Progressivism and the French Revolution

I have before me a book titled "The Progressive Revolution." I have not read it yet, but just the back cover tells us that the dichotomy that was set up during the french revolution persists in the US to this day. The book says that it want to examine the revolution known as progressivism. IT opposes itself to this revolution. The counterrevolution is a return to natural rights, limited government, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. The revolution is committed to progressivism, centralization, unlimited government, and direct democracy.

This mirrors the general positions leading up to and during the French Revolution. John Adams saw himself on the side of the Anglomanes, who advocated bicameralism and constitutional checks and balances. Jefferson saw himself more on the side of the Gallomanes, who advocated a national, unified, central legislature as the center of power.

These debates persist.

Two Letters

Consider these two letters:

Adams to Jefferson, January 31, 1796 (259)
“I consider all Reasoning upon French Affairs of little moment. The Fates must determine hereafter as they have done heretofore. Reasoning has been all lost. Passion, Prejudice, Interest, Necessity has governed and will govern; and a Century must roll away before any permanent and quiet System will be established. An Amelioration of human affairs I hope and believe will be the result, but You and I must look down from the Battlements of Heaven if We ever have the Pleasure of Seeing it.

TJ to JA, Sep 4th 1823
"The spirit of the Spaniard and his deadly and eternal hatred to the Frenchman, gives me much confidence that he will never submit, but finally defeat this atrocious violation of the laws of god and man under which he is suffering; and the wisdom and firmness of the Cortes afford reasonable hope that the nation will settle down in a temperate representative government, with an executive properly subordinated to that. Portugal, Italy, Prussia, Germany, Greece will follow suit. You and I shall look down from another world on these glorious achievements to man, which will add to the joys of heaven."

Could Jefferson in 1823 have had in mind Adams's letter from 1796, indicating to Adams that the French Revolution did not slow down the progress of representative government in the way that Adams had predicted in 1796?

Stoking Revolution, in France, in Iran

I know that this is almost a re-statement of a previous entry, but I have re-worked the paragraphs. The story that is told here might be very relevant for our own times, as we face a potential US attack on Iran. If we understand the current Iran to be analogous to France in 1787, the current US to be analogous to England in 1787, and current Europe as analogous to the US in 1787, we can perhaps sympathize with Jefferson's position. In addition, we can take pause when considering our own situation. Our country might be doing things in the international sphere so as to radicalize Iran, making her look to be the kind of country we should fight. Whereas, if we were to leaver her alone or engage her diplomatically, many of the democratic changes that we claim to hope for, might happen anyway (as they were happening in France).

And so due to the French political situation, it seems to be the case that Jefferson, during the summer of 1787, remained silent about the book translation project, and while he probably did not block the project, he probably did not fight to get the book translated and published either. One aspect of the problem had to do with the political situation of France and how Jefferson saw the French experiment in relation to the ideal as compared to the English Constitution in relation to that ideal. The second aspect of the problem had to do with what Jefferson saw to be the larger political situation in Europe, and where Britain and the soon-to-be United States of America stood in relation to that larger situation.

As Jefferson wrote to Adams in the summer and Fall of 1787, he described mobs gathering in the streets of Paris. They hissed at the nobles. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. While Jefferson did not make direct attacks on Adams’s book, his letters to Adams indicate that he was aware of the ideas in Adams’s book, and that he was, perhaps, trying to draw attention to what he saw to be a more refined view of the problem of Constitutions and society. Jefferson thought that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson did not think that the ground gained by the nation would ever be lost.

Jefferson continued this theme in a second letter sent in September in which He explained to Adams the principles of good government: “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admitted that the English constitution was better than previous constitutions, but that it was only better in relation to this standard (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

As Jefferson pondered the progress made in constitution-building, he also was aware of the difficulty of building an advanced constitution, given a complex political situation. And so, he discussed the Constitution of France and England in the light of events in Europe. In August he indicated that at the same time that France was undergoing her revolution, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France.

