Page |1

The “Ideas” That Created Revolutions – Comparing the Spirits of the American and
French Revolutions.

By Mike Brown

HIS 510 – Comparative History and Research

27 February 2016
 Page |2

Historians have often compared the American and French Revolutions. Most notably, the

influence that the American Revolution had on its French brethren. The comparisons are

important and accurate. The American Revolution had a tremendous impact on the Atlantic

World, and helped spawn a string of revolutions throughout. One of the major ideas of both

revolutions is that the “revolutionary spirit” became a driving force for change in America as

well as France. It is hard, if not impossible to tangibly measure spirit. Spirit is defined as “the

non-physical part of a person… those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical

elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a

particular period.” In many ways, the spirit of a person is something that you can see, but you

cannot hold, or sometimes you can feel, but cannot see. The nature of “spirit” makes it hard to

definitively compare. Yet the spirit that developed in the British colonies was a driving force in

the success of the American Revolution. What were the qualities that created that spirit that

could lead to success? What was lacking in the qualities of the French revolutionary spirit that

kept it from success? In general terms, both revolutions were products of enlightenment ideas.

The ideas of equality, liberty and natural rights as put forth by Locke, Jefferson, Rousseau,

Voltaire and others. The difference between the revolutionary spirit that developed in the British

colonies and the spirit of revolution that developed in France during the same period, hampered

the French from having a successful revolution.

How did the growth of the colonies create or impact revolutionary thought in America and

France? How did the influence of America’s founding fathers impact French revolutionary

thought? There is an abundance of material available to help answer these questions. Most of the

historical trends show how the Atlantic World was ripe for revolutions throughout Europe and

the New World. By the latter part of the 18th century, the Spanish had been assimilating in their
 Page |3

colonies for more than two hundred years, and the French and British for more than one hundred

and fifty years. The Age of Enlightenment basically mirrored the expansion of the French and

British into colonial America. The people of Great Britain and France would certainly have been

influenced by this new age of reason. An independent spirit certainly would have been present in

the European colonies of the Americas, and that spirit certainly would have been felt in Great

Britain and France. What developed that spirit? To answer the question one might look at what

type of people were emigrating from Britain to its colonies in the Americas. In Studies on

European Migration, 1500-1800, author and professor, Nicolas Canny, a leading Irish historian

and director of the Moore Institute, describes the different patterns of migration from various

countries in Europe during the transatlantic migration period. British colonists came to America

for political, religious and economic freedom. Canny points to an unpublished thesis by Norman

Tyack that has been used by a number of historians.

It was also widely presumed, and frequently stated, that it was essentially a movement of
family groups who had previously enjoyed secure positions in England but uprooted
themselves for religious reasons. Tyack challenged those assumptions by pointing to
economic and social, as well as religious, explanations for the great migration.1

These colonists were motivated to be independent. A revolutionary spirit grew from this

independence. Canny further describes the next wave of British immigrants as indentured

servants. He uses several sources, among them a book by David Galenson called White Servitude

in Colonial America. These people did not have the status of the first wave of immigrants, but

came to the colonies to secure a better future. Galenson writes, “The typical English migrating

1
Nicholas Canny, ed. Europeans on the Move: Studies on European Migration, 1500-1800. Oxford: Clarendon
Press and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p41
 Page |4

servant was young, of relatively low social status, with but modest skills.”2 These servants came

to America and were able to find success, for the most part, by fulfilling their obligations,

learning a skill, and assimilating to the work ethic of the colonists who migrated before them. It

was from these people that the spirit of the American Revolution grew in the British colonies.

The British immigrant was focused and committed to the hard work to succeed in the New

World. Because of this mindset, an entrepreneurial spirit developed. John Rolfe finding a way to

smuggle stolen Spanish tobacco to Virginia, the rise of merchant trade in New England helped to

develop a thriving economy that made immigration to the British colonies more attractive.

Hence, more and more qualified immigrants came to the British colonies from all over Europe.

The British colonies were becoming more and more diverse. This along with the self-reliance

that these people brought with them further separated them from England. The American

economy, though heavily tied to British mercantilism, could also trade with the outside world.

After the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, a long period of salutary neglect occurred. For

nearly one hundred years, the British colonists were free to develop and maintain their own

economy, and the spirit of revolution grew.

