Why was the French Monarchy so Overwhelmed by the French Revolution in 1789?

The French Revolution made huge impacts around the world, especially with it being not many years after the American Revolution. Here, Bilal Junejo considers how the long-standing French monarchy was deposed during the 1789 French Revolution.

1777 portrait of King Louis XVI of France.

The revolution which broke out in 1789 was against what the annals of mankind have confirmed to be the surest instigator of all revolutionary sentiment — a decrepit, effete, and increasingly invidious regime. Unlike England’s Glorious Revolution a century earlier, the entire ambition of which had lain in the overthrow of a particular monarch (rather than the monarchy per se), the French Revolution did not commence as a revolt against Louis XVI personally, but against the whole polity over which he presided, and which had been established by his forebear, Louis XIV, in the seventeenth century — the ancien régime, the hallmarks of which included outdated agricultural methods, feudal traditions of land tenure, and uncontrolled inflation. The abolition of the monarchy — which was eventually decreed in September 1792, and confirmed in January 1793 with the execution of Louis XVI — was in no way the inspiration behind the insurrection in 1789, but merely the inevitable outcome of it — much as had been the case in the English Civil War, when the intransigence of Charles I, anticipating that of Louis XVI, had eventuated in the decapitation of that proud but not hypocritical Stuart in 1649. Another similarity was the fact that both of them had married foreign princesses. Charles was the ominously faithful husband of France’s Henrietta Maria, an early Bourbon (as well as a Catholic) whose influence upon him endeared neither of them to a Protestant parliament. The pride of a Stuart, coupled with the advice of a Bourbon, did not make for the alleviation of domestic rancour, and proved not surprisingly to be Charles’s undoing. In a similar fashion, Louis XVI, who had been married to the equally perverse Marie Antoinette of Austria, was also in thrall to the peremptory politics of his unpopular wife. Every monarch is a human being, and all human beings have their faults. It was the fault of both Charles and Louis that they were endowed with absolute authority at what, in retrospect, was a critical time for their respective states, and that they exercised that authority under the not inconsiderable influence of the least desirable of advisors — their foreign spouses, who had by definition almost nothing to lose in the event of an upheaval. Myopic monarchs acting at the behest of individuals with no stake in the fate of the nation cannot but court disaster, and nothing settled Louis’s fate more decisively than his choice to side with the very status quo which was responsible for having created the problems that ushered in the Revolution.

Bankruptcy

In 1789, France was upon the verge of bankruptcy. A century of wars waged without her borders had accumulated vast debts without corresponding victories with which to justify them. The War of the Spanish Succession (1702-13), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48), and the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) had all humbled Bourbon pretensions — and bestowed a raft of burdens upon their treasury into the bargain, in the discharge of which the wealthiest classes of French society, the nobility and the clergy, were not obliged to assist. In return for this magnificent concession, these classes refrained from interfering in the monarch’s policies. France’s frivolous equivalent of the British Parliament, the Estates-General (which had not been summoned by the monarch since 1614), was dominated by these two Estates, to the detriment of the third — the bourgeoisie, which, along with the peasantry, had to fulfil all the fiscal demands of the state. The class which provided the money required for the execution of state policies had no say in the formulation of those policies, and one of the reasons for never summoning the Estates-General was to ensure that so sorry a state of affairs should continue without hindrance. But this was a century of the Enlightenment, some of whose greatest luminaries — Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Montesquieu — were French. Their increasingly popular writings helped to ensure that royal absolutism would no longer be accorded medieval deference. Worse still, French arms had only recently crowned with victory the struggle of George Washington against the perverse autocracy of George III and his ministers; and French soldiers returning across the Atlantic were imbued with the hope of rejuvenating their languishing country after the American fashion. It was not so much that Louis would not compromise with the Third Estate, as that his wife and the other two Estates would not allow him to even think of doing so.

Reforms

But necessity is the mother not only of invention, but also aberration. Ambitious financial reforms devised by the likes of Calonne, Necker and Turgot in 1787 and 1788 were at the court’s disposal. All that remained to be mustered was the courage to execute them, and the first step towards achieving that was the summoning of the Estates-General. This, the King eventually did in May 1789, his decision having been endorsed by the clergy and the nobility, who believed that they would be able to exact budgetary obedience from the commoners; but for the first time, the Third Estate’s opponents received more than they had bargained for. The commoners, elated by the unexpected reappearance of a crucial forum for concerted opposition, refused to grant money over the expenditure of which they would have no control, echoing the Short Parliament’s refusal to accede to Charles’s request for funds in 1629. But Charles, no less than his people, had yet to learn, in the succeeding decade, that kings could no longer govern on their own in an era of diminishing regard for the divine right of kings. Louis, on the other hand, was already aware of that unpalatable truth, at the behest of which he had summoned the Estates-General; and he could only yield when the Third Estate, led by the energetic Abbé Sieyès, declared itself a National Assembly and seceded from the Estates-General. Subsequent events like the fall of the Bastille and the advent of the Great Fear were significant not so much in themselves as in their indication of the King’s inability to prevent them. And when he could not resist even the form of revolution, there was no way in which he could deny the substance thereof. By August, feudalism had been formally abolished, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was promulgated to circumscribe the more self-serving aspects of royal policy. Inflation, however, remained an incubus; and when the persistently rising cost of bread refused to evince any sign of coming down, ensuing demonstrations in Paris culminated in the famous “Bread March of the Women” to Versailles in October to demand — most successfully, it should be noted — the royal family’s return to Paris. The young Assembly followed them soon after, and thenceforth Parisian control of the Revolution was never seriously contested.

