Asher K. Sisneros
Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Western Civilization Since 1493
November 11, 2024
After the success of the American Revolution, a movement erupted in France to rebuild society and create a new social order. The French Revolution was a radical movement, largely inspired by the Enlightenment. The revolutionaries in France fancied themselves as society’s grand liberators, but they targeted far more than just the monarchy. All traditional institutions were attacked as primitive at best and downright evil at worst. Thus any institution that retained some veneration for orthodoxy (political or religious) was labeled “counterrevolutionary” and considered an enemy of the state. Even staunch revolutionary leaders such as Danton were executed under Robespierre’s reign of terror. Although both revolutions—American and French—were fought in the name of liberation, why did one result in relative order and the other in chaos?
Friedrich Gentz argues that part of the madness of the French Revolution came from its unattainable goal. In America, the colonists wanted something attainable. They had a finite goal. Historically, the Americans retained the right of self-governance and, with it, the right to tax themselves. Although the taxes themselves were the lowest of any nation at the time, the Americans attacked Parliament’s actions because it broke with tradition. Their taxes intruded on British customs and tradition. Thus the American goal was finite: a return to the “old ways.”
But the same cannot be said of the French Revolution. Whenever the revolutionaries attained one goal, they created a new one. For example, in 1790, the revolutionaries forced all clergy to swear loyalty to the State, made clerical salaries paid for by the State, and made all clergy appointed by the State. In other words, the Church was placed into total submission to the State. Only half of the bishops in France submitted. The other half were executed, persecuted, or ostracized. Yet within three years, the French Revolution led a de-Christianization campaign, targeting even the bishops who submitted. The calendar, which was numbered based on Christ’s birth, was replaced with a calendar starting from King Louis’ deposition; churches were closed and vandalized; and tens of thousands of pastors were forced to flee or face execution. In short, the French Revolution completely repudiated all past traditions and had an infinite goal that would never be attained: the complete upheaval of all orthodox institutions.
Edmund Burke vocally attacked the French Revolution because of this and predicted that all the madness would result in the ascension of a dictator. Sure enough, Napoleon came to power shortly thereafter, making Burke’s prediction a quasi-prophecy. But he just looked at the present facts and saw dictatorship as the only realistic outcome. His hostility towards the French revolutionaries came down to their hubris. Unlike his enlightened contemporaries, Burke thought traditional institutions—church, family, etc.,—deserved respect. In his eyes, society and its institutions were not the result of a conscious human mind that crafted them in supreme wisdom. Rather, society—like the economy—evolved organically over time. Slowly, reforms would take place to gradually improve society and its institutions, like what had happened in the Church during the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent. But to assume that one man or a group of enlightened thinkers could completely reconstruct all of society overnight was downright absurd in Burke’s mind. But even more importantly, it was dangerous. After all, the greatest threat to society is not a corrupt politician who acts in his own interests; it is a benevolent “humanitarian” who acts for the “greater good” against their will. One is rooted in selfishness, while the other is rooted in prideful hubris. The grand sin that brought destruction to humanity was pride. It was the belief that man could “become like God, knowing good and evil.” That was the sin of Adam, and that was the sin of the French Revolution.
What is the lesson of the French Revolution? Tradition should not be venerated as infallible—only the Bible is infallible—but modern culture would be wise to heed the lessons of the past. It is hubris to think corrupt men can use their reasoning to form a utopian society while considering all of the ramifications of a given policy. They cannot. That is precisely why plans fail. Often, men make plans, but rarely does everything go according to plan. Why? Because no man can consider all of the variables and plan for everything. The only answer is total submission to Christ.
Honor be to the King who reigns eternally.
Asher Sisneros 