This period ended with the outbreak of the French and Indian War. The British colonies

dragged the British Crown into a world war that would be known as the Seven Years War with

France. The cost of the war empowered the British Crown to take on a larger role in Colonial

affairs. This directly conflicted with the everyday lives of the colonists. In its desire to pay war

debts incurred by the crown, the British felt the colonies should help to pay some of this

debt. Subsequently the British parliament imposed taxes on the colonies in order to pay off some

of the debt incurred by the Seven Years War. In the North, the impact of the Sugar Act directly

2
Nicholas Canny, ed. Europeans on the Move: Studies on European Migration, 1500-1800. Oxford: Clarendon
Press and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p44
 Page |5

affected the shipping industry, but had little effect in the South and in the Northwest. In the

frontier, the Proclamation of 1763 had an impact on the expansion of territory into the Ohio

Valley, but did not have much effect on New England. The Stamp Act gave all the people of the

colonies common ground because it affected everyone. The Stamp Act was a direct tax on

various paper products and legal services. “Whereas the Sugar Act made an impact in port cities,

especially in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, the Stamp Act brought about a direct

confrontation between Britain and all American towns.”3 This led to the colonies bringing their

petitions before the King and Parliament. The Stamp Act only lasted from May 1765 to March

1766, but brought about a strengthening of the ties between the American colonies that had not

existed before it was enacted. In Boston, the Sons of Liberty became an important activist group

that helped maintain cohesiveness between wealthy merchants and the working class, all while

conducting a harassment of stamp agents that would be considered terror tactics today. In R.S.

Longley’s article, Mob Activities in Revolutionary Massachusetts, he explains how the Sons of

Liberty used these terrorist acts to intimidate British agents. “In general, all mobs are interested

chiefly in excitement and destruction, and the Massachusetts mob was no exception. But the

organization behind it gave it a political color and led to its members being called patriots.”4 As

other Acts from parliament were enacted against the colonists, the resolve for independence

grew. The Townshend Acts, which included an indirect tax on tea that helped lead to the Boston

Tea Party, and another set of Acts that became known as the Intolerable Acts that basically put

Boston under martial law and led to the Boston Massacre, further separated the colonies from

Britain. Finally, violence broke out at Lexington and Concord on April 18th, 1775. “The shot

3
Wlm Klooster, Revolutions in the Atlantic World, New York University Press (2009) pp. 21
4
R.S. Longley, Mob Activities in Revolutionary Massachusetts, New England Quarterly 6:1 (March 1933)
 Page |6

heard around the world,” spurned new writings and calls for independence. In Virginia, Patrick

Henry gave a rousing speech to the Virginia House where he said:

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like
preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary
to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be
reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive
ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to
which kings resort.5

Henry’s speech provides a look at the spirit that had developed in the colonies. It is important to

note though, that the colonists were fighting for what they perceived as traditional rights of

Englishmen. The colonists had petitioned the king repeatedly, even after this speech, after the

first shots at Lexington and Concord, the colonists would send King George the Olive Branch

Petition in July of 1775. Throughout the period of struggle, the colonists still felt they were, and

in most cases wanted to be part of a greater British Empire. In January of 1776, Thomas Paine

published Common Sense where he continued to clang the bell for independence in his pamphlet

by writing:

A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently

balanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if
the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely
worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay
for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker Hill price for law, as for land.6

5
Patrick Henry, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, Speech to the Virginia House, March 23, 1775
6
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, January 10, 1776
 Page |7

Paine and Henry were at this stage being political activists, urging their brethren to take measure

of what had happened and to act, unlike Locke and Rousseau who brought more of a

philosophical view to their writings. “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which

obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it,

that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or

possessions…”7 However, Locke’s words, though philosophical would not be without its

revolution, as it inspired Thomas Jefferson while writing the Declaration of Independence that

officially declared the American revolution and Americas place in this world.

The revolutionary spirit that developed in the British colonies was the child of many

factors. The work ethic and commitment to facing the challenges of immigrating to the colonies

developed a social toughness in the British colonists. The independent spirit and self-reliance

that developed from years of British salutary neglect gave the British colonists the will for self-

determination. The British colonists developed a mentality of victory, whether it be over the sea,

the harsh conditions of a new world, or over the strongest military power of the world. This has

been a pervasive attitude throughout the history of the United States. The original immigrants

from England brought this spirit with them and developed it over generations. So while the

British colonists, along with the colonists from other parts of Europe, developed a spirit that

could make a revolution succeed, the same cannot be said for the spirit that developed in France.

