In hindsight, the “Third Estate” rebels certainly were right in adjudging that the aristocracy had lost its valuable functions and become an expensive, useless ornament to French society. The peasants, with no such fancy words or high-flown ideas in their heads, certainly were right when they judged that they were paying their noble landlord rent season after season and getting nothing of value in return. And anyone with eyes to see at the time could see that the British form of constitutional government was better than France’ absolute monarchy – and so was that radical new American democracy.
[linguistic pedant]Dynamite explodes. Heads asplode. The distinction is similar to that between hanged and hung.[/lp]
So, you’re saying that the British and Americans were right in the French Revolution?
Are you saying the Americans were wrong? Okay, you’re on the list.
Peasants don’t lead revolutions. The French and American revolutions were middle-class revolutions. Even the Russian and Chinese revolutions were led by middle-class figures like Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao.
Well, not usually.
Hmm, according to that while the leader of the forces during much of the uprising (note: this was not a successful revolution) is believed to be a peasant, the initial kick off was by a small land owner and the driving force was a priest.
His head is made of hi-explosive. I defeat you.
American democracy wasn’t particularly radical at least compared to what some of the more radical Patriots wanted.
Depends, on certain economic issues or foreign policy issues it may indeed turn out centuries hence those of the Left were right (although for most of these cases I’d say it’d be a very slim chance). However on certain moral issues I think there will be always only one right view. Hence I do not tolerate Robespierre’s Reign of Terror nor those of his spiritual successors, Stalin or Hitler.
It has to be done sometimes, Qin. You will understand one day, thoroughly if briefly.
Conversely, it’s interesting to consider how many Dopers would have been running the guillotines back then.
:dubious: Are you casting aspersions regarding the moral character of this esteemed assembly and implying we are not debating in the best interest of the People, citizen ? Off to the Place de la Concorde with you !
My pet historical point is that we actually made a **very **radical constitution, but with a “gentlemen” agreement to not follow right away on most of the more “crazy” ideals implied in the document.
No, the Declaration of Independence was radical. The Constitution . . . here’s a good place to start.
Can I bring my knitting?
The fact that a revolution was led by a few educated, middle-class individuals doesn’t make it a middle-class revolution.
From the march of the market women on Versailles in October 1789, and the subsequent removal of the king and (more important) the Assembly to Paris, the French government was dominated by, and in physical fear of, an urban proletariat armed and organized into the National Guard.
The bourgeoisie would have been happy with financial reforms and a constitutional monarchy. They didn’t get their way. The proletariat drove the Revolution in an increasingly radical direction, down through the Terror in 1793-94. Only then did the middle and upper classes regain control.
Just to finish this off, the aristocracy was right in expecting that a popular rule would degenerate into chaos. And the clergy were right that the “Declaration of Human Rights” would lead to a decline of religion and a rise of secularism. Everyone was right!
Qin, I mean this sincerely: you have spoken of becoming an historian, and I think you’ve got the passion and the intellect to do it. But you need to make a paradigm shift: we don’t study history to find out who was right. We study history to try to figure out what actually happened. Even there, it’s a wildly imperfect discipline. As you advance in your study of history, you’ll start to read the primary and secondary sources that histories are based on, and I think you’ll be surprised to discover how very little we really know for certain: what we have are a lot of educated guesses, constantly refined. And that doesn’t mean it’s pointless–it’s just never sure.
I teach high school, and you are making the same mistake so many of my students do when they are on the verge of adulthood: you want the world to be morally simple, the way it appears to a child. You want to be able to apply some complicated moral calculus and come out at the end and say “X was the bad guy”. It doesn’t work that way. People are complicated, context is complicated, and we only know half of what happened anyway.
Study history for what it is: the story of what happened. If you want to figure out morality, go study philosophy.
And you’ll allow, as I expect,
That he was right to so object.
And I am right
And you are right
And everything is quite correct! 
– The Mikado