1. Susan Dunn's Sister Revolutions exhibits the primary differences and consequences of the American and French Revolutions. Subtitling the book "French Lightening, American Light," Dunn explains the evolutions of French and American societies following the close of the revolutionary era in light of the diverging perspectives on government and social organization. Whereas the United States develops a government centered around a system calling for order and stability, Dunn argues that the French become more interested in rapid change, which led to a great deal of instability. Dunn supports her argument by noting the respective roles of consensus and conflict in the two new governments. The outcomes of those governments are determined by the role played by their leaders, how those leaders implement the institutions of government, and how government affects the development of the two new societies.
After having been under the government of an absolute monarch since time beyond memory, the French revolutionaries wanted to change their government very rapidly. According to Gouverneur Morris, the American diplomat to Paris in 1792, the French had "taken Genius instead of Reason for their Guide, adopted Experiment instead of Experience, and wander in the Dark because they prefer Lightning to Light." Morris' opinion noted the rapid, seemingly reckless track the French appeared to be taking in their struggle to establish a new national identity, apart from the Bourbon monarchy. Observing the real lack of experienced leadership on the French side of the Atlantic Ocean, Dunn contrasted them against the Americans she portrayed as the scholars, political thinkers, and experienced legislators they were. Whereas the inexperienced French would soon quickly progress through several unstable, short-lived governments, the American establishment proved to be enduring. Dunn's overarching argument was that the Americans' experience led them to be wary of experiment, or "Lightning," establishing a solid, workable government around their experience, or "Light." Through the words of Noah Webster, Dunn explains the key message: "Experience is a safe pilot; but experiment is a dangerous ocean, full of rocks and shoals."
After explaining the differences in what the Americans and French did, in the processes of their respective revolutions, Dunn goes on to explain how those differences bore out the future courses of the two societies. In America, Dunn notes the decor the members of the established government managed to preserve, at nearly all times. The result of this was that members of the government could expect opposition, but they realized they could be free to oppose the opinions of others because their own opinions would be respected, not repressed. Indeed, repression and fear of dissent was a major problem in France for the members of the various governments up until the time of Napoleon, whence dissent was really no longer possible. In France, the word "unity" was thrown around as the all-encompassing goal of the government. With origins conveniently taken from Rousseau's ideas about volonté général, those directing the government indeed did "force the people to be free," by summarily guillotining thousands of dissenters during the Terror. Despite the fact that Robespierre and his Jacobin henchmen were misusing Rousseau's ideas about the general will, the Terror continued, shaping the progression of the Revolution unalterably, as "the people" became enslaved to the unending quest to uphold "truth." It seems that, as the two revolutions progressed, diverging from one another in objective and action, Dunn's assertion of the instability caused by French "Lightning" as leading to great destruction and chaos, as well as her assessment of the progress made by the American use of "Light" and reason as a guide, proved true.
2. The American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen are landmark pieces of political documentation, in the way their roles guarded, or were intended to guard, the rights, sovereignty, and self-determination of citizens of those countries. In the age during which these amendments and declaration were established, such safeguards as they contained were necessary, given the contentious political and social environments of the time. Indeed, Susan Dunn suggests that "the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration were carefully tailored to suit their nations' ideals and fears." As much as these two documents did to solidify the rights of citizens in both countries, they did not always preserve the same liberties in the same ways, or entirely for the same purposes.
Not only was the French Declaration intended to safeguard liberties, it was also intended to "strike unflinchingly at the heart and soul of monarchy, severing the nation irrevocably from its past." As a clear demarcation of the new national political agenda, the forgers of the Declaration set the nation on a new track, presumably toward protecting "the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man." Although this directive in government did not last long, replaced by Terror, the Declaration created a set of principles that endured, with its most lasting contribution being the concept of equality before the law.
The American Bill of Rights served a similar purpose as the Declaration, helping to safeguard liberties. Instituted by loud, popular demand two years after the implementation of the Constitution, the first ten Amendments have proven a vital instrument protecting the American people from government abuses since the founding of the nation. However, the specific purpose of the American document differs from the French in a very important aspect, namely, in its applicability. "While the authors of the French Declaration...sought to proclaim revolutionary goals and enshrine the ideals of humanity, the framers of the Bill of Rights, experienced lawyers and legislators, had the more modest goal of formulating rights that would be enforceable in court." The Bill of Rights was, stylistically, brief and to the point, worded very specifically for clarity of intent and application. For example, compare the similar ideas contained in the Declaration's 8th Article, and the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Both seek to protect from excesses of punishment for a crime. Specifically, though, the 8th Article is an enumeration of what the government can do, instead of a safeguard specifying what the government cannot do, as in the 8th Amendment. Dunn suggests that the protections offered by the Declaration can actually be annulled, given the language of Article 7, which says basically implies that the law can determine in which cases a man may be indicted.