What was the impact of the American spirit in France? To answer that question we must

look at how America exported its ideas to France prior to the French Revolution. There were

many Americans who supported the revolution in France. There are many resources that show

how Americans influenced the French. Goodness Beyond Virtue, Jacobians during the French

7
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al., 1764)
 Page |8

Revolution by French historian and Harvard Professor Patrice Higonnet, shows the climate that

was prevalent during the French Revolution and how American founders like Thomas Jefferson

influenced, as well as was influenced by the events. Reflections on the Revolution in France, by

Edmund Burke gives a primary source account from an English perspective of the climate in

France. A Cultural History of the French Revolution, by Columbian College Professor Emmet

Kennedy and Natural History of Revolution: Violence and Nature in the French Revolutionary

Imagination, 1789-1794, by French Revolution expert and Reed College Professor Mary

Ashburn Miller further explain the differences in the climates of the French and American

Revolutions. In a 2006 article by Yale University editor of the Benjamin Franklin Collection

Phillip Ziesche, Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and

the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France, Ziesche reflects on the

experiences of Thomas Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris in Paris.

Americans in Paris generally agreed that its lessons were universally applicable.
However, at the same time that they extolled the universalism of American ideas and
accomplishments, they also believed that these accomplishments reflected particular
qualities of the American people and that the successful application of these ideas
elsewhere would require the same qualities in other nations.”8

In this vain we see that while our founders, namely Morris, Jefferson and Paine deeply believed

in the revolution in France, they would be disappointed with the success of the venture, while

recognizing that the fundamental spirits of the revolutions were in fact, different.

It would prove to be impossible for the French to duplicate the American Revolution.

8
Phillip Ziesche, “Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and the National
Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France”. Journal of the Early Republic, 26(3), 419-447(2006).
 Page |9

The make-up of the people were different. Though both the Americans and the French were

fighting over oppression, the Americans were trying to establish their equal rights as

Englishmen, while the French were already French. The Americans did not necessarily disagree

with the form of government that they existed under, their objection was the role in which they

played in their participation, “taxation without representation.” While the French were inspired

by events in America, they were not Americans. Theirs was a Revolution without a plan, or a

plan without focus. An overthrow of the existing institution. In Bradley Thompson’s article John

Adams and the Coming of the French Revolution he looks at how American ideas, particularly

those of John Adams in his book, Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, were lost in

the throes of the French Revolution. In Defence, Adams writes,

All nations, under all governments, must have parties; the great secret is to controul them:
there are but two ways, either by a monarchy and standing army, or by a balance in the
constitution. Where the people have a voice, and if there is no balance, there will be
everlasting fluctuations, revolutions, and horrors, until a standing army, with a general at
its head, commands the peace, or the necessity of an equilibrium is made appear to all,
and is adopted by all.9

Adams believes that the Constitution is a work that will help ensure the success of the revolution.

He warns that there are only two ways for a government to function, either with balance or with

force. If there is no balance, there will be force along with chaos. Obviously, what happened in

France was chaos (Jacobians), then force (Napoleon).

Loretta Napoleoni, Italian journalist and political activist and writer of the 2005 book,

Terror Incorporated : Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks said, “Europeans are

forever the offspring of Machiavelli, trapped in a historical rollercoaster that can bring us a

9
John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, Volume I, published in London in 1787-1788
 P a g e | 10

monarchy-toppling French Revolution and then a few years later Napoleon Bonaparte as

emperor.” The spirit that developed in France, was based on many of the same principals as the

spirit that developed in America, but there were fundamental differences that made the French

spirit more volatile in nature. The spirit that encompasses the French Revolution was much

different than the “Spirit of ’76.” As the theses of this essay states, the lack of similarity between

the two hampered the French Revolution. It should be noted, that this is not to say the

revolutionary spirit that developed in France was not important. In many ways, the French spirit

will become the embodiment of what revolutionary spirit should be. Shortly after the

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was signed by King Louis XVI, the revolutionary

spirit reared its head as the National Assembly contemplated giving the Monarchy veto power.

