I'm just finishing "Friends Divided" by Gordon Wood. It's about the lives of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Two old political rivals renewed their friendship late in life, a good story.

The French Revolution aggravated the rift between them. I didn't realize it was such a polarizing issue in the US during the 1790s. Does anyone have a book on the French Revolution they can recommend? I'm looking more for a slice of pizza than a five course meal.

Thanks in advance!

there are some good references to it in the John Adams HBO series. I think it was based largely on David McCullough's bio. SO the book is probably a 3-4 course meal, but the miniseries might be gourmet pizza.

One thing I learned recently is that the US and French ideals regarding Liberty were probably more dissimilar than alike. I need to do some more reading on it, but it was a new revelation to me.

The Days of the French Revolution by Hibbert is an excellent overview of the major events leading to Napoleon. It was a brutal conflict throughout Europe and a brutal civil war within France. David Bell has a couple excellent books that cover broader aspects of the philosophy and military culture that drove the Revolution. The Cult of the Nation in France and The First Total War are excellent.

Schma's Citizens for the actual revolution.

Thanks so much guys. I'll be going to the library this week to see which of those I can find.

I had no idea how much the Federalists wanted war with France and they might have gotten if Adams had gone along with them, or was Wood exaggerating about that? I know Americans have been dismayed by the French lack of appreciation for the US helping liberate them after WWII, but barely 10 years after they helped us win independence we nearly went to war with them?

It was really a war without a declaration since France was seizing American shipping (an act of war, remember the War of 1812 when the British were just stopping and taking sailors born in the UK). Cooler heads and bribes to Talleyrand allowed the moment to pass.

I found Hibbert's book and have read the prologue and first chapter which covers the start of the revolution. I'm enjoying it so far outside of the author's annoying habit of using a french expression without translation on just about every page.

There's something that kind of surprised me. I've always been under the impression that the American Revolution was an important inspiration for the proletariat to overthrow the French monarchy, but not according to Hibbert. He mentions the American Revolution in one sentence where he says the debt incurred in helping the Americans was a cause of the economic distress in France at the time. Thomas Jefferson was living in France as the foreign minister to that country up until the time its revolution started but his name is never mentioned. You guys who have read other accounts - what's true?

Of course, if you have easy access to a well stocked library, use it.

I like to purchase used books off of Amazon or Alibris. For example, The Days of the French Revolution by Hibbert is available off of Alibris for $1.28

https://m.alibris.com/The-Days-of-the-French-Revolution-Christopher-Hibbert/book/1505473?matches=111

Yeah, our Revolution had a negligible impact on French popular culture. Bourgeois society (which was important in the early stages of the French Revolution) would have more familiarity, but again, little direct influence. You have to remember we were a part of a grand imperial conflict and seen as provincials on the edge of the known world. Imagine if Australia had a massive revolution today. Would we be aware? Sure. Would we find philosophical issues that might inform our beliefs? Maybe, but they would likely be seen as evidence supporting the beliefs we already held. The Enlightenment wasn't new to the French. Hell, they invented it, and the popular arguments on rights and governing were further advanced than what the US eventually settled on. I think our education system has a tendency to overemphasize the role of the US in just about everything (understandably), and this is coming from a historian of early America.

I'll just point out that when history is divided into era, the big division between the early modern and modern eras is the French Revolution, not the American Revolution. Their Revolution and its ideas was far, far more influential through the 19th century.

Thank you for taking time to write that response Sapper, I'm glad I have found this forum.

I'm now about half ways through Hibbert's book and I'll say that I'm amazed by how chaotic their revolution was. It seems like the revolutionary forces were forever fighting with each other, and in the middle of everything France went to war with both Austria and Prussia, and came to the brink of war with the US.

Going back to the book I just finished, "Friends Divided", John Adams predicted that the French Revolution would fail as mob control would inevitably lead to a return of monarchy. He lived to see that happen in his life, and he felt vindicated by it, although he also thought it would probably happen in the US. Would you agree that he was justified in feeling he was right about his prediction for the French Revolution?

