Posted on 07/14/2015 12:46:03 PM PDT by markomalley
True. The noble savage haunts us today as people think of Indians as peaceful wandering poet philosophers.
How have the citizens of virtually every other Western country achieved the reduction of the King’s authority?
How is it that only France and Russia found it necessary to engage in a horrendous bloodbath that destroyed the lives of millions of common people?
The insanity and evil that the French put in play has resounded through the centuries as the most heinous evil perpetrated in human history.
Was ridding themselves of Royalty worth the price? Was this, in fact, even the goal of the revolutionaries?
Isn’t it true that atheism and marxism are the direct spawn of the evil set afoot by the murderous zealots of France?
Nope, communism isn’t the child of the French revolution. And you forgot another country that got rid of a Monarch by using force.
We did. And it was a violent and deadly war that destroyed lives. And we had to fight it again in 1812 when the Monarchy came roaring back.
And nearly every reduction in Monarchy i’ve ever heard of was force or threat of force. And more than a few saw what happened to the French and took the example.
And you must have a wonderful sense of humor if you think the Germans and Austrians lost their monarchy peacefully.
But in the end, all monarchs bear the responsibility for the cost of their removal. Whether it is some Aztec king, a French Catholic king, or some fat farting potentate somewhere else,,,, if they simply relinquished all claims to rule over others, there would not be violence.
They ruled by violence. None were from God, and all gained their positions through the exercise of raw power. But oh how they squeal when someone dare use muscle against them.
Jesus isn’t going to sit in a castle and be anything like what you call a ‘king”. Its an insult and the highest sophistry to equate Jesus with these feudal A-holes.
And you might read a history book. The Chicoms overthrew the Chinese republic where Chang was the head of state. The last emperor abdicated long before that.
As for the Romanovs, they were absolute monarchs, and utterly ground their people into dust like serfs, before and during WWI.
Their monarchist games with the Kaiser, and with the family of Austria caused tens of millions to die.
Its very sad that the Bolsheviks won the day in the following civil war. But the Monarchs were that authors of all that misery. A strong argument is easy backed up that the entire war is the fault of monarchies. Without this bloody war, there would have been no exhausted Russian army in mutiny leading to revolt.
Explain to me how you get rid of a feudal system without use of force?
And im fascinated by you. Who do you think was king of China in 1949?
No more free history lessons for you today...
And yet, despite the slaughter, many did not give up the struggle; so it was, 200 years ago, in June 1815, as Napoleon lined up for his last battle at Waterloo, some 8-16,000 of his troops were engaged under general Lamarque still trying to put down the Vendee when their numbers might have made a decisive difference at Waterloo . . .
Who was monarch of France when the peasants, “driven to the extremes of oppression and humiliation by a revolution supposedly carried out for their sake, rose up against the revolution”?
You really need to read up on the French Revolution. You don’t understand that it was less about removing a monarchy than it was about the brutal implementation of a far left ideology, yet another bloodbath perpetrated by the left. The King was removed and he and his wife executed relatively early in the whole thing. Then the real slaughter began.
To compare our revolution to the French Revolution is a travesty and an insult to our forefathers.
I recommend reading “Paris in The Terror” by Stanley Loomis.
What a maroon.
America and France both had a Revolution.
France’s led to mass murder and the rise of a tyrant emperor who wrought destruction on Europe, and on France.
America’s led to a couple of centuries of relative liberty, peace, and prosperity.
What was the difference?
God.
And a sufficient mass of people grounded in Christian morality.
It’s quite sad that we are now traveling on the same road the French took so long ago.
“You think the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao’s takeover of China (both replacing Kings) were goood!”
Neither replaced a king. These did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%9349)
Ok...I stand corrected. But wouldn’t you say Chank Kai-Shek was king-like and Czar Nicolas was a Monarch?
Am I the moron? For being cheeky?
No, not you. Some people have catholic derangement syndrome, though.
Yea, I understand some of the anti-monarchy and anti-organized religion. We have been let down by leadership more than not. But Soltzenitzen was right about the French Revolution!
The Communists had absolutely nothing to do with the abdication of Tsar (not Czar) Nicholas in March 1917, since they were mostly out of the country (e.g. Lenin in Switzerland and Trotsky in Brooklyn); and the government that the Communists violently overthrew 7 months later was the freely e=elected government that had been elected in April 1917.
“Ok...I stand corrected. But wouldn’t you say Chank Kai-Shek was king-like and Czar Nicolas was a Monarch?”
Chiang Kai-shek was more of a generalissimo than anything else.
And yes, Czar Nicholas was a monarch, but he wasn’t overthrown by the Bolsheviks.
By the way, I have nothing against monarchy in itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.