The end

The inability of King Louis XVI to stave off the radical and speedy overhaul of the status quo within a matter of months was indicative of the unprecedented extent to which the monarchy, as the direct result of its own insolvency, had been overwhelmed by the people. As the next eighteen months were devoted to long constitutional debates and internal reform (principally through the promulgation of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790, and the sale of royal and ecclesiastical lands to small shareholders for fiscal purposes), the only brake on the speed of the overhaul was the presence not of the King, but of the moderate constitutionalist, Mirabeau, whose death in April 1791 widened the breach between the Assembly and the court, and precipitated the Flight to Varennes but a few months later. The Flight signaled the King’s acceptance of his inability to reverse the tide, to undo anything that had been accomplished in the last two years. The monarchy had been fatally undermined — or, in other words, completely overwhelmed.

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Kenyon, J. (1994) The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History. Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Oxford Dictionary of Word History (3rd edition, 2015).

Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (3rd edition, 2009).

Palmer, A. (1964) A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945. Penguin Reference Books.

The American Revolution Versus the French Revolution

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

French Revolution figure Maximilien de Robespierre. By Pierre-Roch Vigneron.

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

The American Revolution was fought from the years of 1775 to 1783. Primarily, tension rose over the representation of colonist in taxation legislation. Colonist rallied behind the banner of “no taxation without representation.” Colonist were not only angry at the lack of representation in taxation, but the governments lack of concern to their genuine grievances. The conflict erupted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord and ended with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the successive Treaty of Paris.

The French Revolution began in 1789, with storming of the Bastille prison, and ended in 1799 with the overthrow of the Directory. The Directory was replaced by the French Consulate with Napoleon as first consul. Revolution occurred in French for a variety of reasons such as a weak economy, food shortages, unfair taxation, and a general discontent with the monarch King Louis XVI and his spendthrift wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

The two revolutions were similar in principle, as they were both fought to free the individual from the authoritative rule of a monarch. But they differed drastically in execution and outcome. The American Revolution was a traditional war under the control of Congress and General George Washington. Ultimately this victory led to a new nation, and a democratic republic that stands to this day.  Conversely, the French Revolution was largely unsuccessful in its goal of removing a single monarch from power, as it led to Napoleon Bonaparte, an authoritative leader, rising to the status of Emperor. The revolution did spark a variety of productive social and economic changes, but this is a small consolation for the wanton bloodshed of innocent lives.

There are two key reasons that the French Revolution was less successful in the end goal than the American Revolution was.

Leadership

At the time of revolution, American colonists were accustomed to their system of government in which states held primary governing control and were only loosely banded together by a “federal” government. Prior to independence, this came in the form of Parliament (and the King). After independence it took the form of congress and General George Washington under the guiding principles of the Articles of Confederation. This was advantageous for the colonist, and the war, because it ensured they would not descend into mob rule when there was no longer a monarch or royal government in leadership. The lives of citizens would change little once a new, non-royal, governor was elected. The governor would, in conjunction with the state legislature, continue to run the state.

The French struggled to maintain order during the revolution as they had no leadership structure outside of the monarch and his appointed officials. They were accustomed to monarchial rule, and therefore had no plans in place to take control when he was removed. This led to mobs sending despotic leaders into power that would steer the country toward violence and/or personal agendas.  Because of this, few leaders retained power for any significant period, and each leader rose to power with a different strategic goal. Leaders’ ideology varied from that of Lafayette to Maximilien Robespierre and everything in-between. Often when a new leader was appointed, a new government was created (i.e., National Assembly, Committee of Public Safety, Directory). This constant turnover made governing very difficult and led to unproductive governments that were not accomplishing the will of the people. The lack of results led to frustration at the government. Then the frustration displayed itself in violent mobs that would often initiate an overthrow of the government – thus starting the process over. To make matters worse, the military was little use in maintaining order as they were frequently apart of the mob and used their weapons against anyone trying to stop them.

Scope

The second major difference in the two was the scope of the revolution itself. The American Revolution sought to separate the colonies from Britain and British rule. Americans wanted to rule themselves, tax themselves, and be free to conduct their personal and business lives without interference from the crown. However, Americans did not desire to change large portions of their laws or culture after independence. Therefore, much of this was left untouched - creating continuity between the two governments. It was not until the ratification of the constitution and the ascension of Washington to the presidency that a truly new form of government was established. However, even though the idea of a democratically elected president was radical, many similarities can be drawn between the British monarch and the American president of the eighteenth century.

The French were much more radical in their revolutionary aims. The sough to rewrite their country and culture from the ground up. Changes to religion, social status, taxation, war, education, politics, business, economy and voting rights were all key issues to the French. While many of these issues are important and needed to be in both countries, the breadth of issues made it difficult for the various French leaders to make any headway. Again, leading to frustration at the leaders and mob uprisings. Eventually the number of issues faced by the country would lead to Napoleon taking absolutist control of France, thus reversing the gains made by the revolution.

Conclusion

The American and French Revolution both achieved different goals at the official end of their conflicts. The American Revolution was very successful in resolving many of the problems that it set out to remedy. In contrast, the French Revolution was less successful in its resolving many of the initial goals. However, there were important changes that arose during the decade of hostilities that likely would not have occurred without the revolution. Because of this, I do not feel that either conflict was a failure. Rather, the revolution was a catalyst for years of change that would occur throughout the 19th century leading to the changes that were desired in 1789.

