THE struggle of the American colonies for independence was watched by Europeans in general, and by the French in particular, with intense interest.
One must consider the views of the French in the eighteenth century in order to understand the sympathy they entertained for the Americans.
In the new world the ideas of Rousseau and of the other philosophers of that century seemed to be realized. There reason, simplicity, naturalness, and virtue were thought to reign.
The Count of Ségur tells us in his memoirs how intense the excitement was at Spa, a fashionable watering-place frequented by the aristocracy of Europe, when the news of the events in Boston in 1775 became known. “The first shot of the cannon fired in the new hemisphère,” he writes, “resounded throughout Europe with the rapidity of lightning . . .” “The courageous daring of the Americans electrified all spirits and excited a general admiration. . . . And in this little city of Spa . . . I was singularly surprised to see so lively and general an interest manifest itself for the revolt of a people against a king. The American insurrection spread everywhere like a fashion . . . and I was far from being the only one whose heart throbbed at the news of the awaking of liberty, striving to throw off the yoke of arbitrary power.”1 He tells us that he found the same agitation prevailing in Paris, and that the envoys of the Americans, Deane, Lee, and Franklin, seemed to be the sage contemporaries of Plato, or republicans of the time of Cato and Fabius.2
Many members of the noblest families of France hastened to the scene of conflict and fought with distinction at the side of Washington. Covered with glory they returned to their native land, ardent advocates of the American views of liberty and equality. These ideas spread widely, for they fell upon prepared ground.3
Ségur tells us that as a result of the American Revolution “Everybody occupied himself with public affairs, and, seeing to what a point under monarchical forms views had become republican, it was not difficult for Rousseau to predict the approach of the epoch of great revolutions.”4 Franklin had the constitutions of the several States, the Declaration of Independence, and other papers relating to American affairs, published and spread throughout the country in 1783.
A number of books had been written by Frenchmen which show what interest they took in American affairs. In 1787 was published a book entitled De la France et des États-Unis, by Clavière and Brissot. It deals with the prospects of commerce between France and America. In the introduction Brissot says that the American Revolution had occasioned the discussion of many points important for the public welfare, such as the social contract, civil liberty, the things that can render a people independent, and the circumstances which legitimatize an insurrection and cause a nation to take a place among the powers of the world. “What good,” he writes, “have not done and will not do the codes of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, published and spread everywhere? They are not to be taken completely as models, but despotism, either through necessity or reason, will henceforth respect the Rights of Man so well known and so well established. Enlightened by this revolution the governments of Europe will be forced to reform their abuses and diminish their burdens.”1
The Abbé Mably had written an Impartial History of the Late War, which referred to American affairs.
The Abbé Raynal published in 1785 a series of letters he had written to John Adams, at the time the American ambassador to Paris, under the title, Observations on the Government and the Laws of the United States.
He does not agree on all points with the work of the Americans, but in general he speaks of the constitutions of the several States with great enthusiasm. “While nearly all the nations of Europe ignore the constitutive principles of society,” he says, “and do not regard citizens as better than the beasts of a farm, which are governed for the particular good of their owner, it is surprising and edifying that the thirteen American colonies have recognized the dignity of man, and have drawn from the sources of the wisest philosophy their principles of government.1
“These constitutions have gone to the principles of nature. They have established it as an axiom that all political authority derives its origin from the people, and that magistrates are but the agents of the people. The Americans know the Rights of Men and of Nations. The delegates who have framed the constitutions have adopted the wise principles of Locke regarding natural liberty and the nature of government.”