Dunn's analysis of the two documents is useful, summarizing the main points of contention between the two:
One nation wanted to protect individuals and minorities from the majority. The other never doubted the majority's ability to legislate wisely. One nation wanted constitutional amendments, not to create rights but rather to guarantee them. The other was confident that its legislature could protect rights as well as simultaneously make laws concerning and circumscribing those rights.
In general, likeness abounds between the two documents, as they both strive to uphold and protect the rights they proclaim as being basic to the human existence, with the main difference being their applicability in a useful, tangible environment, such as a court proceeding.
3. In Susan Dunn's view, the present government of Great Britain stands as the embodiment of the necessary reconciliation between order and conflict, as well as between energetic leadership and two-party governmental gridlock. Citing the existence of two "distinct, competitive parties that alternate in power, a strong elected executive, and...no marked constitutional separation of powers," Dunn suggests that it is possible for a party's business to be executed, at the same time preserving the usefulness of having an opposition party. This opposition, known as "Her Majesty's Opposition," is expected to oppose the agenda of the majority party by proposing alternative legislation, in order to assure that the government does not pursue unacceptable goals. The usefulness of the opposition, then, is to check majority power, by the means of the electorate. If the majority government produces unpopular legislation, as well as rejecting the proposals of the minority government party, then the electorate's prerogative would be to elect the minority party into the majority position, to enact more popular legislation.
Thus, majoritarian democracy prevails. At the same time, though, the rights of the minority are obviously preserved. Conflict is pivotal in the British system. It is conflict that allows the perpetuation of fresh ideas and new ways of resolving issues. For instance, if everyone agreed upon the manner in which to solve a particular dilemma, it is likely that very little debate would have taken place, as the "path of least resistance" tends to be a centrist course. Centralism generally does not provide solutions to dynamic problems. With the British system, though, Dunn argues that centralism need not dominate the conduits of change, as a unified executive and legislation could forge ahead with whatever changes would be necessary, all the while under the observation of the minority party.
The conflict which Dunn finds essential to the fluidity of the British system is, she says, dependent upon the framework in which the system operates. Noting the mechanisms through which propriety in governing are maintained, such as decor, language, and behavior, Dunn believes that this development of respect has allowed the British to be able to argue and debate as extensively as they do, all the while maintaining an environment conducive to the smooth operation of government. At the same time, though, a degree of consensus is necessary. Citing a political commentator, Dunn finds the solution in, "a society where dissent is low enough to encourage a relatively calm and objective appraisal of alternatives, and yet sufficient to make sure that radical alternatives will not be ignored or suppressed." Having found this example in functional and operational form in Great Britain, Dunn concludes, suggesting an improvement to the American system of gridlock could be seen in the mechanisms of the British system.
4. Dunn argues that the applicability of the sister revolutions in the modern world continues to the present day. Such an enduring legacy, Dunn says, does not really result from any active effort by the heirs of the two revolutions, the Americans and the French. Indeed, the significance of July 4th and 14th have devolved, largely, to national holidays which have come to represent less than the revolutionary ideals upon which the two nations brokered their freedom so many years ago. The preponderance of those revolutionary ideals have given way to less lofty issues, as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and "equality, liberty, and fraternity" have faded as ideals of the status quo. Instead, the lasting legacy of the revolution, at least in terms of ideology, exists outside of America and France, where "the Revolution" has long since ended.
Dunn notes that the lasting legacy of the revolutions has passed down to the present by the heirs of other revolutions, who looked to the sister revolutions as guidance. For example, Lenin considered himself a Jacobin, executing the Robespierran legacy of using violence to promote his policy. Dunn specifies what she sees as the highlights of the French Revolution, in Lenin's eyes, as being "the elimination of dissent, purges, and capital punishment," while avoiding the low points, like "factions and counterrevolution." Armed with such a map, Lenin proceeded to enact some of the more reproachable aspects of the French revolutionary arsenal. The Jacobin concept of national unity was seen in Bolshevik terms as supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin saw the Russian Revolution as being the natural completion of the French Revolution's unfinished business: "The Russian Revolution would fulfill the promise of the French Revolution, finally inaugurating the reign of equality."
Dunn similarly explains the revolutions undertaken in Vietnam by Ho Chi Minh, the revolutionary movements in the post-colonial era, including Algeria and South Africa. She argues that each revolution, in its own way, borrows from the legacy created by the American and French Revolutions. Whether adopting harsh, repressive political tactics from the French model, or, as in South Africa, by forging ahead with its unique revolutionary progress, the legacies of the sister revolutions has passed to the current age, even if from conduits outside those from which the legacy began.
