Posted on 07/14/2015 12:46:03 PM PDT by markomalley
“But Soltzenitzen was right about the French Revolution!”
yes, he was.
Nationalism is a murderous ideology, on a par with socialism?
Does not compute.
I just completed approx 10 hours of reading spurred by this post: Vendee, dechristianization of France, mass executions including women and babies, General Carrier, Robespierre, etc.
Thanks Mark!
Communism is absolutely a descendant of the French Revolution.
Marx used it, partially, as a template.
Thanks, m. Good post.
w, as we were discussing....
“Nope, communism isn’t the child of the French revolution.”
Yes, actually, communism IS the child of the French Revolution. Even Karl Marx specifically credited the French Revolution for brainstorming Communism. I believe his exact words on the subject were “Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. We’ll be viewed as monsters, but we could care less” and “The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it.” And if that’s not enough, he credited Gracchus as being the first Communist, and Lenin upon winning his revolution commissioned Monumental Propaganda, a statue line depicting figures from, you guessed it, the French Revolution. Heck, before Internationale became the anthem for Communism, La Marsellaise acted as its anthem. So yes, it’s very clear that the French Revolution inspired Communism in more ways than one.
“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.”
We didn’t murder King George III, however, whether via a kangaroo court or even just blowing his brains out. That’s one other major difference between us and the French/Russians. And make no mistake, we could have just as easily gotten our independence by just sending a sniper to London and shooting King George III when he makes a speech in front of everyone if we so desired. If any instance was best comparable, try the Glorious Revolution, since that actually DID result in King Charles being murdered like King Louis XVI later on (and not because he was harming people, but simply for the “crime” of being Catholic).
“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.”
Oh really? Last I checked, King Louis XVI didn’t use violence against his people. He was arguably the best ruler they ever had. Him and Marie Antoinette. He certainly didn’t use raw power.
“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.”
Well, gee, I guess King David of the Bible was not of God, then, or King Solomon, since no kings are from God (oh, and BTW, that’s supposed to be sarcasm). And I guess God murdered his own son Jesus just because he can’t stomach the thought of his son being king (again, sarcasm).
“....If any instance was best comparable, try the Glorious Revolution, since that actually DID result in King Charles being murdered like King Louis XVI later on (and not because he was harming people, but simply for the “crime” of being Catholic). ...”
You’ve conflated the results of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.
The death of King Charles after the end of the English Civil War resulted in the Commonwealth Republic of the Great Britain etc. it was feeble and ended up with Cromwell as dictator. By the time Cromwell died everyone had had enough and Charles II was invited back in - The Restoration.
He reigned but was adroit enough to keep the Parliamentary-Republican-Protestant impulses in check. His brother then assumed the throne - James II. He was an ass, Catholic and completely out of step with his Protestant subjects. He got booted out almost bloodlessly when it looked like there might be a Catholic heir. That’s was the Glorious Revolution of 1688! The Protestant Parliamentary faction invited William of Orange (Dutch Statholder) to come in and be king. William was married to James II daughter - Mary. Think William & Mary College in Virginia, it was founded during their reign. Their fleet came with a “Protestant Wind” that got them to merry ole England quickly! James II fled, thus ended the Stuarts in England & Scotland.
Okay, I stand corrected there (also heard that John Locke played a role in that uprising as well). Still, the American War for Independence is still not comparable to the French Revolution despite what DesertRhino, or rather, DesertRINO claims. One very big fundamental difference is that the Founding Fathers had enough respect for the King of England to not depose him via murder, state-sanctioned or otherwise, only separated from England without even trying to inflict any harm on him, while the French Revolutionaries and Russian Revolutionaries actually DID do exactly that to their respective kings.
Geez, if he’s so in love with the Jacobin buthcers, he might as well just adopt a Che Guevara T-shirt and the hammer and sickle, while he’s at it.
Basically agree with you!
Our FF viewed their revolution as a restoration of their rights as Englishmen, then later it morphed it their rights as Americans. It became “We’re fighting basically to make you leave us alone!”.
Even if they wanted to kill King George it wouldn’t have been very practical given there was this thing called the Atlantic separating them.
There are a lot of Robespierre wannabes on this site!
Lenin in his writings identified with Robespierre. Identified the brutality of the French Revolution with his.
Lafayette tried to keep the French Revolution within the confines of decency using us as a model but he failed!
Great post.
“And I know that prior to the Revolution, the Catholic church in France had a right to 10% of every farmers crop,,, period.”
And after it the State had a right to 100% of it. Here in the US the Government has a “right” to damned near 50%. I’d be thrilled if some entity only demanded 10% and no more.
L
You got that right. No matter what horrors the monarchy might have had under their belt, it was literally nothing compared to what the French Revolutionaries as well as the Communists unleashed.
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.