A letter from the Palais-Royal counseled deputies against approving the royal veto, warning that

“fifteen thousand men are ready to ‘enlighten’ your châteaux.”10 It is here that we see the French

spirit as it seizes on its right guaranteed by Article 11 in the Declaration, “The free

communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man.”11 The

spirit of the French Revolution was a spirit that was developed out of class warfare. The inability

of the bourgeoisie, (middle class) to distinguish themselves and advance in a society dominated

by a monarchy who, unlike the British throne, failed to change at a pace fast enough to keep the

average citizen satisfied. “The French Revolution was won by the bourgeoisie, despite some

interference from below, thus establishing the framework for the emergence of the capitalist

economy and a class society and - eureka - the modern world.”12 It is here where we see the true

10
Charles Walton, Policing Public Opinion in the French Revolution: The Culture of Calumny and the Problem of
Free Speech, Oxford University Press, (2009) p.97
11
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
12
Colin Lucas. “Nobles, Bourgeois and the Origins of the French Revolution”. Past & Present, no. 60. [Oxford
University Press, Past and Present Society]:1973. p.84
 P a g e | 11

gift of the spirit of the French Revolution, its influence on the modern world. As French historian

Michel Vovelle explains, “the French Revolution destroyed not only the institutional Old

Regime of the absolute monarchy but also and even more profoundly the social Old Regime of a

society of orders supported by the privileges of a noble aristocracy; and it brought about the

union of a bourgeois revolution with the popular revolutions.”13 The enlightenment ideal of

reason may have been the downfall of the initial revolution in France. The French embraced

reason more than other ideas. In America, the revolutionaries were more cautious in their

approach to reason. Founding father John Dickinson reminded his colleagues at the Philadelphia

Convention. “Experience must be our only guide, Reason may mislead us.”14 This conservative

approach proved to be useful and successful in the United States. While in France, “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.”15 This turmoil led to an

unsuccessful attempt at revolution in the broadest sense. The time of chaos that ensued,

diminishes the value of the raw energy that the revolutionary spirit in France brought forth. “The

schizophrenic state of the French bourgeoisie” (Patrice Higonnet), coming to power without

being prepared for it, created an unstable leadership which gave itself over to a relentless

conquest of power, a fruite en avant in which one battled one’s friends as much as one’s

enemies.”16

13
Michel Vovelle, “Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution.” French Historical
Studies 16, no. 4: p.750
14
Quoted in Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, KS:
The University Press of Kansas, 1985), p. 7
15
Sean Busick, “The American and French Revolutions Compared.” The Imaginative Conservative, Published: Sep
14, 2013
16
Michel Vovelle, “Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution.” French Historical
Studies 16, no. 4: p.753
 P a g e | 12

Much of the spirit of the French Revolution gets lost in the “Terror” that surfaced. It is

here that one must be cautioned not to lose sight of the infectious spirit that will inspire so many

throughout the ages.

The historiographies written on both the French and American revolutions are extensive.

It is not complex to derive the spirits that pervaded both revolutions from these works, whether

the work is from a social, cultural, economic, and military or any other historical lens.

Depending on the point of view, it is easy to get a feel of the spirit that is conveyed through the

research. While looking at the American Revolution you see historians refer to the constraint that

the founding fathers showed by using the spirit to form a society based on democracy and law.

“Experience is the parent of Wisdom,”17 “The highest, the transcendent glory of the American

Revolution was this — it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government

with the precepts of Christianity.”18 While looking at the French Revolution you see a different

approach by many historians. “In its French setting, then, the idea of “revolution” was

inseparable from the condemnation of the past, which sharpened the will to exclude or eliminate

those corrupt beneficiaries of the old order, the aristocrats”19 Historians basically take the same

approach while interpreting the “spirit” of the revolutions. The historians who write with an

economic lens view the spirit as born from economic conditions that required and led to an

uprising. Historians that write from a social lens point to the impact that the society was facing

17
Alexander Hamilton, “Number 72,” in The Federalist, 376.
18
John Quincy Adams, letter to an autograph collector (27 April 1837), published in The Historical Magazine (July
1860), p.193
19
François Furet, “Democracy and Utopia.” Journal of Democracy. 9.1 (1998): 65
 P a g e | 13

due to oppressive governments coupled with enlightenment ideals spurned on the revolutionary

spirit.

What historians fail to do is to look more closely at the “spirit” that drove each

revolution. In all honesty, this may not be relevant to the overall picture. Both the American and

French spirits were derived in similar ways, and maybe that is all that needs to be examined. As

stated earlier, “spirit” is not easily quantified or always tangible. The “spirit” is pervasive

throughout any research though, and probably should be more closely examined.