What do think of the differences between the American and French Revolutions? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on John Adams here.

References

Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger

Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts

The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts

Washington by Ron Chernow

The Role of Extreme Weather in the French Revolution

Weather has played a key role in shaping the progress of the world and its societies. Here, Kayla Vickery looks at how weather conditions shaped the 1789 French Revolution. She considers the Little Ice Age, the Lake volcano eruption, the poor weather of 1788, and the Great Hailstorm of Paris.

The Storming of the Bastille by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand, 1790.

Introduction

Historians have long debated the causes of the French Revolution. There have been falsehoods about King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake,” anyone?), finger-pointing at various players, and many theories. But ultimately, they all want to know the same thing: how did the Bourbon dynasty fall? While many events over the eighteenth century created a domino effect against the monarchy, did you know that extreme weather contributed greatly to France’s economic struggles?  Over a few decades, several different weather events left the country in trouble and would eventually inspire the lower classes to rise up and overthrow the monarchy. From the Laki Volcano eruption to the drought/winter of 1788, these natural occurrences all had real consequences. While there were several ideological changes, the events of 1789 would not have been as severe were it not for the weather and the havoc it played on the 18th-century French economy. 

Little Ice Age

First was the Little Ice Age, a period of the Earth's cooling. Way less cool than the animated film Ice Age starring one of my favorite characters Sid the Sloth; it is generally accepted that it started during the Middle Ages and ended sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. Researchers have also observed three periods of freezing weather, one of which occurred in 1770, a mere twenty years before the beginning of the French Revolution. Temperatures dropped globally at this time by as much as 4 degrees, and Europe was significantly affected. Like my moods, the weather was unpredictable and often swung from one extreme to another. This began to affect the crop yield and livelihood of the people of France. The peasants of 18th century France depended highly on good crop output to, ya know, eat. In the late 1700s, the classes had a significant income disparity. As the crops began to fail, the price of food began to rise, leaving workers with extraordinarily little extra income. The Little Ice Age and its negative impact on crops began to cause hunger throughout the country. At this same time, there was a huge population boom across France. Growing from 22.5 million inhabitants in 1715 to 28.5 million in 1789 meant there was a growth of about 25 percent! History has shown that when people are cold, the need for warmth leads to a cuddle which leads to how babies are made. As the number of people grew, so did the demand for goods. A need that was often unable to be met because of the Little Ice Age. As the government became more entrenched in debt, it continued to raise the taxes paid by the lowers classes. Nobles and the clergy were excluded from paying taxes (eat the rich!), so the government's debt came to rest on the shoulders of the most abused from above. The social order of France made it so that even the tiniest shortcomings would be detrimental to the lives of much of the population. 

Laki Volcano Eruption

In 1775, after a poor grain harvest from northern France, people began to let their unhappiness show the only way they know how… with good ol' fashioned riots! The people's anger was directed at the wealthy landowners, and even managed to reach Versailles. This peasant uprising became known as the Flour War, a straightforward title because there was no time for cleverness when starting a Revolution! This uprising would be squashed in a few weeks, but the damage had been done. The peasants of France had seen the power behind a widespread protest and knew what kneaded (I know what I did) to be done.

The Little Ice Age and its powerful effect on the crops and, inherently, the people growing them would just be one of many weather occurrences that would ignite the people of France to revolt. From 1783 to 1784, the Laki Volcano continuously erupted in Iceland, sending ash across Europe. The ash would block the sun, darkening the skies, lowering the temperature, and thoroughly convincing people they were living in actual Hell. With ships unable to move because of the fog from the ash, and weather patterns disrupted, the food crisis became even more severe. To understand the impact of poor harvests, one must realize how little the Third Estate had in the 1700s. Even though they made up 98 percent of the population, they were people with limited economic means and struggled to reach survival levels. They were also forced to pay exorbitant taxes to the King and maintain their feudal obligations to their landlord. They also held no judicial power meaning they could do nothing about the unfair circumstances forced onto them by the King. With such a decrease in their livelihoods, peasants cut back on spending, which hurt the economy even more. I like to point to this moment when trying to prove that my shopping addiction is, in fact, good for the economy!

The Great Hailstorm of Paris

In the already broken economy struggling to recover after years of war and failing markets, the weather of 1788 would push the people of France over the edge. The spring of 1788 was a disaster for the planting season in France. After an abnormally dry spring that dramatically affected the crops of the already starving people, there was a summer of extreme temperatures and random downpours. The mass majority of the population was severely malnourished and was now pushed into yet another famine after a period of economic slump and hunger.

One such event, The Great Hailstorm of Paris, was a ferocious storm that ripped through the countryside, wreaking havoc on July 13, 1788. The destitution the storm caused would go on to infuriate the starving citizens of France, and the devastation of the crops would have dire consequences for the economy of France. Bread prices would continue to soar, and the citizens would find their incomes significantly lowered. As if they hadn't been through enough, the conditions of the lower classes after the Great Hailstorm of Paris would only worsen with the extreme winter ahead. The winter of 1788/1789 would be one of the coldest on record. During this harsh winter, Emmanuel Sieyes's published his political pamphlet What Is The Third Estate? An essay that would attack the privilege of the nobility and give words to the struggle of the lower classes. Think Hamilton but with less rapping. With the pamphlet What Is the Third Estate, the common people of France finally had a physical manifestation of their resentments against the other two estates. By April of 1789, the people of France were rioting regularly over the rising price of bread. The economy's downfall and the crops' failure for several years would push them over the edge and into Revolution. The mood in Paris before the fall of the Bastille was one of anger and desperation. There are many firsthand accounts of the rowdiness of the crowds in Paris who were rioting and demanding answers for the skyrocketing bread costs. Eventually, the hungry and abused crowds would march on the Bastille and overtake the prison, and the French government learned the very valuable lesson of never coming between the French population and a baguette. 