France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws, rather than submit to the yoke of England (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). In his second letter, Jefferson indicated that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

Jefferson then commented on the situation in Holland, which he thought showed that it was better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hoped that the nations of Europe would be able to chasten England, if only a little. He feared that a conflict was coming with England, and that the nations of Europe were hesitating before confronting her. Jefferson hoped that, in this coming conflict, America would be able to remain neutral. He feared that the English, or rather the King, would force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thought that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of what would come to be divergent views between Jefferson and Adams over the emphases necessary to keep America closest to the ideal constitution, given the coming war in Europe. Jefferson and Adams agreed on the desirability of revolution for France. They also agreed that the best kind of Constitution involved a balancing of three powers. Their disagreements were more matters of emphasis than principle. Jefferson, from his letter to Adams, thought that the popular branch should keep a legislative power.

Adams thought it should keep a diplomatic power. Jefferson admitted that the British Constitution was better than most Constitutions, but it was very imperfect in relation to the ideal. If the French were to change their constitution, they should look to change it with respect to the ideal, not with respect to the British Constitution. The English Constitution was a compromise, given the historical circumstances, with respect to this standard. France might have already outstripped England in achieving rights to bring about this standard. By implication, it would be foolish to propose the British model for a society which was on the verge of better adhering to the ideal standard than the British compromise. A book like Adams’s, if widely distributed, might confuse the French population as to real gains that had been made in France in 1787.

In addition, Jefferson thought that to extol the English government too much might be dangerous with respect to foreign policy, and how foreign policy could affect the internal order of the soon to be United States. The English seemed to be on the verge of a war against France and come combination of other European states. To extol England at a time such as this might lead Americans to think that they were allies of the British, and to drag Americans into the war alongside the British against the other nations of Europe. This policy, Jefferson thought, would be potentially harmful to the young democracy in the US. It could also lead the US to see Britain as the standard of government, rather than the ideal that was currently being established, one of a balance of powers between the three branches of government, with the principle of representation being popular sovereignty.

This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. And, in a way, England’s bellicosity from even before the Revolution might have been partly responsible for the radical turn taken by the Revolutionaries during the revolution. Jefferson thought a great war was about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He was convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams, it seems, did not respond to the statements of Jefferson about balance of powers between the three branches. He was, overall, ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He was ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admitted that only “Force, Power, and Strength” would restrain some nations. He thought that not England, but that Europe would try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hoped that the United States would come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Bicameralism and Unicameralism Debated for the Coming Revolution

Adams disagreed with the proponents of a unicameral legislature, especially Turgot and Condorcet. Eventually, Kant will defend the ideas of Condorcet. He thought that such a political theory would lead to disaster. Adams responded to Turgot’s ideas in his Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States, which he published in 1787. After the French Revolution began, Adams continued his attack on the idea of unicameral legislatures. In 1790 he published Discourses on Davila with a view critiquing what he viewed to be the ominous developments of Revolutionary France. Thomas Paine joined the debate in 1791 with his publication of The Rights of Man. By accident, an essay by Jefferson introduced the American edition of Paine’s Rights of Man listing Adams’s book Davila among the “political heresies” of the American Regime. This essay, along with Paine’s work, led to an intensely partisan competition in the United States between pro-English and pro-French factions during the 1790s (Thompson, 1996, 364-365).

The debate that erupted in the United States following the publication of Discourses on Davila and then Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man was a coming to the surface of tensions that were already present when Adams published A Defence of the Constitutions … of America in 1787. When Jefferson received the book, he invited Adams to reconsider his idea that Congress was a diplomatic and not a legislative assembly. Jefferson said that he feared the book would be poorly translated, and so he found a good translator. After securing the translator, he left on a wine-tasting tour which he had been planning.
(It is just as likely that the French blocked the book, and that TJ told this to JA).

Jefferson, as late as November, indicated that the book was being translated. It seems, however that Philip Mazzei, an associate of Jefferson, Adams, and the book publisher, blocked translation and publication of the book in the final days before printing. In part, this had to do with the politics of France at the time. France was in the midst of a debate between the Anglomanes, those who desired a bicameral legislature with the King and a senate-like aristocratic body checking the popular branch, and the Gallomanes, those who preferred a unicameral popular legislature with predominant power over the other estates in French society. Mazzei and Condorcet were on the side of the Gallomanes. They perceived that Adams was among the potential leaders of the Anglomanes. Mazzei was able to publish a pamphlet by Stevens instead of Adams’s book. Even though this pamphlet also advocated a bicameral legislature, Mazzei was able to insert another 200 pages in which he critiqued Anglomane theory and twisted the arguments of Stevens so as to support the Gallomane position.

