A Tale of Two Revolutions

[Vox]

French peasants were never "godless".

The French revolution ideologues were.

Some of the revolutionaries were nonbelievers. Are we to believe that the Abbé Sieyès was? I suspect not. Lafayette was a Mason, which means that he confessed belief in a Deity. Like our own revolution, there were a variety of beliefs among the participants.

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

 

[Agit8r]

French peasants were never "godless".

The French revolution ideologues were.

Some of the revolutionaries were nonbelievers. Are we to believe that the Abbé Sieyès was? I suspect not. Lafayette was a Mason, which means that he confessed belief in a Deity. Like our own revolution, there were a variety of beliefs among the participants.

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

No, no, there was a revolution that went along with it. It was just usually a bit more subtle:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Jefferson was for ecclesiastical corporate prerogative"

 

[Vox]

Some of the revolutionaries were nonbelievers. Are we to believe that the Abbé Sieyès was? I suspect not. Lafayette was a Mason, which means that he confessed belief in a Deity. Like our own revolution, there were a variety of beliefs among the participants.

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

No, no, there was a revolution that went along with it. It was just usually a bit more subtle:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Jefferson was for ecclesiastical corporate prerogative"

no, there was not.

the social order was not changed and the people did not suffer for ideological purpose - which are the main diferrences in the revolutions vs wars for independence.

 

[Agit8r]

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

No, no, there was a revolution that went along with it. It was just usually a bit more subtle:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Jefferson was for ecclesiastical corporate prerogative"

no, there was not.

the social order was not changed and the people did not suffer for ideological purpose - which are the main diferrences in the revolutions vs wars for independence.

The social order was changed. Ecclesiastical taxes were abolished. The Church of England was disestablished in the applicable colonies. Constitutions were written. Eventually a federal constitution was written. It included prohibitions on religious tests in for any office. It was subsequently amended to forbid the establishment of a federal religion, and a few generations later it was further amended so that this prohibition was incorporated against the states as well. That was a revolutionary change in the order of things.

 

[Gadawg73]

French peasants were never "godless".

The French revolution ideologues were.

Some of the revolutionaries were nonbelievers. Are we to believe that the Abbé Sieyès was? I suspect not. Lafayette was a Mason, which means that he confessed belief in a Deity. Like our own revolution, there were a variety of beliefs among the participants.

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

 

[Vox]

No, no, there was a revolution that went along with it. It was just usually a bit more subtle:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Jefferson was for ecclesiastical corporate prerogative"

no, there was not.

the social order was not changed and the people did not suffer for ideological purpose - which are the main diferrences in the revolutions vs wars for independence.

The social order was changed. Ecclesiastical taxes were abolished. The Church of England was disestablished in the applicable colonies. Constitutions were written. Eventually a federal constitution was written. It included prohibitions on religious tests in for any office. It was subsequently amended to forbid the establishment of a federal religion, and a few generations later it was further amended so that this prohibition was incorporated against the states as well. That was a revolutionary change in the order of things.

Nope, the social order was NOT changed.

the financial subordination was, but that is NOT a social order of the society.

 

[Vox]

Some of the revolutionaries were nonbelievers. Are we to believe that the Abbé Sieyès was? I suspect not. Lafayette was a Mason, which means that he confessed belief in a Deity. Like our own revolution, there were a variety of beliefs among the participants.

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

 

[Agit8r]

no, there was not.

the social order was not changed and the people did not suffer for ideological purpose - which are the main diferrences in the revolutions vs wars for independence.

The social order was changed. Ecclesiastical taxes were abolished. The Church of England was disestablished in the applicable colonies. Constitutions were written. Eventually a federal constitution was written. It included prohibitions on religious tests in for any office. It was subsequently amended to forbid the establishment of a federal religion, and a few generations later it was further amended so that this prohibition was incorporated against the states as well. That was a revolutionary change in the order of things.

Nope, the social order was NOT changed.

the financial subordination was, but that is NOT a social order of the society.

