Jurist Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758–1794) professed simultaneously to the citizens and their representatives—alongside proponents of the French Revolution—that morality ought to be substituted for egotism, probity for false honor, principles for usages; and other tangible examples of exchanges attained from abdicating tyranny by revolution, (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., pp. 226, 227). Robespierre concluded his list with a concise summary, that “in a word, all the virtues and miracles of a Republic instead of all the vices and absurdities of a Monarchy,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 227). Robespierre prophesied that “all the beneficent and generous passions awakened by the laws…where the citizen submits to the authority of the magistrate, the magistrate obeys that of the people, and the people are governed by a love of justice,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 226). His fundamental bottom-up approach was met with top-down reciprocity; offering an explicit mutual recognition of natural rights, namely justice. Robespierre proclaimed that “[t]he law of self-preservation, with every being whether physical or moral, is the first law of nature,” (Robespierre, M., p. 228). The concept of morality as law of self-preservation prefaced both the French Revolution and the American Revolution—yet their conduct displayed a significant difference in virtue.
The Values of Virtue and Morality
Robespierre wrote that “virtue and equality are the soul of the republic,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 227). Robespierre contended “virtue which is nothing more than love of the fatherland and of its laws,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 227). Robespierre contended that virtue was not only applicable to man, but a value necessary to government; writing, “[i]f the strength of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the strength of popular government in revolution is both virtue and terror; terror without virtue is disastrous, virtue without terror is powerless…[w]eaknesses, vices, prejudices are the road to monarchy,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., pp. 227, 228). (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 227). Robespierre believed terror to be necessary alongside virtue; writing “[t]error is nothing but prompt, severe, and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue;” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 228).
God reminds us in the Old Testament (OT) of the essentiality of virtue during wartime; “[w]hen you go out as an army against your enemies, you shall keep yourself from every evil thing. (Deuteronomy 23:9; NASB). Similarly, Robespierre reiterated this logic—despite using the word terror, he called for swift justice, compassed towards liberty. Robespierre believed that “[t]he government of revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny;” adding, “conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 228). Robespierre bore approbation for antiquity, writing; “the public virtue which brought about so many marvels in Greece and Rome and which must bring about much more astonishing ones yet in republican France;” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., pp. 226, 227).
Christian Notions of Morality and Virtue Compared
Christian virtue is presupposed in man by God, whereas Robespierre’s virtue focuses on the actions of government. Robespierre advocated for a symbiotic nation; one “where the country secures the comfort of each individual, and where each individual prides himself on the prosperity and glory of his country;” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 226). Robespierre asserted that “Republican virtue may be considered as it respects the people and as it respects the government. It is necessary in both, Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., p. 227).
Robespierre acknowledged evident eternal truth in his work, writing that “[e]very precaution must early be used to place the interests of freedom in the hands of truth, which is eternal, rather than in those of men who change, (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., pp. 225). Robespierre warned that “if the government forgets the interests of the people or falls into the hands of men corrupted, according to the natural course of things, the light of acknowledged principles should unmask their treasons, and that every new faction may read its death in the very thought of a crime,” (Robespierre, M.; Capaldi, N., pp. 225, 226).
Robespierre’s successor Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809–1967) the founder of mutualism, wrote that, “[t]he labor of man continues the work of God, who, in creating all beings, did but externally realize the eternal laws of reason,” (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., pp. 247, 248). Proudhon sought an alternative, denouncing both political economy and socialism; remarking that “the line of demarcation between socialism and political economy is fixed, and the hostility flagrant,” (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., p. 249). Proudhon added that, “[t]he first [economists] affirm that that which ought to be is; the second, [socialists] that that which ought to be is not,” (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., p. 249).
Proudhon based his doctrine on revolution—specifically the execution of King Louis XVI—writing that “from the era of mythology to the present year 57 of our great revolution, the general welfare has improved,” (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., p. 263). As Nicholas Capaldi writes, “[l]ike Rousseau before him, Proudhon proclaimed in the opening paragraph of What is Property? that ‘Property is Robbery,’” (Capaldi, N., p. 107). Capaldi concludes that “Proudhon’s point is that the pursuit of equality of conditions ought to be the principle of right and the project of government, (Capaldi, N., p. 107). Proudhon’s reverence for the beginning of the French Revolution was preserved in his translation of partisanship; on the right were the economists, whereby Proudhon decried “[p]olitical economy tends toward the glorification of selfishness;” and the left were the socialists; a group that Proudhon denounced “favors the exaltation of communism,” (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., pp. 249, 250; Liberty University). Proudhon questioned the narrative of duality, deeming the dichotomy to be a false one; though he did consider himself to be a maleficent force; explicitly writing in defense that, “I am no agent of discord;” whilst affirming the “reality of an economic science,” contrasted with the nonscience of political economy, (Proudhon, P.J.; Capaldi, N., p. 107).