5. Susan Dunn's book helps to bring the reader closer to the American Revolution, putting the reader much closer to the action and environment of the day, as if on a personal level. Usually, historical textbooks provide a systematic overview of a topic, with less emphasis on particular detail than upon developing a consistent approach by means of which to relate a broader understanding of the entire subject, as a whole. This approach can leave a less than personal perspective with the reader, by integrating overarching themes and facts into an organized, but intangible presentation that is unlikely to physically grasp the reader. Apart from this mould, then, Dunn's book helps bring the Revolution to the American reader in a more tangible fashion.
As a representative measure of Dunn's effort to personalize the Revolution, she introduces the reader to Marquis de Lafayette. This venerable young man, who would become known in American history as one of the heroes of the nation's birth, left behind in France a child and expecting wife in order to voyage to America to help fight for the liberties of a people to whom he felt intimately connected. What is significant about this is the fact that this information is imparted to the reader. A textbook would usually skip over such irrelevant details as a man's family, or even his background, to strike directly at his or her specific significance or influence in the greater scheme of events. This is what makes Dunn's perspective appealing. She takes the people so pivotal in Revolutionary history and brings them to life. Personal connections with history come about all too infrequently, and can be as important in truly understanding history as knowing how or why circumstances bore out the way they did.
Additionally, Dunn's insight into people helps to develop an understanding of why they responded to their environments in the ways they did. For example, in order to more fully understand the actions of a given person, it is helpful to understand what that person believes, and why. It is not enough to know that James Madison was the principle architect of the American government, through his meticulous work in crafting the Constitution; one must also understand Madison's belief in the limits of man's ability to discern and create, in order to appreciate his thoroughness in shaping the Constitution. Without understanding his beliefs in man's fallibility, it would be easy to overlook the sheer determination it took for Madison to undertake such a monumental task as creating a document that he knew would inexpressibly affect the future of his country. Gaining a closer insight into his character, then, allows more encompassing understanding of his view of government by which to discern the importance placed upon reason and rationality in an institution which many people do not see much reason and rationality in anymore. Thus, Dunn's personalization of the American Revolution succeeds in planting seeds of insight which grow to fruition when considered within the larger aspect of history that is so readily promulgated in otherwise unfeeling textbooks.
6. Dunn's discussion of America's Founding Fathers is a subject of particular interest. Generally revered when discussing the establishment of America, it is understood that their contribution to the nation was great. But exactly what did they contribute, and who were they? Tradition holds that they were, as a rule, enlightened, forward-looking, scholarly men with a penchant for what is true and just. At some point, though, fact and myth must necessarily diverge; if George Washington's legend involving the cherry tree and his inability to tell a lie are myth, as it certainly is, then who was the real George Washington? Closer relation to the actual people behind the legends allows a clearer discernment of their character, made available through Dunn's discussion of the Founding Fathers as men, as individuals, and not just as American legends.
Of the images Dunn portrays of all the Founding Fathers, her portrait of Washington is the most interesting, mostly because it cuts beneath the historic façade that seems most difficult to penetrate. Beneath what Dunn calls a public image "of a gentleman-farmer who yearned to leave the political arena to return to his land at Mount Vernon" was "an ambitions man who disguised his appetite for power and glory with the appearance of magnanimous public service." Instead of retiring, though, Dunn says that it is Washington's apparent reluctance to be in office that allows him to increasingly acquire and wield more power. Citing several instances in which Washington asserted his reluctance to serve and the resulting increase in his public responsibilities, Dunn's examples underscore her points of Washington's hidden ambition.
Serving as an interesting foil to Washington is Maximilien Robespierre, as far as historical images go. Known most infamously for his role in the Terror, Robespierre was indeed more than a maniacal dictator. However, the rapport he developed as a result of his actions during his reign has not been undeserved. Robespierre had a way of turning logic on its head, as is obvious when considering some of his maxims. Implying that virtue necessitated violence, he said, "terror is nothing other than prompt, sever, inflexible justice. Hence terror is an emanation of virtue." To support his assertion, Robespierre also said, "Terror without virtue is malignant. Virtue without terror is impotent." These quotes reveal frightening insight into Robespierre's character. A man with dangerous beliefs had found himself with a great deal of authority to enact his beliefs. The result was the Terror. Compared to the illustrious reputations largely shared by the American leadership, Robespierre did not fare nearly as profitably in the annals of history. However, if personal integrity, morality, or character has any bearing on the matter, Robespierre need not feel slighted by history, as he had well earned his place in infamy.