Okey-doke then. Maybe you should write to Encyclopedia Britannica and let them know the the Glorious Revolution should instead be called the Glorious Kerfuffle while you're at it

 

[Agit8r]

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

Wait... the lives of ordinary people were not affected by the American Revolution? People started drinking coffee for crying out loud!

In all seriousness though, it was changed in ways both great and subtle

 

[PoliticalChic]

God had nothing to do with Jacob C. Terhune and his men running the British off and assisting in establishing a secular government here free from the centuries old dominance of the church through divine right mandates by the monarchy.
Go ahead and look him up PC. My ancestors were the ones that led the charge against the British. After Jacob was a Captain he was a Judge in Bergen county. My cousins still have all of his writings and papers. My grandmother was a Terhune.
Nice try girlie but stick to what you know.
Lame attempts to tell us what our direct descendants believed in and did is laughable at best.

Talking through your hat as usual.

Tell us about your family history here, how far back they go and what documents your family has from 17th and 18th century America to read today.
And we will all wait for hell to freeze over as all you are is hot air.
Give it up.

I have seen previous posts by you claiming family repute.

The only family-story of yours that I'd believe is that you were the first born sans a tail.

 

[Vox]

The social order was changed. Ecclesiastical taxes were abolished. The Church of England was disestablished in the applicable colonies. Constitutions were written. Eventually a federal constitution was written. It included prohibitions on religious tests in for any office. It was subsequently amended to forbid the establishment of a federal religion, and a few generations later it was further amended so that this prohibition was incorporated against the states as well. That was a revolutionary change in the order of things.

Nope, the social order was NOT changed.

the financial subordination was, but that is NOT a social order of the society.

Okey-doke then. Maybe you should write to Encyclopedia Britannica and let them know the the Glorious Revolution should instead be called the Glorious Kerfuffle while you're at it

repeating - poetic misnomers do not change the material definition what is and what is not a revolution in the society.

 

[Vox]

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

Wait... the lives of ordinary people were not affected by the American Revolution? People started drinking coffee for crying out loud!

In all seriousness though, it was changed in ways both great and subtle

No, they were not.
peasants suddenly did not become aristocracy and slaves did not become bankers. Civil war for that matter had more features of revolution than the War for Independence.

you might benefit from refreshing the definitions of what a societal revolution is.

 

[Gadawg73]

our own was NOT a revolution. It was a war for Independence.

that is the main difference.

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

The lives of ordinary people were affected more in France and you are right.
That does not mean a lower level of lives being affected is not a revolution.
Many things changed affecting the lives of everyone, especially the accused, when we beat the British back to the continent across the pond.
Claiming that the lives of ordinary people were not affected here is false.

 

[Vox]

A revolution to gain independence from the religious institution of divine right of the monarchy.

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

The lives of ordinary people were affected more in France and you are right.
That does not mean a lower level of lives being affected is not a revolution.
Many things changed affecting the lives of everyone, especially the accused, when we beat the British back to the continent across the pond.
Claiming that the lives of ordinary people were not affected here is false.

I guess the devils hides in details.

If the lives of ordinary men and women were not turned upside down - that is not a revolution ( societal).

There can be all different kind of revolutions - scientific ones, for example, which, eventually, turn everyday life, but they do not disrupt them.

societal revolutions do.

that is why the War for Independence can be called revolutionary war ( which is an invention of a term) but it was NOT a societal revolution.

Civil war WAS much more a societal revolution, although it was basically imposed on the society, not a transformation of a society by itself, and therefore it also does not meet the criteria of classic societal revolution.

 

[Gadawg73]

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

The lives of ordinary people were affected more in France and you are right.
That does not mean a lower level of lives being affected is not a revolution.
Many things changed affecting the lives of everyone, especially the accused, when we beat the British back to the continent across the pond.
Claiming that the lives of ordinary people were not affected here is false.

I guess the devils hides in details.

If the lives of ordinary men and women were not turned upside down - that is not a revolution ( societal).