Conclusion

After decades of unheard-of weather patterns working against their livelihoods and without help from their King, the resentment of the poor in France would eventually rise and change the course of history. The Little Ice Age, the Laki Volcano, and the severe drought and winter of 1788 would lead to the uprising of the peasants, the fall of the Bastille, the abolishment of the feudalism system, and eventually, the heads of the French monarchy. 

 What role do you think that weather played in the French Revolution? Let us know below.

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

References

Dispatches from Paris (April-July 1789)" in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

Jessene, Jean-Pierre. The Social and Economic Crisis in France at the End of the Ancien Régime, 1st ed., 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Lancaster, John. “How the Little Ice Age Changed History.” The New Yorker, March 2019,https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/how-the-little-ice-age-changed-history.

Loyseau, Charles "A Treatise on Orders," in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

McWillimas, Brendan, ‘The Fall of the Bastille', The Irish Times, Jul 13, 1998, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-fall-of-the-bastille-1.172547

 Neumann, J and Dettwiller, J. “Great Historical Events that were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 9, the Year Leading to the Revolution of 1789 in France (II).” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

Popkin, Jeremy D, A New World Begins: The History of the French Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 2019)

Sieyes, Emmanuel-Joseph, "What is the Third Estate?" in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

Waldinger, Maria, Drought and the French Revolution: The effects of adverse weather conditions on peasant revolts in 1789, (2013)

Patterns, Processes, and People in History - And How they Come Back Around

History often repeats in itself in different ways. Here, Michael Cho gives his take on how patterns processes, and people interact - and come back around throughout history.

Washington Crossing the Delaware, an 1851 painting by Emanuel Leutze.

The study of history has altered my perspective of how and why the world in which I live changes the way that it does through repetition and influence. World history is a constant repetition of patterns of change with the constant rise and fall of different nations, rulers, and ideals. Through the repetitions in history, a deeper understanding of the basis and core of modern society can be found because of the constants that emerge. If history has a pattern, the constants revealed by history can also be the base of understanding of the present and the future in order to explain how and why change occurs. Ideas spark revolutions, single decisions spark war, and actions taken by one person can influence the world for generations to come. The study of history has allowed me to understand the world in which I live in because its patterns reveal the core constants that shape human interactions, allowing me to understand my society today through past societies.

Change can be measured in a pattern of repetition and influence since the beginning of known history. Decisions made affect future generations, nations are made with similar ideals and fall in the same manner, and revolutions inspire other revolutions. A perfect example of this were the Atlantic Revolutions taking place from the 1760s to the 1830s. The Atlantic Revolutions included the: American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, and the Revolutions in Latin America. These revolutions which were both fought on the same ideals and were also heavily influenced by each other with some of the revolutions possibly never having occurred without each other. America’s revolutions came from the Enlightenment, the spread of ideas in Europe which sparked the spread of ideas of liberty, freedom, and constitutional government, changes that would lead to human development and a better future.

American Revolution

The American Revolution was fought between the American colonies and the British over the long period between 1765 and 1791 and reveals the constant of geography in the overall ebb and flow of history. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was largely fought due to the restrictions on free trade that grew out of the geographic advantages the American colonies possessed. The Americans wanted free trade, liberty, freedom, and constitutional government and the geographic distance from Great Britain afforded the colonists the opportunity to develop an independent existence and redefine their relationship. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” They thought these ideals were worth fighting for and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776 and continued to fight for these ideals until the Treaty of Paris which declared the end of the revolutionary war was signed. This reveals how the influence of geography shapes society’s needs, wants, fears and desires, manifesting in the American desire for free trade as the nation moved literally and symbolically further away from the influence of Europe.

As geography shapes societies ambitions, the individuals who comprise that society begin to conceive of new ideas and perspectives to explain those motivations. The American Revolution heavily influenced the French Revolution and a lot of the grounds in which the French Revolution was fought for was a repetition of the American Revolution. French officials signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen which covered the same topics as the American Declaration of Independence. The first line of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good,” is a direct expression of the idea of individualism that was at the heart of the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence and redefined liberty and what was possible in a free society for French citizens.

When these French citizens then took action to change their world, the effects of this rippled across its colonial structures through the Haitian Constitution and the revolution of Latin America. Hearing about the end of slavery decreed by Napoleon Bonaparte around the completion of the French Revolution, the people of Haiti and Latin America decided to have their own revolution. Inspired by the previous revolutions and the Enlightenment ideas which had spread to these regions, the Haitians rebelled against the French monarchy and is remembered as the only successful slave-lead rebellion against the governing regime. In so doing, their Constitution applied those same rights to people of color, “There cannot exist slaves on this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” This entire ripple effect and process of change next inspired Latin American revolutions led by Simon Bolivar and reveals how geography and human nature interact to change the world.

Today’s world conflict seems unprecedented. War, pestilence, famine, and hate seems to ravage all corners of the Earth, it may seem as if these are unprecedented times. However, the patterns of change throughout history – geography and human nature – can help reveal that the world has endured these forces before and that positive change is possible, even through difficult times.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Spain in the New World: Francisco de Miranda’s Travels in America and Europe

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s travels across America and Europe, including his time in revolutionary France.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, and Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here.

