had a vital civil society, and a flourishing if venomous press.
The failures of Russia and France are good lessons in revolutions.
Russia is easy to explain, they were one of the most severe monarchies on the planet in the 18th and 19th century, acting like they were still King's from the middle ages, the economy was in trouble, they were losing wars to upstarts like Japan or dying kingdoms such as the Ottaman's, and the were already seeing serfdom revolts on a regular basis. Going straight from that to a workers revolution invites extreemism.
Why France failed so badly is was curious, they were already moderating into something resembling England's constitutional monarchy at the time the Bastille was stormed. Things went wrong almost immediately, the only thing I can think of is their "founding fathers" were collections of power hungry opportunists. They replaced increased liberalism with tyranny, representation with mob rule and later dictatorship, moderation with extremism, relative peace and prosperity with two decades of war and destruction, filling heads with knowledge with chopping off heads, and a reign of independence with the reign of terror. I have several books on the Napoleonic period that touched on the politics of the French Revolution, I really have to read more.
But, yikes, France still celebrates Bastille Day as a national holiday. Someone from France - please tell me why you celebrate an event that doomed France with 70 years of police-state dictatorship, war, death, and terror before you finally moderated into a modern democracy?
France and Russia remind me of this quote from Orwell's 1984: "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."
There was an internal British dispute in British America. The French, to split the British and to reduce British power in the world, joined in supporting the rebel side. Their interference succeeded. But in doing so cost the French people dearly in expense. To support the rebels, the standard of living in France fell markedly. The people, unable to see the point of getting involved in other's internal disputes creating suffering, rebelled overthrowing the French regime.
So supporting the rebels in another country severely backfired on the French monarchy and regime.
There was an internal British dispute in British America. The French, to split the British and to reduce British power in the world, joined in supporting the rebel side. Their interference succeeded. But in doing so cost the French people dearly in expense. To support the rebels, the standard of living in France fell markedly. The people, unable to see the point of getting involved in other's internal disputes creating suffering, rebelled overthrowing the French regime.
So supporting the rebels in another country severely backfired on the French monarchy and regime.
I've heard that view before, but it was more of a "damned if they did, damned if they didn't" issue. The British were a problem for France and vice versa for a long time. In many ways French involvement was payback for their loss in the French and Indian Wars, a/k/a Seven Years War, that wound up in 1763 on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City. In fact, the British spending on that war led Britain to tighten its taxation and control on the 13 Colonies, leading ineluctably to Lexington and Concord. In a way, then, France, once they had a viable ally in the colonial rebels, resumed stirring the pot. The Revolutionary War then continued over to the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. Only with the Congress of Vienna did the various wars come to a partial conclusion until August 1914. Even then the interlude was partial; the Franco-Prussian and various other wars broke out.
There were no major conflicts with the British and French when the British colonists rebelled. Getting involved in the disputes of others backfired horrifically on the French establishment.
There were no major conflicts with the British and French when the British colonists rebelled. Getting involved in the disputes of others backfired horrifically on the French establishment.
French and British had really been going at it for centuries, every war that ended was simply a period to rest and rearm for the next war. So the 7 years war ended in 1763 with a defeat for France, it was time for another go. What better time than when England was dealing with a revolution in the Americas. There were probably skirmishes between the two powers between that time however. Really what France wanted was to protect it's colonies in the Caribbean and the sugar trade. Alliance with the revolution was a means to an end. It backfired for both England and France really.
Adding insult to injury, a decade or so after American independence, besides being preoccupied with chopping off heads of it's own countrymen, France became involved in a quasi war with the new American republic.
French and British had really been going at it for centuries, every war that ended was simply a period to rest and rearm for the next war. So the 7 years war ended in 1763 with a defeat for France, it was time for another go. What better time than when England was dealing with a revolution in the Americas. There were probably skirmishes between the two powers between that time however. Really what France wanted was to protect it's colonies in the Caribbean and the sugar trade. Alliance with the revolution was a means to an end. It backfired for both England and France really.
Adding insult to injury, a decade or so after American independence, besides being preoccupied with chopping off heads of it's own countrymen, France became involved in a quasi war with the new American republic.
There were no major conflicts with the British and French when the British colonists rebelled.
There were no major conflicts with the British and French when the British colonists rebelled.
OK yeah...
I know you are still new to this forum. As no one disagreed, was there a reason you felt the need to repeat your previous post? Did your previous post not show in your browser? Did something malfunction when you were posting? Did you accidently cut and paste your previous post and forget to add more text?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