There can be all different kind of revolutions - scientific ones, for example, which, eventually, turn everyday life, but they do not disrupt them.

societal revolutions do.

that is why the War for Independence can be called revolutionary war ( which is an invention of a term) but it was NOT a societal revolution.

Civil war WAS much more a societal revolution, although it was basically imposed on the society, not a transformation of a society by itself, and therefore it also does not meet the criteria of classic societal revolution.

And you claim I am making "poetic" descriptions.
You can not make blanket statements putting everyone in some basket with definitions from historians.

 

[Agit8r]

poetic description does not change the material essence - if the social order is not changed and the lives of ordinary people are not affected ( which they were not) and all what changes is financial subordination - that is NOT a revolution.

Wait... the lives of ordinary people were not affected by the American Revolution? People started drinking coffee for crying out loud!

In all seriousness though, it was changed in ways both great and subtle

No, they were not.
peasants suddenly did not become aristocracy and slaves did not become bankers. Civil war for that matter had more features of revolution than the War for Independence.

you might benefit from refreshing the definitions of what a societal revolution is.

There was a political revolution here. There was an accompanying social movement that preceded the military struggle, and continued after it. When speaking of our history we tend to lump those three together. There also developed two counter-revolutionary movements; the rise of monied interest groups, and the Second Great Awakening.

 

[longknife]

I've been thinking a great deal about your statement that France was not a Christian nation before the revolution.

One of the groups they revolted against was the Catholic clergy. This from Wiki:

During the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was increasingly attacked. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed in 1790, put the Catholic Church under state control. The newly created republican government would continue to persecute the Catholic Church for much of the early 1790s establishing two new state religions to replace Catholicism.

Following the Thermidorian Reaction the National Convention restored freedom of religion but the schism between the French government and the Catholic Church wouldn't end until the Concordat of 1801 by Napoleon

And even though the power of the Catholic church was greatly reduced, other Protestant sects were given official status.

As to the US being "secular" I also find that difficult to accept. All of the founders were members of churches, attended regularly, and did not disavow them as part of the rebellion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've been thinking a great deal about your statement that France was not a Christian nation before the revolution.

One of the groups they revolted against was the Catholic clergy. This from Wiki:

During the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was increasingly attacked. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed in 1790, put the Catholic Church under state control. The newly created republican government would continue to persecute the Catholic Church for much of the early 1790s establishing two new state religions to replace Catholicism.

Following the Thermidorian Reaction the National Convention restored freedom of religion but the schism between the French government and the Catholic Church wouldn't end until the Concordat of 1801 by Napoleon

And even though the power of the Catholic church was greatly reduced, other Protestant sects were given official status.

As to the US being "secular" I also find that difficult to accept. All of the founders were members of churches, attended regularly, and did not disavow them as part of the rebellion.

To whom is this being addressed?

 

[Vox]

Wait... the lives of ordinary people were not affected by the American Revolution? People started drinking coffee for crying out loud!

In all seriousness though, it was changed in ways both great and subtle

No, they were not.
peasants suddenly did not become aristocracy and slaves did not become bankers. Civil war for that matter had more features of revolution than the War for Independence.

you might benefit from refreshing the definitions of what a societal revolution is.

There was a political revolution here. There was an accompanying social movement that preceded the military struggle, and continued after it. When speaking of our history we tend to lump those three together. There also developed two counter-revolutionary movements; the rise of monied interest groups, and the Second Great Awakening.

that was not a societal political revolution. It was a war for independence, not a political revolution.
neither of requirements of political societal revolution fit the American War for Independence.
struggle for political independence can be very bitter and bloody but it might still not be a societal revolution.