A painting of a young Francisco de Miranda. By Georges Rouget.

Having played a small part in the triumph of the American colonies in their revolution, Miranda wanted to see the society that the Americans were building. It was a natural choice for him. He already seemed to be developing his ideas for the independence of the Western Hemisphere from Europe. A society built upon liberal, enlightenment principles fit into his worldview. Being a highly literate man, Miranda would keep a diary during his travels. This record of his impressions and observations of the early United States is invaluable to any researcher and is one of Miranda’s best historical legacies.

On June 10, 1783, Miranda landed at New Berne, North Carolina. He would travel throughout the United States, seeking to meet not only the biggest players in the revolutionary saga but also the common folk as well. He was impressed that the lower-class whites and the wealthy would mix at common events (he did not mention what the views of the slaves at the events were). From the south, Miranda would journey north to visit the American capital Philadelphia. While in the city, he would insist on staying at the Indian Queen Inn, the same inn where Jefferson supposedly wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Armed with letters of introduction from those he met in the south, Miranda would put his natural charm and wit to work to ingratiate himself into Philadelphia high society. Since word of his status with the Spanish government had not caught up with him yet, he was wined and dined by members of the American government as well as foreign ambassadors and prominent citizens looking for Spanish contacts. Encountering George Washington, Miranda would say that he could not make a firm judgment on the man, due to his “taciturn” disposition. Lafayette, Miranda would find to be overrated. Leaving Philadelphia, Miranda would go to New York and meet two people who would influence his later life: Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton. Paine will become important later. Hamilton and Miranda were very much alike. Both men were bursting with energy and ideas. Both men believed that they had a destiny to lead their respective peoples. Both were highly intelligent and literate. Until Hamilton’s death, Miranda would continue to think of Hamilton as a friend.

After touring upstate New York and New England, Miranda’s past was beginning to catch up to him. Word from Spain had begun to filter into the United States. Instead of being an innocent victim of slander that Miranda had passed himself off as, he was in fact a deserter who was sentenced to lose his commission, pay a fine, and face exile. Miranda could no longer pass himself off as a lieutenant colonel of the Spanish Army. This change of status proved to be liberating in a way. When Miranda arrived in Boston, he used his letters of introduction to meet General Henry Knox, the future first Secretary of War under the Constitution. Miranda, Knox, Samuel Adams, and other men of the Boston merchant community would become intimate friends and form a discussion group. Over brandy, Miranda would spellbind these men with his ideas for the liberation of South America from the Spanish. Once Miranda saw all he thought he could see, as well as met all who were worth meeting, it was time to leave. While Miranda wanted to see the great experiment in action, he knew that at the present time, the United States was utterly incapable of furthering his plans for an independent South America. For this, he had to go to Europe.

Miranda Tours Europe

The Grand Tour was a trip around Europe that many upper-class people took as something like a right of passage after their schooling had been completed. It gave the young person a sense of worldliness and provided exposure to the cosmopolitan nature of 18th and 19th-century European upper-class society. Miranda, being a colonial, had not had the chance to go on the Grand Tour. He would rectify his missed chance. After reaching London, he would set out for the Netherlands and see the Continent.

As a man with command of many languages and being extremely well read, Miranda was able to ingratiate himself with the high society of each country he went to. His good looks and high wit were also helpful. He seemingly met everyone from Frederick the Great to Catherine the Great. He toured seemingly every city and historical location from Stockholm to Constantinople. Composers, philosophers, writers, and princes were all enthralled by him. He even allegedly had an affair with Catherine the Great, although this was never confirmed.

These contacts were not merely social for Miranda. It was a learning experience, yes, but he was also searching for support for his cause, the independence of Spanish America. Needing money, he would take financial support from them, then commonly called “patronage.” When he would inevitably (in his mind) strike for that independence, he wanted a network of supporters in Europe with their hands on the levers of power and money to give him their support when the time came. He was not simply playing the part of the international playboy gallivanting across the courts of Europe. There was a political dimension to this as well.

During his travels, Miranda would have to keep one eye always open. The Spanish government was still plotting to have him arrested. Through the Spanish intelligence network in Europe run through their national embassies and consulates, the Spanish would constantly attempt to arrest Miranda and bring him back to Spain. They knew what Miranda was doing, undermining their rule in the New World. In the end, the Spanish would fail to capture him due to a series of fortunate escapes as well as the influence of powerful friends. To protect Miranda, Catherine the Great would even make him a member of the Russian diplomatic service, thereby extending him diplomatic immunity.

For five years, Miranda would travel Europe. His travels would leave an indelible mark on those he met. In 1789, he traveled to France. Seeing the country, he despised what he saw as the backwardness of the peasantry. He wrote about visiting Versailles and feeling humiliated as he was forced to kneel upon seeing King Louis XVI. Miranda was not a fan of the French governmental system, and seeing it firsthand only made him despise it even more. He would leave France and return to London to begin lobbying the British government to support him.

Revolutionary Times

Miranda had a great deal of admiration for the British people and the balanced constitution of Great Britain. Although Miranda would remain a committed republican throughout his life, he would always recognize the inherent genius of the British governing system. Much of his admiration of the system itself would be tempered by seeing that system operate up close in his dealings with British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.