While the historiography of the American Revolution has found much common ground,

the same cannot necessarily be said of the historiography of the French Revolution. Furet,

Richet, Lefebvre, Jaures, and Soboul continue to argue over the causes and effects of the

Revolution. French historian Michel Vovelle cautions historians to keep an open mind. “Rather

than crushing the opposing point of view under the weight of the polemics or under the scorn of

a carefully nurtured silence, it would perhaps be preferable to recognize that no hegemonic

interpretation of the Revolution exists today and that this undoubtedly a very good thing.”20

Vovelle wrote this in 1990, while Eastern Europe was looking to the French Revolutionary

ideals, spirit if you will, of equality, fraternity and liberty. It is here where we can see the French

Revolutionary spirit persisting through the ages and influencing an entirely new generation of

Europeans. The sources used for this research bring a confluence of ideas and evidence that

paints a clear picture of the revolutionary spirits in America and France during the age of

revolutions. It is suffice to say, that the spirits that pervaded in America and France became

exported throughout the Atlantic World and influenced generations of revolutionaries to come.

20
Michel Vovelle, “Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution.” French Historical
Studies 16, no. 4: p.755
 P a g e | 14

This essay aimed to compare the spirt of revolution that developed in British North

America and that of France, to show that because of the differences between the two spirits, the

French Revolution was ultimately hampered from success. Though it may be evident that this

argument holds true, it does not tell the whole story. The cautious spirt that developed in the

American colonies served its revolution well. By using this spirit the Americans were able to not

only win a war with Great Britain, they were able to establish a government that would ensure

that that spirit would endure. In France, the spirit of revolution propelled the French citizenry to

overthrow an oppressive monarchy that had dominated the French people for centuries. Its

concern was not to put in place a new order, but to overthrow the old order. Because of this, the

initial revolution led to terror and the ultimate rise of Napoleon and the reemergence of the

Monarchy. It would be easy to point to this as failure. However, a deeper look shows that the

French spirt pervaded into success, albeit not in the same orderly fashion that became the

American spirt. Though different in many ways, both the French and American spirits of

revolution are important reflection of the enlightenment ideals of, Equality, Liberty and

Fraternity.
 P a g e | 15

Bibliography

Canny, Nicholas, ed. Europeans on the Move: Studies on European Migration, 1500-1800.
Oxford: Clarendon Press and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994

Klooster, Wlm. Revolutions in the Atlantic World, New York University Press (2009)

R.S. Longley, Mob Activities in Revolutionary Massachusetts, New England Quarterly 6:1
(March 1933)

Henry, Patrick. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, Speech to the Virginia House, March 23,
1775

Paine, Thomas, Common Sense, January 10, 1776

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al., 1764)

Ziesche, Phillip. (2006). Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas

Jefferson, and the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France. Journal of the
Early Republic, 26(3), 419-447.

Thompson, C. Bradley. 1996. John Adams and the Coming of the French Revolution. Journal of
the Early Republic 16 (3). [University of Pennsylvania Press, Society for Historians of the Early
American Republic]

Adams, John. Defence of the Constitutions of the United States Volume I, published in London
in 1787-1788

Vovelle, Michel. 1789, The Spirit of the French Revolution

Vovelle, Michel. “Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution.”

French Historical Studies 16, no. 4:

Walton, Charles. Policing Public Opinion in the French Revolution: The Culture of Calumny
and the Problem of Free Speech, Oxford University Press, (2009)

Schwab, Gail M. and Jeanneney,John R. The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact,
Greenwood Press, (1995)

Miller, Mary Ashburn. Natural History of Revolution: Violence and Nature in the French
Revolutionary Imagination, 1789-1794. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Israel, Jonathan. Revolutionary Ideas : An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from the
Rights of Man to Robespierre. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2014.
 P a g e | 16

Lucas, Colin. 1973. “Nobles, Bourgeois and the Origins of the French Revolution”. Past &
Present, no. 60. [Oxford University Press, Past and Present Society]: 84–126.
Busick, Sean. “The American and French Revolutions Compared.” The Imaginative
Conservative, Published: Sep 14, 2013

Quoted in Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution
(Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas, 1985)

Higonnet, Patrice. Goodness beyond Virtue: Jacobins during the French Revolution, Harvard
University Press (October 25, 1998)

Adams, John Quincy. letter to an autograph collector (27 April 1837), published in The
Historical Magazine (July 1860)

François Furet, “Democracy and Utopia.” Journal of Democracy. 9.1 (1998): 65