It seems to me that you somehow consider that naming something a revolution elevates it to a higher meaning
It does not. It simply describes some of the necessary characteristics of one fight vs another.
Not being a classic societal revolution usually means for the society much more organized and beneficial outcome as a whole.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Somebody started a thank you Political Chic thread ("PC, thanks for all the effort you put into your posts.") I replied with a post basically saying she relied more on copying and pasting other peoples efforts and didn't include much of her own "effort". I said her main contribution was the "work" of inserting an annoying amount of space between said c&p's I also implied she submitted these c&p's without adequate links, if any. One of her admirers countered with a slam. He might have been a little upset that I referred to her acolytes as "drooling sycophants" (I track to the melodramatic at times.) The bottom line the challenge;
"Finally: you lack any support for you post (I don't see you tearing apart one of her posts to demonstrate your point). Get a logic book and then get back to us."

So let's have a look at this "Tale of Two Revolutions" post. The first thing that catches my eye is again the strange formatting with large and larger spaces inserted between factoids that themselves seem near to random in their selection and placement. The post's premise appears to be the French Revolution was a bloody brutal failure because of its Godlessness, a left-leaning liberal affliction of course, and the American a success by way of retaining a "certain religiosity throughout, a kind of civil religion." And of course a "Right" leaning value system of individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. How Reagan-esque of the Founding Fathers. A reminder: Revolution pretty much by definition opposes the status quo and the Conservatives who try to "conserve" it. Those would be King George and the Loyalists, et.al.

I'm not surprised religion plays a big role in PC's interpretation of history, it's a central theme in all the posts of hers I've had a look at. That's fine with me but it's a very narrow view here and she leaves it devoid of historical context. At the time of their revolution the French underclass, the peasants, were still oppressed by a society largely based on feudal structure and a Catholic church also holding immense power over their lives;

"The Church’s revenue in 1789 was estimated at an immense – and possibly exaggerated – 150 million livres. It owned around six per cent of land throughout France, and its abbeys, churches, monasteries and convents, as well as the schools, hospitals and other institutions it operated, formed a visible reminder of the Church’s dominance in French society. The Church was also permitted to collect the tithe, worth a nominal one-tenth of agricultural production, and was exempt from direct taxation on its earnings." LINK

No matter how you parse it you have a hard time finding historical versimiltude between the two revolutions. And what is the source of the details provided to advance her thesis? A littany of Copy and Pastes with, again, few or no links. Now I'm sorry, I'm not really a rules fanatic by any means and to tell the truth I don't give a shit if PC breaks the rules over and over.
" Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link, You need to include relevant, on topic material of your own."
"Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material".
"...each "Copy and Paste" needs to be linked to it's source"

However, and I've said this before, the extent to which she uses C&P's without attribution or even putting direct quotes in quotation marks borders on habitual plagiarism. I'll give a few examples. Items 1 through 4 are not "based" on "The West and The Rest" as she suggests, they are copies and pastes from that source.
LINK

Item 5 ends with a two word non sequiter, The Mandate, with no clue to it's meaning or why the words are there. It turns out The Mandate is an online Religious mag, Evangelical I think, again not surprising. Religious e-zines are her favourite source as far as I can tell. Not a negative neccessarily but a clue as to motive. Item 5 is again a C&P. Doesn't PC know how to do a live link? Looks like she's been posting on this site for years, I'm sure she does. So why does she repeatedly fail to supply active links. Possibly deliberate attempts to conceal a trail? Why else?LINKReligion and Government in America

Items 6 through 8 are C&P's from "When Americans turn to god, which god is it?" LINK:an online article here

Items 8a and 9 are direct C&P's from LINK: Curiously a Jewish website

Now how much of Item 10 is a direct quote or clip and paste from Borks "Slouching Towards Gomorah" I don't know. If the pattern holds I suspect a least 95%. I'm definitely not going to wade through his reactionary tome to prove a minor point. Hell, even GWB put as much distance between himself and Bork when he was a candidate in 1999. (I came across that tidbit looking into STG for this post.)
Okay I've spent way too much time on this. I don't feel guiilty about not addressing more actual content, only about 2% is PC's anyway. I'll summarize; Left bad Right good, atheism bad God good. Altogether a pretty shallow synopsis of two very complex historical events. I won't call the rest plagiarism, I can already hear the howls. What's your definition?