Reference no: EM133832065

Discussion Post: Opponents of the Atlantic Revolutions

The documents at the end of chapter 16, "Opponents of the Atlantic Revolutions," offer varied critiques of the Atlantic Revolutions. In your initial post, and with reference to the history described in our textbook, describe which of these critiques you found to be the most persuasive, given the particular Atlantic revolutionary historical context from which it arose. In your replies you should agree or disagree with your fellow classmates' posts and cite evidence that supports your position. I've cut-and-pasted the textual sources below.

Opponents of the Atlantic Revolutions

The radical notions that authority to govern derived from the people and that human societies could and should be improved through political and social engineering inspired many in the Atlantic world to overthrow their rulers during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. But others voiced their opposition to revolution. In doing so they raised concerns about the violence and disorder that often accompanied the overthrow of governments, the disruptive pace of change, the rejection of long-established traditions and institutions, and the social and cultural implications of new conceptions of liberty, equality, and religious freedom. Moreover, once in power, some revolutionaries denied or limited "universal rights" for slaves, women, and other groups. The sources that follow give voice to these opponents of the Atlantic revolutions.

Part I: A New York Clergyman's Criticism of the Continental Congress

Samuel Seabury (1729-1796), an Anglican minister and resident of Westchester, New York, was a vocal critic of the American Revolution who published a series of letters under the pseudonym "a Westchester Farmer." In his letters, Seabury frequently criticized the Continental Congress - the convention of delegates that became the governing body for the American revolutionaries - for infringing on the same personal freedoms that it accused the British government of disregarding. In this passage, Seabury expresses his opposition to the Non-Consumption agreement - a boycott established in late 1774 barring American colonists from engaging in direct trade with Britain.

1) Which personal freedoms does Seabury accuse the Continental Congress of infringing upon? Get the instant assignment help.

2) In what specific ways does Seabury draw on the language of rights and liberties to oppose the Continental Congress?

3) Is Seabury a loyalist supporter of British colonial government, a supporter of the American Revolution, or a critic of both? Why?

Part II: A British Conservative's Critique of the Universal Rights of Man

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a member of the British Parliament and statesman from Ireland, was one of the first and most influential critics of the principles on which the French Revolution was based. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, first published in 1790, Burke accepts that political change can and should occur but argues that successful political reform must happen incrementally and be based on existing political structures and traditions. Political systems founded on statements of universal rights were fatally flawed in Burke's view because they encouraged excessive individualism, selfishness, and personal ambition. At the root of all political communities, Burke identified the sacrifice of natural or universal rights as a positive trade-off that allowed individuals to live in peaceful civil societies. In some ways, Burke's more cautious approach reflected the experiences of his native Britain, which in the previous century had experienced two revolutionary upheavals, one of which included a prolonged and violent civil war that culminated in the execution of the king. Burke, however, was not an opponent of all revolutions. He had supported the American revolutionaries, whom he saw as working within British political traditions rather than abandoning them.

Burke rejects the idea that French revolutionaries could found a successful new state based on the principles espoused in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Burke published these objections before war, violence, and the Terror radicalized the French Revolution, so his arguments focus on those principles on which the Atlantic revolutions were based rather than on revulsion with the disorder and violence that often accompanied the overthrow of political regimes.

1) What is Burke's understanding of universal human rights and their place in government?

2) Which rights does Burke grant to individuals in a civil state?

3) How might Burke have reacted to Seabury's objections to revolutionary committees in Source 16.1?

Part III: The French National Assembly and Slavery

Victory in 1789 left revolutionaries in control of France and faced with the task of reconciling their idealistic slogans and principles with the competing demands of government. Few debates were more contentious than that surrounding the status of free men of color and slaves in the French colonies and especially the sugar islands of the Caribbean. Some revolutionary voices pressed for the outlawing of slavery as incompatible with a new state based on universal rights and liberties. Others pressed for free men of color to be embraced as full citizens while maintaining slavery, which, they argued, was too important for the colonial and French economies to be abandoned. Meanwhile, many white plantation owners and people in France whose livelihoods depended on colonial trade argued forcefully against granting any rights to peoples of color because this could lead to the emancipation of slaves in the future. In 1791 the lawmaking body in France known as the National Assembly opted for a compromise, rejecting freedom for slaves while granting citizenship to free men of color. Source 16.4 reproduces the text of this decree and an explanation offered by the Assembly for its decision. The law of 1791 set the stage for the Haitian Revolution. Only after the successful uprising of slaves in Haiti did the French revolutionary government finally pass a law abolishing slavery in 1794. But this law was short-lived; Napoleon rescinded it in 1802.

1) How did the National Assembly justify its decision to maintain slavery in French colonies?

2) What does the decision to grant the rights of citizenship to free men of color but not to slaves tell us about the reasoning of the Assembly?

3) What does this source reveal about the thinking of French revolutionaries concerning race, property rights, and personal freedom?