Jefferson and Adams met in person January or February of 1788. By that time, there would be no publication of Adams’s book. While we do not have any direct evidence as to the content of that meeting between Jefferson and Adams, we can imagine that the topic of the book translation was brought up. We could hypothesize that both Jefferson and Adams knew of the debate raging in France, and how individuals with more influence than Jefferson could block the publication of Adams’s book. Jefferson admitted to Adams initially that even finding someone to translate it properly would be difficult. Perhaps he realized that what Mazzei and his associates had done to Stevens, they would have done to Adams. Whatever the circumstances in February and January of 1788, it does not seem from the correspondence that at that time Adams was upset about the book not being published.

But, a few years later, in 1791, Thomas Paine published his pamphlet The Rights of Man. In the first edition that Paine published he included an introductory essay by Jefferson critiquing Adams’ Discourses as containing ideas that were “political heresy.” Jefferson did not want these comments to be published, and yet, they were. Nevertheless, they caused indignation in the mind of Adams and they began a firestorm in American politics that raged throughout the 1790s. This storm included many events that divided the democratic republicans against the federalists during the political debates of the 1790s.

This short history about Adams and Jefferson before and in the early days of the French Revolution reveals to us that Adams, on the whole, was becoming more pessimistic about the goodness of human nature. He was also becoming more pessimistic about the possibility of humans, short of institutional checks, of reaching a good end in political life. Humans are too dominated by envy and a love for money. For this reason, Adams was skeptical of those theorists who believed that a unicameral legislature could adequately check the passions of men. He expressed his fears in books and writings. He hoped his friend Jefferson would help him translate his ideas into French.

Jefferson, who was also friends with the same people that Adams critiqued, remained slightly more optimistic about human nature and what kind of political institutions human nature could support. In addition, perhaps he saw that the real disagreement between he and Adams was not one of principle. Instead, it was one of what emphasis was necessary given the historical circumstances of the time. Stevens, the supposed opponent whose tract was published instead of Adams’s book, advocated bicameral legislatures.

Jefferson also was not an opponent of bicameralism. But Jefferson feared that the United States, and perhaps France as well in the opening days of the Revolution, risked falling into the English system, which was proving itself to be an obstacle rather than a proponent of true political development. Jefferson thought that, given the historical circumstances, what needed strengthening and support in the 1790s was the popular branch. It would not make sense in the early days of the Republic to put too great an emphasis on institutions such as the Senate or Presidency, so as to make them like the House of Lords or the King in England.

In addition, Jefferson thought that too much attachment to England might actually limit the healthy development of the American system, as England would further involve the United States in European conflicts. England was also pressuring the French in such a way so as to antagonize the tensions already present in French society.

Jefferson was not overly enthusiastic about the excesses of the French Revolution. He admitted, in a way, that Robsepierre ended the popular part of the Revolution. Nevertheless, he did not see US involvement in European wars, entering on the side of England, as healthy for the US. Adams perhaps failed to fully understand the checks and balances that were part of the Constitution. In addition, he failed to appreciate the possibility that the Constitution and the Institutions that it established did educate the citizens of the United States to acquire political habits that would support the constitution over time. Or, perhaps he understood this, but, given this affection for England and position in England, his statements could easily be bent by the Gallomanes in France to attack the Anglomanes and to advance the Gallomane position.

Debating Revolution

As I am delving deeper into the Adams-Jefferson controversy that surrounded the French Revolution, it seems to me that the dispute came down to this, Adams perhaps overstated his case when he argued that an either aristocratic or moneyed class would always be influential in society.

In overstating his case, his opponents were able to present him as a defender of English Constitution. In France, this was important as the Revolution approached, because the Revolutionaries, to give themselves a reason to revolt, had to distance themselves from the English model.

Neither Adams nor Jefferson opposed the idea of revolution. They were in agreement as to the kind of society they wanted to see emerge. They disagreed, in the end, over how to bring about the transition.