7. In the first chapter of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the text explains the atmosphere of France on the eve of the revolution. A document with very influential ramifications is Rousseau's Social Contract, which many revolutionaries used as a quarry from which to mine much of their thought on revolution and the freedom of the human spirit. The text states, "it is not surprising, therefore, that Rousseau displaced all the other Enlightenment figures as the Revolution proceeded. The more radical the Revolt ion, the more the revolutionaries relied on Rousseau as their guide." His Social Contract is provided by the text to support this view, saying "if all the citizens assembled in order to break the compact by a solemn agreement, no one can doubt that it could be quite legitimately broken." Armed with this doctrine from their venerable philosophe, the revolutionaries plunged headlong into their work of changing the state.
The second chapter, detailing the procession from a constitutional to a democratic revolution, explains how France came closer to the moral impasse that was the Terror. Particularly important in this process was the pressure maintained by militant Parisians, the sans-culottes. Their demands for a "repressive government that would...promptly arrest and execute opponents of the Republic" led to the passing of the Law of Suspects, in September 1793. This legislation essentially gave the government carte blanche to initiate the witch-hunt that became the Terror. The language of the decree was ambiguous enough to cause problems identifying who the state's enemies really were; stating that "all suspects within the territory of the Republic and still at large, shall be placed in custody" immediately, the Law did not very specifically enumerate just who those suspects were. The result was an endless stream of "enemies" who would summarily be executed. The inclusion of the document into the text allows the reader to directly see the problems inherent in the law and how it allowed the Terror to ensue.
A link between the Law of Suspects and the development of the Terror can readily be seen in the following Law of 22 Prairial Year II. As chapter three describes the Terror, the spread of war, and resistance to the revolution, the inclusion of the Law clearly exhibits how matters quickly devolved into chaos. As the text indicates, "even after [the] supposed threats to the Committee's power had been eliminated, the Terror continued and even worsened," with matters becoming worse with the passing of the Law of 22 Prairial. The Law more specifically enumerated France's enemies, with a whole procession of clauses devoted to this cause. Among the most significant provisions was the establishment of a one-penalty-fits-all approach: "The penalty provided for all offenses under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Tribunal is death." Additionally, the Law facilitated the process of proclaiming defendants guilty by reducing the number of votes required for guilt. Finally, the admission of nearly any kind of evidence against the accused virtually assured that, once accused, the "guilty" party would be headed for the guillotine. Thus, the Terror spread, as explained in the text.
Chapter 4 deals with the spread of revolution into the French colonies. As in France itself, the revolutionaries of the colonies were seeking the establishment of liberty and equality. However, the key difference rests with from whom the colonial revolutionaries were trying to wrest their freedoms, being the French themselves. Slavery was the engine driving the colonial French economy, but with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, slaves and their abolitionist counterparts held that these freedoms extended to all men, not just the white French. However, the predominant view was that the slaves were necessary to the maintenance of French wealth and economic prosperity. Thus, as such men as Monseron de l'Aunay wrote, the duty of the French was more to their economy than to their fellow man: "Consider the sixty million profit from their exports each year, and the enormous importance of the income already lost.... Our eternal rival...smile at our misfortunes and...foresee the scepter of their world-wide domination that no human force would be able to take from them." So while the argument persisted, asserting the rights of the slaves as citizens, the government moved to stop the rebellion, dispatching troops to quell resistance. The document provided with the text enables the reader to clearly see the French rationale for trying to restrict the distribution of liberty to their fellow man, as the economic needs of the national clearly took precedence over any moral restraints about slavery.
Chapter 5 deals with Napoleon's rise and fall as the leader of France. Immediately upon gaining power, Napoleon set about consolidating his hold on the government, in order to enhance stability, something French government had not had in great measure since the beginning of the revolution. One source of conflict continually undermining government stability was the ongoing uprising in the Vendée. As the problem in the Vendée was perpetuated by governmental intolerance of the peasants' Catholic religion, Napoleon struck a veritable peace treaty with the Pope, known as the Concordat. As the text acknowledges, by putting the resistance of the peasants behind him, Napoleon could more freely focus upon settling the other tasks at hand. As for the actual document, the Concordat provided that: "the Catholic, apostolic and Roman religion shall be freely exercised in France" and that "The First Consul of the Republic shall make appointments" of clergy within France, with the Pope's approval. The purpose of including the Concordat along with the text of the book is to allow availability of the actual terms of the agreement between the Church and the Republic to the reader, so that the reader might perceive the nature of the conciliation Napoleon brokered, and how it pertained to his centralization of support, and, by extension, of his power.