Raynal says he has thoroughly studied the legislation of America. “All Europe,” he declares, “having feared that the Americans would not be able to resist the forces of Great Britain, is enchanted with the courage and constancy they have shown, and with the happy success they have obtained.”2
It was but natural that the great Mirabeau should take an interest in the affairs of the colonies. The political theories put forth by the Americans were hailed by him with enthusiasm. In 1777 he wrote : “When a government becomes arbitrary and oppressive, when it attacks property which it ought to protect, when it breaks the compact which assures rights, though limiting them, resistance becomes a duty and cannot be called rebellion. . . . Whoever seeks to regain freedom and fights for it, exercises but a natural right. . . . The people stand as much above the sovereign as he does above individuals.”3
At the suggestion of Franklin, Mirabeau published the Considerations on the Order of Cincinnatus, which appeared in London in 1785. He regrets that this order was established “at the end of the eighteenth century, at the moment when America seemed to open an asylum to the human race; at the moment when the most surprising revolution, the only one, perhaps, which philosophy approves of, has turned the attention of all to the other hemisphere.”1
“The delegates, representatives, and legislators of the American people,” Mirabeau says, “have made equality the basis of their insurrection, their work, their demands, their rights, and their code. For this reason they occupy among the powers of the world the rank and separate position to which they are entitled by virtue of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”2 He then enters into a consideration of the Bills of Rights of the various States. “All the States of the Confederation have declared in their constitutions that men are born free and equal; that they possess natural, essential, and unalienable rights, of which they can by no compact deprive or despoil their posterity; that all government derives its right from the people; that no authority can be exercised over the people except that which emanates from them or is accorded by them; that the various officers of the government clothed with any legislative, executive, or judicial authority, are the substitutes, the agents, the servants of the people, and accountable to them at all times; that government is established for the common welfare, for the protection and security of the people, and not for the profit or interest of a single person, family, or assemblage of men who are but a part of the community; that government shall ensure the existence of the body politic, protect it, and procure for the individuals who compose it, the enjoyment of their Natural Rights in security and tranquillity; that every body politic is formed by the voluntary association of individuals mutually bound to each other by a social compact, by which the whole people contract with each citizen and each citizen with the entire people; that all be governed by certain laws in a uniform manner and for the common good; that the enjoyment of the right of the people to participate in legislation is the foundation of liberty and of all free government; that the whole people have a right to change the government when these ends are not realized, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression being absurd, servile, and destructive of the welfare and happiness of the human race.”1
“America,” Mirabeau declared, “can, and is going to, determine with certainty whether the human race is destined by nature to liberty or slavery. No republican government has ever found in any part of the globe such favorable circumstances.” America is destined to show whether or not the beautiful ideas of Sidney, Locke, and Rousseau are to remain superb theories, whose realization is impracticable. Mirabeau appended to his Considerations a letter written by the famous Turgot to Dr. Price, an Englishman who possessed great enthusiasm for America, and also Price’s Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution.
In his letter Turgot wrote: “America is the hope of the human race and ought to become the model for humanity. She ought to prove to the world in fact that men can be free and tranquil and dispense with the chains of all kinds which tyrants and charlatans have imposed on pretext of the public good. . . . She ought to be an example of liberty of all kinds : political, civil, religious, commercial, and industrial. The asylum she opens to the oppressed ought to console the world. The facility of profiting therefrom to escape the results of bad government, will force all governments to be just and to enlighten themselves.”1
Price speaks of the American Revolution as opening a new era in the history of the world and of presenting a grand perspective. He regards it as having spread among the nations healthful principles concerning the Rights of Mankind and the nature of government, and of having given rise to a general spirit of resistance to tyranny. The Revolution, he says, gave to America the most equitable and free government in existence. He thinks that in America all the nations of the world will be blest. This vast continent will become a refuge for the oppressed of all nations. A republic has been established which will become the seat of liberty, the sanctuary of science and of virtue. He hopes that America will preserve this sacred treasure until all peoples enjoy it and the infamous servitude which degrades the earth will have terminated forever. Since the introduction of Christianity no epoch has been of equal influence upon the advancement of the race as has been that of the American Revolution. He believes that this revolution will diffuse among all nations the principles of the Rights of Man, and will afford the means of throwing off the yoke of superstition and tyranny.2
Great interest was also taken in American affairs by Condorcet, the famous French author, who wrote a number of pamphlets which contain references to the Natural Rights of Mankind and to the services of America to the race in asserting them.1 He says that “The first Declaration of Rights which really merits the name, is that of Virginia, issued June 1, 1776; and the author of this production has claims to the everlasting gratitude of the human race. Six other American States have imitated the example of Virginia.”2 These declarations do not entirely satisfy him and he indicates several omissions. Nevertheless there is no doubt in his mind that such a declaration, which contains a clear statement of the Rights of Man, is the only means of preventing tyranny, and will be a work useful to mankind as a safeguard of public tranquillity and liberty. According to his view, the best method of obtaining such a declaration is to encourage enlightened men to draw up models and then to have these drafts published, a course which was afterward pursued by the Constituent Assembly. Condorcet himself composed a lengthy Declaration of Rights in several sections, distinguishing between the Rights of Man relative to personal safety, to personal liberty, to safety of property, to liberty of property, and to natural equality. Condorcet took an active part in the French Revolution. Eventually siding with the Girondists, Condorcet presented to the convention the constitution, in which was incorporated a Declaration of Rights, which had been drawn up according to the principles of the Girondist party. He was likewise one of the most energetic opponents against the attempts of the Mountain to attack individual rights on the ground of promoting the public welfare.3
Mirabeau drew up a Declaration of Rights for the people of Holland in a pamphlet which he wrote in 1788, at the suggestion of the Dutch republicans, and which bears the title, Address to the Batavians Concerning the Stadtholder ship.
He proposes to enumerate the rights to which this people are entitled as men—rights which are inherent, prior to and above all written laws, unalienable, and the eternal foundation of political society. He considers these rights to be fully carried out only in the American constitution. Without these rights mankind cannot maintain its dignity, cannot perfect itself, or enjoy peace. Every nation desiring freedom must be in possession of them.