Adams Skeptical about the French Revolution

By late 1788 and early 1789 Jefferson sees even more advances being made in the political life in France. He sees an orderly revolution in the works, perhaps similar to the events leading up to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. He observed that the third estate won the right to convene periodically, to register laws, and to propose amendments. “Thus a change in their constitution is, I think, certain: and the life of the present king or the minority of his heir will give time to confirm it” (Jefferson to Adams, December 5th 1788, 231-232). Jefferson is confident that the constitutional changes will remain firm in France. January sees more healthy changes, the power of taxing based on consent, accountability of ministers, the regular meeting of the estates, a degree of liberty to the press, and that these rights were to be fixed in a written document (Jefferson to Adams, January 14th 1789, 235-236).

Adams did not respond directly to these observations that Jefferson made. Perhaps this can be explained by what was probably his reservations or skepticism about the political movements in France coming to a happy end. This silence of Adams indicates that the disagreement about the nature and meaning of the French Revolution would be what would eventually lead to the strains in their friendship. These strains would eventually find themselves reflected in American institutions. By the late 1780s, public intellectuals, expecting a revolution to begin in France, began writing books about the American constitution and preparing to write a new Constitution for France. Turgot and Mably in France and Godwin in England wrote essays or books critiquing America for installing a constitution that allowed for three branches at the Federal level and also divided power between the federal and state level. The French critics were more enamored with the idea of a country with a single parliament and centralized federal power (Thompson, 1996, 364).

Rivers of Blood

Reflecting on the French Revolution, and the disagreements between Adams and Jefferson during the 1790s, Jefferson indicates that at the heart of a disagreement was whether, in that time, the popular branch needed strengthening or whether the aristocratic and executive branch needed strengthening. Adams sided with the aristocrats, Jefferson with the popular branch. This is a conflict that has occurred throughout history.

Jefferson indicates that both are committed to free government, and that, in the end rivers of blood will flow before free government will be brought about.

Adams, in the end, says that he contemplates the rivers of blood with melancholy, impliciitly admitting he sees no other way.

This is worth thinking about. Is it really necessary that rivers of blood must flow to bring about just and free societies? Why were Adams and Jefferson unable to see another possibility? In the end, their political philosophies were both too materialistic to admit the possibility of union, republicanism, and freedom coming about any other way than by rivers of blood. They lacked a robust and prinicpled moral system. Adams at least knew that such a system was necessary, but he himself failed to articulate it.

This is all the more significant now, as the US is ready to make rivers of blood flow in the Middle East, and the most that the opponents of such activity can do is look on in melancholy.

Adams, Jefferson, and Revolution

After dealing with Pius VI, I am turning to the figures that my book will deal with before Pius VI, specifically, John Adams, Mary Wollstonecraft, Immanuel Kant, and Edmund Burke. The French Revolution had a great impact not only on the presidency of John Adams, but also on his literary career and his friendships. Perhaps more than any other, the friendship between Adams and Jefferson was most affected by the ideas, events, and effects of the French Revolution.

In 1812, John Adams sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson, along with some homespun, in the hopes of rekindling a correspondence that the two men broke off due to events surrounding the election of 1800. A mutual friend suggested to Adams that he try to renew the friendship. Adams began the correspondence partly to lure Jefferson into a dialogue about the history of their relationship. At the very least, he hoped that he and Jefferson could explain themselves to each other.

Adams wanted to discover why their intellectual relationship and friendship soured over the years. Adams and Jefferson were friends and among the more radical members of the group that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Despite this fact, by 1800 they found themselves on opposite sides of the political debates plaguing the country. The presidential campaign, Adams’ loss to Jefferson, and much else broke all communication between the two great founders and led to Adams’ retreat from public life.

Among the topics that Adams sensed were potential causes for their break-up, was each man’s reaction to and interpretation of the events and aftermath of the French Revolution. This led to disagreement over what the French Revolution and its philosophy meant for the United States, and what was the purpose in general of revolution for a culture and society. Adams was critical of the French Revolution before, during, and after it happened. That is to say, before the French Revolution he was critical of the political theorists that he thought were behind it. During the French Revolution, he was immersed in political efforts to prevent the United States from becoming another revolutionary France. After the French Revolution, he feared revolutionary philosophy and practices influencing the United States and ruining its government.