The final chapter of the book discusses the legacies of the revolution. As a decision upon just what the Revolution's legacy was depends entirely upon from what perspective a person brings his opinions, it goes without saying that the declarations about the Revolution brought about dissenting opinions. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote his opinion of the Revolution in terms of its necessary adherence to reason. Arguing that "natural rights must be the foundation of all legitimate government," Paine rejected the opposing view held by Edmund Burke: that government precedent bound subjects, their "heirs and [their] posterities, for Ever" to the will of the state. Moreover, Paine argued that according to his principles of man's inherent freedom, man's preservation of his "natural and imprescriptible rights," and man's entitlement to sovereignty through "The Nation," "monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of misery, is abolished; and sovereignty itself is restored to its natural and original place, the Nation." In such a belief, then, Paine interprets the Revolution to be the manifestation of man's natural right to restore his sovereignty over himself, as a part of the nation: as citizen, not subject. Although the inclusion of part of Paine's The Rights of Man does help to explain Paine's interpretation of the French Revolution, inclusion of other key points would have been more useful in attaining a better overall grasp of Paine's assessment of the legacy left in the Revolution's wake.
8. More than any other event in the progression of the Revolution, the execution of King Louis XVI exhibits the unstoppable forces of change which propelled the revolution. As shown in the section of the book entitled, "Down with the King!", the kings execution was a matter of great importance, as it ensconced the permanence of the new order, as there could be no reversion to monarchy after the king had been executed. Of particular significance is Image 8, entitled "An Exuberant Executioner," as it depicts the single moment of the revolution that defined the irrevocable separation from the past. As the caption states, "If the head of the king was the most recognizable Old Regime symbol, then the demise of that symbolic system becomes now complete."
If the king's execution was the climax of the revolution, what was the vision of the revolutionaries responsible for his execution? One would have to investigate the revolutionaries' arguments preceding the king's execution, in order to comprehend their vision and purpose. With the government being divided between camps comprised of Girondins and the Mountain, an ideological divide developed concerning the king's crimes, and, therefore, his fate. Saint-Just, speaking for the Mountain, supported the king's execution without a trial, due to his position outside the social contract between citizens of a republic, as he was an "usurper" of the rights of a citizen. The Girondins disagreed, allowing a trial. Following the king's conviction, another disagreement emerged between the two factions, as to whether or not to execute him.
Despite the close vote, they indeed voted to execute him, arriving at the bloody illustration of the emerging dominant ideology, which tended toward violence and extremism. The king's execution was the divide between the past and present. The executioner's exuberance in the image of the execution underscores this point all too well. As easily as the present had been separated from the past, little could the people so joyously celebrating the king's death realize that his execution was also a symbol of the dissolution of order and safety.
9. The book's introduction to the terror is sufficient to provide a working knowledge of the events that took place in the formation of the Committee of Public Safety, as an institution. However, in order to gain a better understanding of the inner mechanisms of the Committee, a closer review of the words and policies of the members of the Committee is necessary. The inclusion of documents containing these influential words and opinions helps to understand the actions subsequently carried out by the Committee.
After the inception of the Revolutionary Tribunal, intended to quicken the processes of handling matters of national security, smaller branches developed to handle police powers on more local, decentralized levels. Later, though, the Convention established the Committee of Public Safety, in order to "provide direction to the government." All of this information is available in the text, to provide an overview of the Committee's origin. However, for more insight as to how it operated, the availability of primary documents on the CD-ROM is an appreciable benefit.
As Robespierre was the de facto leader of the Committee, an in depth review of some of his policy would help to understand the greater scope of the Terror, and the Committee's role within it. For example, the CD-ROM contains a document entitled "On Political Morality," in which Robespierre divests his views on the responsibilities of government, within the republic. Through his assertions, it is evident why the Terror developed as it did: Robespierre felt it was necessary to protect the virtue of the Republic by the machinations of terror. "Nature imposes upon every physical and moral being the law of providing for its own preservation. Crime slaughters innocence in order to reign, and innocence in the hands of crime fights with all its strength." Having thus determined the need to "fight" for innocence, Robespierre elaborated, saying:
We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish, in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.... If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time [both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent.
Through these internal views of Robespierre's thoughts, it is much easier to see how he steered the Committee of Public Safety on a course toward such great violence and bloodshed, thereby enhancing an overall comprehension of the ensuing Terror, not just as an event, but also as an ideology.
10. As complex and daunting a task as studying the French Revolution has proven to be, it is little surprise that a myriad of interpretations of its eventual outcomes have developed. The discussion presented by the authors of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity suggests that the interpretations of the Revolution's legacy has changed over time, depending upon the perspective of a given interpreter. Dividing the final chapter between political legacies and scholarly interpretations, it is clear that the debate is not yet over.
As for the political legacies, the spirit of revolution did not end in 1815, or any other specific year. The authors suggest that much of modern political conflict can be traced back to the political legacies left by the revolution. The same thought occurred to philosopher Georg Hegel, who said, "we have now to consider the French revolution in its organic connection with the history of the world; for in its substantial import that event is world-historical." Seeing the French Revolution as being intimately connected to subsequent world history is not a difficult connection to make, given the abundance of revolution and conflict that has taken place in the years following the close of the 17th Century. It is not because conflict has developed, so much as the nature of many of these conflicts; anywhere an oppressed people saw fit to cast off the chains of tyranny, the legacy of the Revolution could be seen firmly in operation.
