The Quakers, as I said in my last, were in principle against all wars, and, moreover, greatly prejudiced against New England, and personally against me. The Irish, who are very numerous and powerful in Pennsylvania, had been, and still were enthusiasts for the French revolution, extremely exasperated against old England, bitterly prejudiced against New England, strongly inclined in favor of the southern interest and against the northern. The Germans hated France and England too, but had been taught to hate New England more than either, and to abhor taxes more than all. A universal and perpetual exemption from taxes was held up to them as a temptation, by underhand politicians. The English, Scotch, and Irish Presbyterians, the Methodists, Anabaptists, the Unitarians and Universalists, with Dr. Priestley at their head, and all the other sectaries, even many of the Episcopalians themselves, had been carried away with the French revolution, and firmly believed that Bonaparte was the instrument of Providence to destroy the Pope and introduce the millennium. All these interests and parties were headed by Mr. McKean, an upright Chief Justice, an enlightened lawyer, a sagacious politician, and the most experienced statesman in the nation; by Mr. Mifflin, one of the earliest in the legislature of Pennsylvania and the first and second Congresses of the nation, an active officer in the revolutionary army, always extremely popular; by Jonathan B. Smith, an old revolutionary character.
I get the impression these were, basically, the Jefferson-Madison Democratic-Republicans and this is how they approached what was going down in France at the time.
I've long corrected what I see as an error coming mainly from the ("Christian America") political Right that as soon as the French Revolution broke out, America was against it because America's Founding was "Christian," France's Revolution was "Secular." In reality, most Founding era Americans, swept up in a revolutionary zeitgeist saw the French Revolution as a continuation of the American.
But by the time Bonaparte hit the scene, Adams' and Hamilton's Federalist Party were decidedly anti-French Revolution, with the Democratic-Republicans holding onto hope of the FR's success. Though I haven't confirmed every above name person or group neatly "fit" this categorization.
4 comments:
I read your repsonse to Tom on this theme the other day and thought it very interesting.
Funny thing is that "The Age of Federalism" as one book calls it has so many parallels to our day. One person the other day even compared how they are going to handle Wikileaks to the Sedition Acts.
Most of all Jefferson's Democratic Republican Clubs were very similar to the spontaneous Tea Parties that have swelled into what will be a new Party.
With that said I am not so sure that Jefferson let alone others who supported him where as "Liberal" in a classical sense as you let on. Not sure they were not either.
BUT I did finally catch on to the finer nuances of the running debate over Liberty or License that you and Tom have been having while the rest of us catch up to speed.
Keep up the good work. I learn more from your discussions with him than anything else. True and authentic Socratic dialogue. The real "dialectic" if you will...
I've long corrected what I see as an error coming mainly from the ("Christian America") political Right that as soon as the French Revolution broke out, America was against it because America's Founding was "Christian," France's Revolution was "Secular."
I've seen this as an ex post facto argument---and I share the sentiment, that the FR failed because of its radicalness and atheism---but I'm unfamiliar with those who make the claim religious Americans immediately opposed it because of its godlessness.
For one, the godlessness was not immediately apparent, and for another, America was thoroughly anti-Catholic and on first blush, I'd expect them to instinctively side with the anti-Papists.
"but I'm unfamiliar with those who make the claim religious Americans immediately opposed it because of its godlessness."
Perhaps I unfairly attacked a strawman; but I don't "see" the social conservatives who distinguish between the traditional religiosity of the American revolution with the Enlightenment secular deist/atheist character of the French at all appreciating the idea that an American "Christian" (Protestant, anti-Catholic) synthesized with "Enlightenment" case was made FOR the French Revolution and initially saw the FR as a continuation of the "progress" of the American Founding. That this was NOT an "outlier" position. That it was a mainstream American position that eventually became a partisan Democratic-Republican position.
Maybe I should write an article. Though, Hamburger does deal with it briefly in SOCAS. He picks it up at the point where
"millennial republicanism" becomes a partisan Democratic-Republican opinion.
As noted, I too would expect the Americans to view the FR in its early stages as a continuation of the AA.
Edmund Burke is famous for being on to the destructive radicalism of the FR, being a keener eyewittness to it from just across the Channel. John Adams was heavily suspicious rather quickly, too. I bookmarked somewhere where Jefferson admits to john Adams that he was wrong and JA was right about the FR, but I forget where it is.
[The only occasion I can recall Jefferson ever admitting about being wrong about anything!]
But as we know, both Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton went to France in the late stages and were appalled at the rampant and crass atheism.
And max deist Thomas Paine, of all people, went to France to "help" with the Revolution and save them from atheism!
[He ended up in a French prison, where President Washington let him rot. Paine wrote letters viciously attacking the Father of Our Country. Fascinating story, but I digress...]
Post a Comment