Miranda would bombard Pitt with plan after plan and scheme after scheme to liberate South America from Spanish rule. All he would need, he would tell Pitt, was money…and men…and arms…and ships, etc. Miranda was the ideas man, the brains of the operation. All of the material support would have to come from elsewhere, and where better than the richest government on the planet, the British. Pitt would always keep Miranda close enough to use him. Occasionally throwing out hope to Miranda would keep him around just in case war with Spain would break out and he might in some way be useful. For over a year, Miranda would act out the same song and dance with the British government until he could bear it no longer. He decided he would go back to France.

Why go back to France, a country Miranda held in little esteem? Because, during his time in London, the French Revolution had broken out. The people had limited the powers of the King and were overthrowing society through the National Convention. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, authored by his friend Thomas Paine, captivated him. Here was a revolution, freeing the people and ushering in the glorious millennium of human freedom.

Arriving in 1791, Miranda would find France at war with almost all of its neighbors. The powers of Europe found the prospect of a revolutionary and trending radical republican France upending hundreds of years of tradition, as well as the balance of power on the continent, terrifying. The revolutionaries needed anyone with military experience to help secure the revolution from foreign powers whose stated goal was to overthrow the Convention and restore the powers of the king. Miranda had military experience and was made a general and ordered to take command of troops as part of the Army of the North.

With the Allies coming over the Rhine and looking to take Paris, the French needed victory. The Battle of Valmy, while being little more than an artillery duel, led to an Allied retreat. This victory was blown up in republican propaganda and was the victory that saved the Revolution. All the men involved became heroes and were declared military geniuses, and this included Miranda.

With his military reputation sky-high, Miranda was given command of a wing of the Army of the North. He was ordered by the commander, General Dumouriez, to invade the Austrian Netherlands (roughly modern Belgium) and the Netherlands. He would take Antwerp and exact a £300,000 “loan” on the city. With Dumouriez in Paris, Miranda was ordered to occupy Maastricht by the National Convention. An Allied counterattack would lead to a rout on the part of Miranda’s army. Dumouriez would return to try to salvage the situation, but it was beyond saving. Miranda had suffered a humiliating defeat. Dumouriez, however, believed the situation could be turned around. He would reorganize his forces and counterattack. At the Battle of Neerwinden, Miranda was in command of the left wing of the army. He was ordered by Dumouriez to attack the Austrian right wing. The Austrian commander, the Prince of Coburg, reinforced his position and the battle went back and forth for several hours. When the cavalry of Archduke Charles was sent in to press the attacks home, Miranda’s command was broken, and the men began to flee. Despite all of his best efforts, Miranda was unable to rally his men. Dumouriez, learning of the shattering of his left wing, ordered the army to retreat.

The Radicals Turn on Miranda

For Miranda, the defeat at Neerwinden was very ill-timed. The Revolution was taking a dark turn. The siege mentality of the National Convention was turning into political paranoia as the different factions were turning on each other. The faction he was associated with, the Girondins, was in decline, while their rivals, the Jacobins, were ascendant. In April 1793, Miranda was arrested. His old commander, Dumouriez, recognizing the cut-throat nature of revolutionary politics, denounced Miranda and stated that the blame for the defeat in the north could be laid almost entirely in Miranda’s lap. Miranda was accused of criminal incompetence and cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Then the situation became even more confused. Dumouriez, seeing the way the Revolution was turning, decided to try to overthrow the Convention and restore a previously discarded constitution. Counting on the loyalty of his troops to himself personally, Dumouriez negotiated with the Austrians to stop their advance in order to free up the Army of the North to march on Paris and suppress the Convention. As it turned out, the troops were not loyal to Dumouriez personally, and he was forced to flee across enemy lines and defect to the Coalition. Back in Paris, the first reaction amongst the radicals was that of course, Miranda had supported his old commander Dumouriez in his treason. This flew in the face of all logic since it was Dumouriez who was trying to destroy Miranda’s reputation. Despite this, the paranoia of the Jacobins, and their leader Robespierre, knew no bounds. Miranda would be brought to trial for both sabotaging Dumouriez’s chances at victory as well as allegedly supporting the same man’s treason.

On April 8, 1793, Miranda was interrogated by the Convention’s War Committee. The questioning of Miranda and his fitness for command as well as his actions gave him the opportunity to address the committee and state his case. All of the learning, literary training, and military studies that Miranda had focused on his entire life led to this moment. Against all odds, he was able to defend himself so well before the War Committee that he was able to escape the guillotine. He showed the logic of his actions, proved the accusations of cowardice to be false, and attacked the judgment of Dumouriez. He even commented on Dumouriez’s negative opinions of the members of the Convention, just for good measure.

In May 1793, Miranda appeared before a Revolutionary Criminal Tribunal, which again investigated the charges against him. Witness after witness would appear before the tribunal to support Miranda. Even Thomas Paine would take the stand in Miranda’s defense. The defense attorney, Chaveau-Lagarde, would point out to the jury all that Miranda had sacrificed for the freedom of the French people. He showed that Miranda was a man with an international reputation for integrity and was known as a lover of mankind and a freedom fighter. The letters of introduction from men such as George Washington, Joseph Priestly, and Benjamin Franklin were introduced to prove Miranda’s devotion to republicanism. Although the process would take too long in the judgment of Miranda, he was acquitted on all charges and released. The jury had unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty.