The Revolution's meaning has by no means been static, over time. Immediately after the restoration of monarchy, Germaine de Staël interpreted the Revolution against the backdrop of the restoration monarchy, "blaming the nobility and clergy for bringing down the monarchy." Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels devised another interpretation, which endured for nearly 150 years. Associating the Revolution with socialism and communism, their thought would later be passed down to men such as Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, who would invoke the lessons of the French Revolution while devising and executing their own.
Among writers the Revolution has come to many different interpretations, over time, but, like any other interpretation, each writer brings his or her own political associations and biases to the table when writing. As a result, a given interpretation is bound to supply whatever judgment of the Revolution that would best suit the political atmosphere of the writer's day. For example, Alexis de Tocqueville became critical of the democratic legacy of the Revolution after the ascension of Napoleon III. He had come to see democracy as the means by which one man rule could be instituted, establishing a dictatorship in the name of the people, saying "'the head of Liberty' had been grafted "onto a servile body.'" Alexis was certainly not alone in devising his interpretations based upon current political climate. The authors point out that a Marxist interpretation of the Revolution persisted all the way until 1989, when Marxism finally withered and died on the vine. No longer able to withstand attacks on theses subsisting upon the revolution being "made by the capitalist bourgeoisie," responsible for overthrowing feudalism, or responsible for leading to capitalism, the viability of the Marxist interpretation was clearly shattered, even before the Marxist world system collapsed. In any case, though, whether speaking of the Revolution's influence upon democracy, communism, or any other modern movement, the perspective of the speaker is bound to account for any discrepancy in views.
11. Martin Lyons gives a sweeping overview of Napoleon and his reign through the era of Revolutionary Europe. He notes that Napoleon is irrevocably connected to the Revolution, as the it is through the Revolution that Napoleon gets his chances to aspire to leadership, and, ultimately, to power over the whole of the French nation, and Europe. Seeing Napoleon as a young Corsican of minor nobility with few options to make something of himself, Lyons shows that Napoleon's route of self-determination for glory had to proceed through the French military.
Napoleon's motivation for aspiring to a greater height was inherent in his middling social position in the Corsican nobility. With the island annexed by France, the only way for Napoleon to rise in society was to assimilate into the French society. After becoming integrate with French society through his training in military schools, Napoleon received his opportunities to allow his ambition to help him. He quickly worked his way through the ranks, becoming a general by 26. The French government was wary of the power of its generals, as "their personal ambition had frequently threatened to undermine political stability." Even so, at this point, Lyons suggests that Napoleon is ready to being affecting the results of his own destiny, government wariness or no. Noting that Napoleon's determination of national foreign policy was not exactly what the Directory had in mind, Lyons explains that Napoleon was out to advance his own cause, not just the cause of France. Enhancing his own reputation all the while, by delivering victory after victory, Napoleon also planted the seeds of war that would not wither for many years: "Bonaparte's orientation of French policy towards a new Mediterranean dimension condemned the whole of Europe to a continuation of the war."
Napoleon's connection to the Revolution, then, began early on with his continuation of the state of war that had existed essentially since the Revolution began. However, this was by no means the only connection. Lyons suggests that
"Napoleon Bonaparte, whatever his personal destiny, was a part of the history of the French Revolution.... The revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality, the notion of popular sovereignty, the goal of rational administration and the rule of law, the liberation of Europe from feudal oppression, and above all the poisoned legacy of war - all these inheritances formed basis of his power...."
Through all these achievements, Napoleon permanently connected himself to the ideals of the Revolution.
12. Napoleon's most enduring legacy is his role as the founder of the modern state. For all the territorial and ideological conquests his reign consummated, it is his contributions to the modern state that sets Napoleon apart from the bulk of his would be peers. No single person has more profoundly changed government established national precedent than did Napoleon. As Lyons explains, "the new state, which emerged from the Revolution and was shaped by Napoleon, was a secular state, without a trace of the divine sanction which had been one of the ideological props of the old régime monarchy."
The new state was devised along the lines of two major Napoleonic contributions: his Civil Code and his overhaul of the secondary education system. Lyons explains the significance of the contributions, saying, "The Code became an instrument of French rule in Europe and an object of emulation all over the globe." Along with the reformed education system, the Code "became an important foundation stone of national unification." Napoleon's contributions brought about the unity in the state which, in years previous, the state had sought to enforce, even violently, as during the Terror, but never with the effectiveness as Napoleon's measures managed.