Comparison of the American Revolution and the French Revolution
Although both the American Revolution and the French Revolution seemingly started in a similar moral reaction to a violation of liberties, they differed in their agendas and resolutions. The definition and application of values—namely morality and virtue—explain the outcomes following the American Revolution and the French Revolution. French morality was determined by self-interest; as compared to the American Revolution which responded to inequalities, and concluded its conflict upon solution. Friedrich von Gentz reported that “[b]oth began by a violation of rights; but “[t]he American revolution was from beginning to end, on the part of the Americans, merely a defensive revolution; the French was from beginning to end, in the highest sense of the word, an offensive revolution,” (Gentz, F., p. 53). Friedrich Gentz wrote that “America sought not a revolution; she yielded to it,” adding “[t]he American revolution, at every stage of its duration, had a fixed and definite object, and moved within definite limits, and by a definite direction towards this object, (Gentz, F., pp. 62, 63). The French Revolution was far less organized, without a definitive goal; Gentz accounted that “[t]he French revolution never had a definite object; and, in a thousand various directions, continually crossing each other, ran through the unbounded space of a fantastic arbitrary will, and of a bottomless anarchy,” (Gentz, F., p. 67). Gentz wrote that the French Revolution produced a republic—“but this republic was a word without definite meaning,” (Gentz, F., pp. 82, 83).
As the Lord decreed unto Ezekiel, an incitement of revolution equates to wavering in faith, as it is written; “I will purge you of those who revolt and rebel against me. Although I will bring them out of the land where they are living, yet they will not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.,” (Ezekiel 20:38; NIV).
The American Revolution shared a natural heritage with the French Revolution in that dual partisanship would be seen a century later—rooted in those who sat to King Louis XVI’s left, (opposition) and right, (concurrence). The French Revolution was a civil war, whereas the American Revolution had “more the appearance of a foreign, than of a civil war,” (Gentz, F., p. 85). The French Revolution brought a tumultuous wrath across France; whilst the American Revolution left the despotic tyrants in search of liberty—leaving England to found America. The American Revolution held itself to a greater degree of Biblical doctrine in that similar to Moses’ exodus, bringing the Jews out of Egypt—so subjects of tyranny conducted a mass exodus in search of a solution. God reminds us through the prophet Isaiah that the iniquities of contributing to revolution outweigh its benefits, thereby scribing; “[f]or our offenses are many in your sight, and our sins testify against us. Our offenses are ever with us, and we acknowledge our iniquities: rebellion and treachery against the LORD, turning our backs on our God, inciting revolt and oppression, uttering lies our hearts have conceived,” (Isaiah 59:12-14; NIV). Isaiah warned that “justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey,” (Isaiah 59:15; NIV).
Peter Koslowski (1952–2012) writes, “[t]he goals or objectives of the French Revolution became more and more extensive and changed unpredictably under the varying influence of the different revolutionary factions, (Koslowski, P., p. xvi). Koslowski adds that “[t]he French Revolution did not maintain good conduct. It did not come to an end by itself but was ended only by the ascent of Napoleon. Finally, it did try to enforce its principles on other nations,” (Koslowski, P., p. xvi). Friedrich Gentz elaborates, “[a]s the American revolution was a defensive revolution, it was of course finished, at the moment, when it had overcome the attack, by which it had been occasioned. The French revolution, true to the character of a most violent offensive revolution, could not but proceed so long as there remained objects for it to attack, and it retained strength for the assault,” (Gentz, F., p. 53). Gentz reminds the reader that, “[t]he revolution of America was, therefore, in every sense of the word, a revolution of necessity,” (Gentz, F., p. 62).
The Declaration of Independence (1776) set forth inspiration for France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789); whereas the United States Constitution (1787) paved the way for the French Constitution (1791). “[t]he French revolution was offensive in its origin, offensive in its progress, offensive in its whole compass, and in every single characteristic moment of its existence,” (Gentz, F., p. 63). The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen both represented an affirmative statement of values presented by the aggrieved, thus each introduced a call for civic representation. The French Constitution held many similarities to the U.S. Constitution in that the legislative body was tasked with lawmaking, a quorum was established for voting by majority, and the enumeration of liberties—yet only the U.S. Constitution would remain unchanged. The French Revolution lacked a consistent, strong moral foundation—an attribute evident throughout the American Revolution.
Conclusion
The American Revolution occurred anterior to the French Revolution; though both initiated by grievances assembled a monument of support, and led to a permanent change in governance. But the differences outweigh the similarities in that the French Revolution was initiated by the public execution of King Louis XVI; whereas the American Revolution took form by mass exodus. Each differed in their resistance; the French Revolution faced a variety of criticism from a multitude of angles; whereas the American Revolution possessed one enemy—tyranny (Gentz, F., p. 67). The French Revolution was a revolution of offense; whereas the American Revolution was a revolution of defense, thus bore consistent moral virtue. The American Revolution produced an unchanged charter, whereas the French Revolution led to a charter that has faced multiple changes since its invocation. The American Revolution produced a novel Republic founded on charter under the authority of Congress; whereas the French Revolution created a presidential-parliamentary system with the President’s authority tethered domestically to its Prime Minister. The American Revolution was concluded by Charter, whereas the French Revolution ended through a coup d’état. America’s solution to revolution was legislation, whereas France’s solution to its revolution was further revolution. Thus, the American Revolution stands as a successful, lasting, and necessary revolution; producing an unchanging Constitution and a remarkable nation of resilience and fortitude.
Bibliography
Capaldi & Gordon. (2011). The Two Narratives of Political Economy. Wiley. Kindle Edition.
Gentz, Friedrich. The Origin and Principles of the American Revolution, Compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution . Liberty Fund Inc.. Kindle Edition.
JMBK.NEWS 