In Revolutionary France, no one was truly safe. In July 1793, the most radical leaders of the revolution began to consolidate their power in the lead-up to the Great Terror. On July 5, Miranda was arrested again, this time at the order of the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobins were determined to destroy their Girondin opponents, and Miranda was one of the most prominent. This time, imprisonment would not be the same. Whereas before, Miranda had been incarcerated for only a few weeks, this time, he would sit in prison for much longer. Even after the fall of the Committee of Public Safety and the defeat of the Jacobins, Miranda was still not released. Only after a year and a half, in January 1795, would Miranda finally be let out of his dungeon.

During his time in prison, Miranda had begun to lose faith in the Revolution. He would begin to write and speak to his contacts about how the Revolution had lost its initial ideals. He opposed “spreading the revolution” through military conquest and expressed his skepticism of the French government. He would write a pamphlet calling for the reformation of government to create more checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and tyranny. Given Miranda’s international connections and reputation, it could not escape the French government that he had to be taken seriously. On October 21, 1795, the Convention ordered Miranda to be arrested yet again. Although this order would be rescinded, the French government was growing very tired of Miranda.

Returning to His Roots

In 1797, the French government was prepared to deport Miranda to Guiana. He knew his time in France was up. Before he would leave, however, he would take the opportunity that being around other revolutionary exiles afforded and held what was later called the “Paris Convention.” This meeting between Miranda, José del Pozo y Sucre, and Manuel de Salas drafted an Act of Paris which set out points that would guide the South American independence movements. Independence and friendship with Great Britain and the United States, repayment to Britain for services rendered to the revolution, commercial concessions to Britain, and recognition of Miranda’s leading role in the military aspect of the revolution. These men knew that the South Americans would have a hard time freeing themselves. They needed British support.

With the Act of Paris complete, Miranda prepared to leave France. He came to the country and was filled with disgust for the absolutist French. Seeing the Revolution, Miranda became a convert to the French cause and put his life on the line to defend it. The repayment he received was accusations and imprisonment. Coming full circle, Miranda would leave France bitter against both the country and its people. He had always favored British and American models, but his experiences had only reinforced his early views.

In January 1798, Miranda would leave France and arrive in Britain. Now, at 47 years old, having seen much of the Western world, met many of its leading lights, and had his star rise, fall, rise, fall, and rise again, Miranda would now turn back to the primary thought driving his life, the freedom of Spanish America from colonial rule. No more diversions, it would now be all-encompassing.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda’s time in America and Europe? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

A History of the Media and the American Presidency: Part 2 - President John Adams’ Battles with the Media

When looking back at the history of the media’s role in the American Presidency, it is easy to see many comparisons to today.  President Donald Trump’s dilemma with the media is not much different than that two of his predecessors faced, John Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Both men lived in a time that saw vicious attacks on their character by the media.  President Adams was seen as a monarchist despite the role he played in America’s independence. President Jackson was referred to as “King Andrew I” because he utilized the full power of the presidency, something that his predecessors had failed to do. 

In a three-part series, this work will look at how the media played a role in characterizing both Adams (as vice president during his first term and as president) and Jackson (as president) while also looking at how both men battled against their relentless attacks.

In part 2, Ian Craig looks at what happened during John Adams’ presidency from 1797 to 1801, including the Alien and Sedition Acts and his interaction with France during the French Revolution.

If you missed it, part 1 on John Adams’ and the media when he was Vice President is here.

A British political cartoon of Franco-American relations after the XYZ Affair in 1798. 5 Frenchmen plunder female "America", while six figures representing other European countries look on. The British John Bull sits laughing on "Shakespeare's Cliff."

The President by Three Votes

On March 4, 1797 John Adams became president promising to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As the nation’s second president, Adams would find himself having to protect the young nation from foreign influences while battling the American media.  President Adams did not come to the presidency by a sweeping margin. By 1796, although the founding fathers had not intended for it to happen, political parties arose in the nation. Adams, a Federalist and supporter of a strong federal government, found himself up against Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican and a supporter of giving more rights to the states (there are more differences between the two parties which will be explained later). Adams won the election by just three votes in the Electoral College. Adams’ received 71 votes to Jefferson’s 68 and just over 53 percent of the national popular vote to Jefferson’s 47 percent. Due to this, Adams was often called the “president by three votes” by the media.[1] This originated from the Philadelphia based newspaper the Aurora which would give Adams much grief during his presidency. Adams did not buy into the scrutiny of the Philadelphia paper - after all, he had won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. 

However, Adams had to work with a vice president who disagreed with him on almost every matter. Because Jefferson had placed second, he became vice president. This meant that both the president and vice president were from two different political parties. This was not intended when the Constitution was written. By 1800, the selection of the president and vice president would ensure that both came from the same political party; however, the rise of political parties meant that Adams had to endure the onslaught of those in the press who supported the Democratic-Republicans.

Foreign Influences

A key issue that Adams had in assuming office was the French Revolution. France had been in a revolution since 1789 and had sought support from President Washington. Washington did not want the young United States to enter a war so early after its own independence. This angered the French and those in America who supported them. Their argument was that France had come to the aid of America during its own revolution and that it was time to return the favor. Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson supported the French and their cause, as did many in America. However, Washington would not commit to supporting the French Revolution and remained neutral. 

John Adams wished to continue the same policy that his predecessor had committed to. Adams felt that the United States could not engage in a full-scale war, as it was not prepared. Nor did he believe it was the right decision for the young nation. This was when Adams would face the onslaught of negative coverage by the Democratic-Republican allied press. The root of the rift between the Adams’ Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republicans was a matter of a difference in opinion. In 1794, Washington had sent Chief Justice John Jay to make a final peace with Britain and to settle some remaining “bad blood” between the two nations. This became known as Jay’s Treaty. This upset the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson who denounced British involvement in the French Revolution. They viewed the treaty as America taking sides in the war. This also angered the French, who began to seize American ships.