The last part of Napoleon's legacy deals with his military tradition. Obviously, if not for his brilliance as a commander, Napoleon would not have had the opportunity to rise to power. As a result, it is to the military and warfare that Napoleon owes his reign. However, Lyons says that as a part of his legacy, "perpetual warfare was not in the general interests of France or its bourgeoisie." Citing the incredibly string of victories which allowed Napoleon to consolidate and maintain control of the state, Lyons also says that "as soon as the great powers united, after 1813, victory was no longer assured. One defeat brought the Empire to an end." Although his military defeat cost him power, and although the continual fighting had taken its toll on the French people and state, Napoleon's brilliance in command still remains as a significant part of his legacy. Although it may not be nearly as important a contribution to the state as his Civil Code or educational reforms, it is for Napoleon's military career that he is most remembered.
13. Deciding whether Napoleon ended or continued the Revolution is certainly not a cut and dried matter. Among the more debatable questions of the Revolution, one's ultimate determination would, of necessity, be a matter of subjective opinion, as the criteria for making an absolute determination tend to differ from person to person. For Lyons, he ultimately concludes that Napoleon ends the Revolution, but not until long into his reign. For Lyons, the deciding factor turns out to be the extent to which Napoleon allows his ambition to chart the course France takes. As long as France's best interests coincide with the policy Napoleon happens to pursue, the Revolution and its gains still remain. However, Lyons suggests that once Napoleon's ambitions overtake rational consideration for the state, the Revolution is over.
It would be hard to dispute the role Napoleon's ambition played in his attempt to take over the government in the Coup de Brumaire. Playing his part well enough to successfully overthrow the beleaguered Directory, Napoleon settled into his role as First Consul. Lyons argues that one should not be hasty to "condemn Brumaire as the liquidation of the French Revolution" because Napoleon had not, in fact, greatly shaken up the political composition of government. As a "Republican coup d'état was hardly a novelty," Lyons says, it was rather to be expected that the Directory would not last forever, given the recent political climate. As another hardly flattering endorsement of the Directory's effectiveness, Lyons says, "if Bonaparte was the gravedigger of political liberty, the Directory had already presented him with the corpse." With such imagery, it is hard to disagree with the public's lack of outcry with the development of Brumaire. With no obvious difference, the new Consulate appeared to be just another new government, so the Revolution appeared to be continuing its familiar course.
If Brumaire was not the end of the Revolution, Napoleon's ascension to the title of Emperor could have been. However, in keeping with Lyons' assertion that as long as Napoleon's actions coincided with the best interest of the state, the Revolution does not wind down. Instead, what develops is "a new attempt to secure and prolong the hegemony of the revolutionary bourgeoisie." Interestingly, rather than getting the best of him, Napoleon's ambition seems to have helped solidify his place in the government, and, for the time, to have maintained the existence of the Revolution. With Napoleon's most overwhelming successes in the plebiscites occurring during his rise to Consul for Life in 1802, Napoleon "most clearly appeared as the executor of the French Revolution." Ambition had not yet derailed Napoleon's "star," or the Revolution.
However, this was not to be a permanent arrangement. As Lyons states, "the assumption of the imperial title in 1804 showed that [the concordance of Napoleon's personal destiny with the interests of France] was not always to be the case; and the moments when his personal ambitions ceased to serve either France of the Revolution must be closely examined." It would be eight years before Napoleon's destiny would clearly diverge from France's interests, but the events that caused this schism are evident. At the very time of France's greatest power, the Revolution ended. The result of Napoleon's ambitions taking control of his ability to rationalize the needs of the state, from this point France would decline, in the wakes of the two disastrous military campaigns, in Spain and Russia. "The Emperor's obsession with his personal glory threatened to distort the legacy [of Napoleon's Revolutionary heritage] still further. The temptation to identify the fate of France with himself" became " an unattainable dream of personal grandeur which would now propel [France] down the road to destruction." Finally, Napoleon had ended the Revolution. The Empire would not last much longer.
14. The most glaring discrepancy between the interpretations of Napoleon between Lyons' book and in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity is the respective determinations involving the end of the Revolution. This difference causes each author to bring about a subsequently different perspective to his approach in treating the resulting developments in Napoleon's reign. While Lyons descried the Revolution ending sometime around 1812, when Napoleon lost sight of France's best interests, Censer and Hunt argue that the Revolution ended by 1800, within a year of Napoleon's rise to power. Consequently, Lyons receives no support from the writers of the textbook in asserting his view.