This is a bit of an absurd question but why is the French Revolution considered a revolution? France eventually returns to a monarchical system although that doesn't last long.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

This is a bit of an absurd question but why is the French Revolution considered a revolution? France eventually returns to a monarchical system although that doesn't last long.

---

The Revolutions of 1848 are still considered revolutions even though (I think) not one of them succeeded. Regardless, the French ousted (and executed) the king and established a new form of government.

I am a little fuzzy on the details as it has been over decade since I first heard this, but I think a big reason the Revolutionary French were able to stand up against so many different European countries is that they became a nationalist army versus feudalist armies. Where leadership positions were determined by merit over aristocracy. I believe they were also able to mobilize a much larger percentage of their population as troops.

pmart said:

---

I am a little fuzzy on the details as it has been over decade since I first heard this, but I think a big reason the Revolutionary French were able to stand up against so many different European countries is that they became a nationalist army versus feudalist armies. Where leadership positions were determined by merit over aristocracy. I believe they were also able to mobilize a much larger percentage of their population as troops.

---

Using the levee en masse system, they conscripted huge amounts of manpower into their armies

Text of the French Revolution's leve en masse (Wiki)

Quote:

---

The French Revolution aggravated the rift between them. I didn't realize it was such a polarizing issue in the US during the 1790s.

---

If you haven't already, you might enjoy picking up a collection of their letters, which is fairly easy to find used (though I can't find online the edition I used in school many years ago). Jefferson initially supported the revolution for reasons that are probably obvious, and his sentiment was not unique in America. But over the course of their correspondence, you can see some concessions to Adams that Jefferson too was horrified by the terror and the barbarism in the streets when it became clear that the French Revolution was not simply going to be a terminal act of throwing off the monarchy and instituting representative government.

There are quite a few excerpts in "Friends Divided" from their letters to each other, and that's one of the best parts of the book I thought. It's kind of amazing that they kept up their friendship for so long. Jefferson's letters always showed him as the high-minded statesman. Adams' were so full of vanity, jealousy, self-deprecating sarcastic humor that sometimes they made me laugh.

But this book definitely caused my respect for Adams to increase. I had always thought of him as a partisan Federalist but he had quite an independent streak. I was kind of surprised by how much he despised Alexander Hamilton which of course gave him common ground with Jefferson.

Thank you all for your comments, I learned a lot this past week.

McInnis said:

---

I'm now about half ways through Hibbert's book and I'll say that I'm amazed by how chaotic their revolution was. It seems like the revolutionary forces were forever fighting with each other, and in the middle of everything France went to war with both Austria and Prussia, and came to the brink of war with the US.

---

I'm currently about halfway through the book myself and firmly agree with that statement. Talk about a disorganized charlie foxtrot!

I also agree with your earlier statement regarding Hibbert's annoying habit of using French words and phrases without explanation/translation. There's a fair number of those covered in Appendix 2 but way too many that aren't and I am not going to stop reading to Google them every 5 minutes.

Col. Steve Austin said:

---

McInnis said:

---

I'm now about half ways through Hibbert's book and I'll say that I'm amazed by how chaotic their revolution was. It seems like the revolutionary forces were forever fighting with each other, and in the middle of everything France went to war with both Austria and Prussia, and came to the brink of war with the US.

---

I'm currently about halfway through the book myself and firmly agree with that statement. Talk about a disorganized charlie foxtrot!

I also agree with your earlier statement regarding Hibbert's annoying habit of using French words and phrases without explanation/translation. There's a fair number of those covered in Appendix 2 but way too many that aren't and I am not going to stop reading to Google them every 5 minutes.

---

THIS. Nothing bothers me more than having no ****ing clue what a word means if it isn't explained earlier

One improvement over the old days, you just check it on your phone versus needing a dictionary, encyclopedia, a translating dictionary, etc, etc

The modern day glossary is the first paragraph of Wikipedia