Before going forward, it is important to state the difference between the political ideologies of the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists, who supported Adams, wanted an economy based on that of Britain with the wealthier controlling such areas as manufacturing. They also believed in a strong central or federal government (hence the name “federalists”). The Democratic-Republicans supported more power for the states and less power for central government. They also supported an economy based on the working and agricultural classes, similar to France. It is for these reasons that both sides supported either Britain or France.

Relations worsen

Early in the Adams presidency, what became known as the XYZ affair occurred. In order to stop the French from seizing American ships, Adams sent an envoy to France in order to settle the matter. What became of the matter upset many Americans, including the President. The French under Foreign Minister Talleyrand sent three officials to discuss terms with the Americans. However, they would not talk to them unless a sum of money was given to each man plus a loan to France. The American diplomats refused to pay and once the news got to Adams he was outraged. He refused to call the three French diplomats by their names and referred to them as “XYZ.” This caused tensions to rise between the United States and France. The Democratic-Republican press called the president “unhinged by the delirium of vanity”[2] over his supposed “insult of the French” by refusing to pay their demands.[3]

Adams wanted nothing more than peace with France and worked to establish that outcome. However, he also looked to build up the American military, with heavy emphasis on the navy.[4] Adams believed that the navy was important to securing American sovereignty along its shores and overseas. He pushed for the building of several frigates; one such ship was the U.S.S. Constitution. It is for this reason that he is often referred to as the “father of the U.S. navy.”

                  This caused tensions with the Democratic-Republicans and Jefferson, who did not like the idea of America having a standing army that was under the control of the federal government. The Federalists on the other hand supported it for many reasons. The key issue that came to dominate Adams’ presidency was how foreigners were influencing Americans to support the French Revolution. This was the Federalists greatest fear, an attempt to force the American government to side with the French.  This would cause instability within the government. Federalists believed that those from Ireland, England, and Scotland, many of whom worked in the printing press, would “spread fears or lies to the public in order to upset the stability of the union and government.”[5]

                  It is for this reason that the Federalist began to push Adams to support the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two Acts would become a controversy in America. The Alien Act was designed to “deport non-citizens who were a threat to the nation’s security.”[6] The Federalists and many other Americans believed that these foreigners would influence insurrection and rebellion in the nation. This would then lead to the instability of the United States. The Act was designed to protect national security by all means. The Sedition Act drew more scrutiny, as it appeared to violate the First Amendment. It stated that “people who spoke out against the government or harmed its position could be imprisoned.”[7] This in-turn, focused on those of the press who disagreed with the president and other government officials. 

Media debates

The Democratic-Republican press saw both acts as limiting the “rights of foreigners who were more likely to vote for them.”[8]They believed that the Federalists were attempting to silence the opposition by passing both laws. The Federalist press disagreed and saw them as “protecting the union from internal instability and treats.”[9] That it “gave juries the right to decide what printed material was hurtful or not.”[10] Adams himself never pursued the Alien and Sedition Acts.[11] He did not sign them into law without careful consideration, he did so having felt support for them by the American people.  This however, would come back to hurt him. Members of the press like Benjamin Franklin Bach wrote in his newspaper that the President had used an “unconstitutional exercise of power”[12] and was charged for insulting the president.  At the same time Thomas Cooper of the Pennsylvania Gazette and David Frothingham of the New York Argus were both convicted of speaking against the government and imprisoned.[13]

Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans would campaign in 1800 against these acts of what they saw as abuse by the federal government. During the election of 1800, the Federalist Party had fractured over disagreements between Adams and its leader Alexander Hamilton. Adams’ dismissal of the standing army, which he believed was no longer needed, angered Hamilton and others. Adams had also refused to take a strong federal stance during Fries Rebellion against Hamilton’s wishes.[14] The result was that Adams lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Adams refused to attend Jefferson’s inauguration, being the first of four presidents to do so. Adams’ legacy is often seen as negative because of the Alien and Sedition Acts and his refusal to support France. However, he followed the stance of George Washington by keeping the United States neutral. The media hated him for this and called him every name imaginable. However, during the early days of the republic, Adams worked to preserve the nation and to make sure that it would be given a chance to survive and prosper as the founding fathers had wished. It is hard to say what would have happened if he had done the opposite and supported the French. The United States would have found itself in another war not so long after another. It was still new and fragile, Adams knew this and worked to pursue peace by a show of force in order to give the United States a fighting chance. 

What do you think of John Adams’ battles with the media? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Ian’s previous article on possibly the most important reason for the American Revolution here.

[1] David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 485. 

[2] Ibid, 498.

[3] Ibid, 498.

[4] Ibid, 485.

[5] Jackie Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News’: It’s been part of the conversation as far back as the birth of the free press,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/age-old-problem-fake-news-180968945/ [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[6] “The Presidency of John Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts,” Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/creating-a-nation/a/presidency-of-john-adams [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[7] Ibid, “The Alien and Sedition Acts.”

[8] Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News.”

[9] Ibid. 

[10] Ibid. 

[11] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy,” The Miller Center, http://millercenter.org/president/adams/impact-and-legacy [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[12] Eric P. Robinson, “Another President Who Took On ‘Fake News,’” South Carolina Press, https://scpress.org/another-president-who-took-on-fake-news/ [assessed January 12, 2021].

[13] Ibid. 

[14] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy.”