Have you ever read a book of history?! Thucydides would have laughed!
Well, maybe I should euthanize that pup.. 
But yes, the declaration of independence was more radical, but the radically egalitarian and liberal elements of the Constitution can not be ignored.
I do realize where the writer of the book you link to is coming from, but I also had a bit of my theory that I had not mentioned yet, while the radical (for the day) parts of the constitution allowed for an eventual growth of egalitarianism, there were others that almost destroyed the US (slavery) but the radical parts of the constitution allowed the USA to progress (kicking and screaming sometimes, but progress)
But, as the writer on the link notices, we are hitting a wall, when needed things like progress on health care access can be virtually obliterated by the current system we have, (and make us virtually the last developed nation on earth to not give access to all their citizens) one can see that a serious change is needed.
Why The Left bien sûr.
Who led the Pedant’s Revolt?
Answer; Which Tyler
When I think of the current academic discipline of history, I don’t think Thucydides. H
Well this is Great Debates, and a lot of the debates are of a historical nature (ie who was right in x or something like that). Certainly such bias shouldn’t be present in history books but you can certainly discuss such matters.
Wait, since when are we are trying to guess what political opinions someone might have held or hold in the future if they lived some totally different life and were a completely different person or in the completely indescribable future?
Of course people can discuss whatever they want. My point is that if you seek to become a serious historian, don’t think these are the sorts of questions you will work on; if you want to work on these sorts of questions, become a philosopher.
And asking who was right or wrong isn’t bias. It’s ethics.
I love G. K. Chesterton, but I think on the subject of the French revolution the man was flat wrong. I grant it was romantic, heroic, and even noble in intent. For all their faults, the men who formed even the cruellest Revolutionary governments had a rare strain of courage. However, they used it badly.
Humans should not aim for perfection. They should strive for it. The difference is subtle but critical. The French monarchy and nobility weren’t heroic: they were selfish, stupid, short-sighted - and human. The revolutions were generous, cunning, and far-sighted - and inhuman. I do not claim it was obvious at the time, but given history we should not be surprised that a Napoleon took power. Napoleon was very human, and humanity tends to win out over inhumanity in the end.
I agree. Pure ideals can be (depending on what they are, naturally) great as a reference point, but actually trying to impose them on real life results in disaster. Whether it’s the Perfect Free Market or the Perfectly Equal State you are trying for.
I do wish, rather wistfully, that the Revolution could have been carried out without so much wanton destruction of chateaux and art collections and estate archives . . . but, that’s just me, I’m the sort who will at least be tempted to burn the orphanage to save the library. :o
Since we joined the Dope.
Gruesome French Revolution trivia: the bath tub where Marat was murdered was saved for posterity, it was reported that P.T Barnum even tried to get a hold of it, but in the end the Musée Grévin in Paris has it:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1845947
Regarding what happened and “the French Revolution,” I found Barbara Tuchman’s book, A Distant Mirror, The Calamitous 14th Century, which focused on France, greatly affected my thinking about the French Revolution, even though it’s not a topic of the book at all. But it does extensively discuss the class struggles and misbehavior which would imbue the much later conflict of 1789 with centuries of fossilized resentment and fear. Reading the book, turning page after page of horrendous mistreatment, abuse, folly, financial mismanagement, and bloody reprisal, I constantly thought “how could they stand it?”
Ultimately, of course, things came to a head.
So to speak.
What do you expect from the culture that gave us the Grand Guignol?
If by “they” you mean the peasants, the Jacquerie was in that period.
That’s how they could stand it, I would guess: By remembering that every time the peasants revolted, they seemed to get stomped.