the imaginative conservative logo

american and french revolutionsOne of the many differences between the American and French Revolutions is that, unlike the French, Americans did not fight for an abstraction. Americans initially took up arms against the British to defend and preserve the traditional rights of Englishmen. The slogan “no taxation without representation” aptly summed up one of their chief complaints. The right to not be taxed without the consent of your elected representatives was one of the most prized rights of Englishmen. When this became impossible to achieve within the British Empire, Americans declared their independence and then won it on the battlefield. That is, Americans fought for tangible goals; they fought to preserve their traditional rights rather than to overturn an established social order. Ours was a revolution more about home rule than about who should rule at home.

However, the French Revolution was about who should rule at home. They fought for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Neither equality nor fraternity can be achieved through force by the state. Perfect equality is elusive and, even if it could be achieved, would be inconsistent with liberty. Whereas Americans struggled for tangible goals, the French took on the Sisyphean task of striving for abstractions.

Yes, the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence deals in abstractions and universal truths. However, it is important to keep in mind the Declaration’s historical context. The signers of the Declaration did not think they were establishing a national government or founding a national Union when they signed it. There is not one shred of evidence in the historical record that they believed they had founded either a national government or a permanent Union upon the Declaration’s self-evident truths. They understood that they were signing their names to a document that simply explained why it had become “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” and that declared “the causes which impel them to the separation.” The Declaration was a document of dissolution. That is, it de-founded an empire, it did not found a new one. In the Declaration, thirteen constitutional political societies declared why it had become necessary for them to sever the political bands which had connected them to England.

After winning their independence Americans turned to the concrete lessons of history and experience to guide them in securing their liberty by establishing government on a solid foundation. “Experience must be our only guide,” John Dickinson reminded his colleagues at the Philadelphia Convention. “Reason may mislead us.”[1] They sought not to create something new under the sun. Human reason, they knew, was fallible. Reason alone, unguided by history and experience, was likely to lead one into wild abstractions and the creation of an unstable government. Under such a government, novel and untested, liberty would not be secure. The only safe path forward was to look to history and allow experience to guide their reason.

Experience was “the best oracle of wisdom” and “the least fallible guide of human opinions,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist.[2] James Madison, his collaborator, concurred. Experience was “the oracle of truth” and “the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found,” wrote Madison.[3] Experience would help prevent reason from leading them astray.

The French, on the other hand, deified Reason above not only experience, but also above religion and divine revelation. Indeed, they even transformed Notre Dame into a Temple of Reason and held pseudo-religious festivals in honor of this new deity. Reason unrestrained and unguided by history and experience proved unable to establish stable government or to secure liberty in France. Instead, it led them to descend into the Terror, the reign of Napoleon, and, ultimately, to the restoration of the monarchy.

Wendell Berry was right about abstraction: “abstraction is the enemy wherever it is found.”[4] Let us turn instead, as America’s Founders did, to experience. “That experience is the parent of wisdom,” explained Hamilton, “is an adage, the truth of which is recognized by the wisest as well as the simplest of mankind.”[5]

Books mentioned in this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

  1. Quoted in Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas, 1985), 7.
  2. Alexander Hamilton, “Number 15” and “Number 6,” in The Federalist, ed. by George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2001), 73, 23.
  3. James Madison, “Number 20” and “Number 52,” in The Federalist, 99, 273.
  4. Wendell Berry, “Out of Your Car, Off Your Horse,” in Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 23.
  5. Hamilton, “Number 72,” in The Federalist, 376.
Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
8 replies to this post
  1. “perfect equality would be inconsistent with liberty?” That is definitely true but only for individual liberty, not corporate liberty. And it contradicts individual liberty when we reduce all relationships to individual liberty. That is because while individual liberty allows those who can to excel, it allows those who have excelled to limit and control others.

    And when we stress individual liberty too much, we inhibit corporate liberty, which is commonly called democracy.

    BTW, one of those tangible goals that some who forged the revolution had was westward expansion that came at great physical and personal costs to the America’s indigenous people and at great moral costs to the conquerors.

    • This reply you have left is pure nonsense. Individual liberty vs corporate liberty? There is no such thing as corporate liberty. That is a distortion. The pursuit of Liberty is individual only, and it does not allow one to hamper or block another’s pursuit. The CHOICE to engage in a trade relationship cannot be abused or manipulated, lest it ceases to be trade and becomes coercion.
      Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Coercion again.
      Your addendum is also absurd. Of course force = evil. So what? The relationship between those expanding West and the Indians is the same as between any high-tech society meeting a low-tech society in history. It is not good, but nobody said it was. It is also not remarkable, a straw-man argument, and it is a point that we need to move beyond.

      • Leon,
        Democracy is about corporate liberty. It is about community deciding on how it will exist. And the problem that exists for some conservatives is the notion of corporate liberty, it is the all-or-nothing thinking that comes with reducing all liberty to individual liberty. And all-or-nothing thinking approaches to individual liberty leads to tyranny. That is true even of the all approach to individual liberty because such an approach relieves the elite individual of all social responsibilities.

          • Kywrite,
            That may sound like an oxymoron to you, but you described what it was.

            You might also want to consider what was commonly called Communism was really Bolshevism. And what I described above was not that. In fact, there were quite a few Socialists who opposed Bolshevism because of its centralized leadership of a few. Many socialists called that a Bourgeoisie dictatorship.

  2. The French Revolution established abstract universalistic principles based on a responsibility to human rights, while the Americans preferred to focus on immediate problem-solving and rights (to land they took from the natives.) The French are more conservative in this sense, since the decisions they take are still informed by a single common vision for the long-term good. While France’s focus has not changed, America’s destiny is now shaped by anonymous market forces, public relations specialists, lobbyists, investors, a vastly richer, more influential corporate overclass directly implicated in politics, etc.

Leave a Reply