The authors of the text admit that Napoleon's "legacy in France should not be seen as entirely antithetical to the Revolution," as he instituted important changes in the mechanisms of government and society. Citing that Napoleon "strengthened the position of the rich commoners and weakened the nobles of the monarchy," "the class divide of the Old Regime between nobles and commoners gave way to a new mixed elite of 'notables,' which resembled in many ways the society desired by the revolutionaries of 1789." In such a way, then, it can be seen that the authors believe that Napoleon had somehow completed at least a part of the objectives of the original revolutionaries, who had apparently abolished the monarchy, in part, for this very purpose. However, if the authors thus presume the revolution to be over at this stage, what becomes of the explanations for the events subsequent to the year 1800? Certainly the Revolution could not have reached its conclusion already, with a few "revolutionary" reforms forthcoming.
Lyons would agree. As he considers the establishment of Napoleon's Code and his reform of the educational system to be among the most significant contributions Napoleon gave to the state, it follows that these acts were accomplished under the rubric of the Revolution. While the gains the Revolution had produced by 1800 were significant, the most lasting legacies had not yet come to pass. As such, it is difficult to proclaim the Revolution to be over so soon, as the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity does. If one considers the events Lyons so readily proclaims paramount to the success of the Revolution, namely the two reforms previously mentioned, in light of the pronouncement of the end of the Revolution in 1800, as per Censer and Hunt, it becomes very difficult to understand the rationale for proclaiming the Revolution over. Certainly, Napoleon did "set France on a new course... [creating] an authoritarian state," but this was not a new development even within the history of the Revolution, as the Committee of Public Safety had done the same thing by instituting the Terror. Lyons' assertion is more plausible, in that the work of the Revolution simply was not complete by 1800.
15. Before even undertaking the task of teaching the events from 1789 until the termination of the French Revolution, it is imperative to understand the context from which the Revolution developed. Certainly this would include emphasis on the late stages of the monarchy, under Louis XVI, and the deplorable condition of the populace and the state, as burdened by taxes and debt as the two respectively were. For that matter, an overview of just how France came to such an impasse under Louis XV and XIV would be useful. However, as much as any other background information, it is essential to understand the currents of thought which would so profoundly influence the thinking and the ideology of the revolutionaries.
Understanding of the Enlightenment philosophes must, necessarily, begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, because of the ways in which his ideas involving volonté général would be used and misused by the revolutionaries. Montesquieu's ideas on government, particularly upon the separation of powers, would help by establishing a model of stability and logic by which one could contrast the unstable and unworkable systems the revolutionaries would successively devise. A broad overview of the Enlightenment in general, focusing upon these two in specific, would sufficiently set the tone to allow a workable environment from which to begin discussing the web of events that would spin from the central radius of Paris from 1789.
While a more or less chronological treatment of the Revolution would be an acceptable method of imparting the necessary concepts, it is obvious that this will not always be the most useful way to explain the Revolution. Thus, developing themes would become very important. Whether dealing with the French Revolution or the American, the tactics necessary should be similar. A recognition and insight into the people in leadership helps to give a top-down, organizational view of events. This ties in well with the earlier development of Enlightenment philosophy. Following this development would be a unit consisting of the development of the actual revolutions. If the hypothetical course consisted of both the American and French Revolutions, the two would be reviewed independently, due to the chronological separation of the two, and, toward the end of the course, compared and contrasted. After discussing the development and early stages of revolution, it would be useful to survey the impact upon the general public, revolutionaries, and the government in the process of being overthrown. Insight into international response would also be useful. After charting the successful course of revolution, in the American case, or the continued state of revolution, in the French case, the next theme requiring attention would be the establishment of new systems of government. For the French Revolution, this is a stage of development that will obviously need continual repetition. Finally, an investigation of counter-revolutionary measures would precede an overview of the final product of the respective revolutions in the two nations. For America, this would require an explanation of the outcomes of the Revolution, such as the establishment of a unified and democratic republic. For France, this would require an ongoing chronology of warfare and, eventually, restoration of monarchy. With the Revolutions being thus settled, subsequent events would be covered in another course.
As for interpretations of history, it would be requisite to not devolve to revisionism or sensationalism. By fact of having attained the position teaching the class, it can be assumed that the instructor would have developed personal interpretations of the subject matter. Nevertheless, it would be paramount to not seek to assert those views as being the "correct" interpretation of history. Instead, the purpose of teaching the material is to allow the student to try to understand it and to then develop his or her own interpretations. History is not unlike other fields, in that truth is sundered from objectivity, and rarely do the two squarely intersect. More likely the case should be that, upon investigating the question, a student will draw conclusions and develop his or her own understanding, which will necessarily be determined by his or her own personal perspective. Objectivity is impossible to maintain at all times, and is, indeed, not necessary at all times. The purpose of having experience is so that it will flavor the perspective through which one perceives incoming information. Without the ability to develop this perspective, so vital to applying the lessons history can provide, little would be the use of learning those lessons at all.
"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!' --That is the motto of enlightenment."
-Immanuel Kant