Mirabeau’s paper agrees with the American Bills of Rights in most of its articles, and is interesting not only because it shows American influence, but also because it forms, as it were, the political confession of faith of this great statesman. The Declaration contains such statements as that of the freedom and equality of all men; the sovereignty of the people; universal toleration; freedom of the press, of speech, of public meeting, and of elections; the separation of powers; abolition of exclusive privileges; the subordination of the military to the civil power; establishment of the militia system rather than having standing armies; freedom from attack upon person, house, papers, and property; independence of judges; right to speedy, free, and unbiassed justice; freedom from banishment or deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without a valid legal sentence.
We have seen that Mirabeau was well acquainted with the leading papers issued by the American general government as well as by the individual States. He took a very prominent part, as a member of the Constituent Assembly, in the discussions regarding the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and was one of the committee of five appointed by that body to prepare this Declaration.
There can be no doubt that the American Revolution seemed to Europeans to signify the dawn of liberty. This explains the interest they took in American affairs. The Marquis of Chastellux, who travelled in America during the years 1780–82, assured a number of farmers who were surprised to see a map of their country in the hands of a Frenchman, that his countrymen were as well acquainted with America as they were with their next neighbors. In the preface to his Travels he says that the French hailed with the greatest eagerness all information about America, and that the few copies of his journal, which he had sent to his most intimate friends, though not intended for the public, passed rapidly from hand to hand and were read with avidity.
Nor was this interest in American affairs confined to France. Of the influence of our Revolution on the Germans a writer says: “The republican sympathies of the educated and wide-awake classes in Germany were increased and strengthened by the War of American Independence, and especially by the surprisingly happy termination of that war. The long extracts from the Congressional debates, the addresses of the rebellious colonies, the Declaration of the Rights of Man by Congress, the orations of the leaders in Congress and the army, were zealously spread by German newspapers, and of necessity powerfully influenced the people. Yes, the governments even, inasmuch as England was at the time greatly hated by them, sided with the Americans and their principles, though the latter contrasted greatly with German conditions. Frederick the Great especially favored the colonists. The victory of the young republic was hailed with general and sympathetic rejoicing.”1 There was great indignation throughout Germany at the shameless traffic with Hessian soldiers. As the French officers returned to their native land filled with enthusiasm for American institutions and principles, so these German soldiers acquainted their countrymen with American ideas, not only by their written accounts, but also, and more especially, by their glowing accounts after their return.2
A German nobleman in the American service wrote to his friends in the old world enthusiastic accounts of the “beautiful and happy land, without kings, priests, farmers of taxes, and lazy barons, the land where every one is happy and where poverty is unknown.”3
In 1783 there appeared in a Berlin journal an ode which contains these words: “And thou, Europe, raise thy head. Soon will shine the day when thy chains shall break. Thy princes expelled, thou wilt hail a happy free state.” Addressing America the poet says: “Thy example speaks loudly to the farthest nations, free is he who wills it and is worthy to be so. Yet ever-raging despotism, which, breaking God’s laws, serves but the great, frightens the nations.” The writer blesses “the better hemisphere, where sweet equality reigns, and Europe’s curse, nobility, does not simplicity’s custom stain, wrongly defying worthier men, feasting on the sweat of the peasant.4
The years preceding the outbreak of the great French Revolution were a time of great ferment in Europe, especially in France. The masses were becoming enlightened. The revolutionary teachings of such writers as Condillac, Holbach, Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others were beginning to bear fruit. In America these principles had conquered. Their success in that country increased their popularity and influence. It was hoped that they would overthrow tyranny in the old world likewise. The calling of the States General filled the French people with hope that a new order of things would soon result. The instructions prepared by the French districts for their representatives, which were called Cahiers, give expression to the hopes and desires of the French people on the eve of the Revolution. These papers show that the American idea of enumerating individual rights in a declaration had met with great favor. Several Cahiers suggest that a similar Declaration of the Rights of Man should be drawn up by the States General.
The Cahier of the Third Estate of Paris contains a declaration which states that all men have equal rights; that all power emanates from the people and should be exercised only for their welfare; that the general will makes the law and public power assures its execution. All subsidies are declared to be conceded by the nation, which has the right to determine their amount, to limit their duration, to designate the use to which they shall be put, to demand an account of their employment, and to insist upon their publication. The object of the law is to protect property and ensure personal security. No citizen should be arrested or punished without legal judgment, nor be arbitrarily deprived of any office he may hold. Each citizen has the right to be admitted to any office, possession, or dignity. The natural, civil, and religious liberty of every man, his personal security, his absolute independence of all authority except that of the law, excludes every enquiry into his opinions, his speech, his writings, and his actions, so long as they do not disturb the public order and injure the rights of another. The declaration of natural, civil, and political rights was to become the national charter, and the basis of the French government.
The Cahier instructed the deputies to demand a number of reforms as a consequence of the principles of this Declaration of Rights; namely, the abolition of all forms of servitude; of all unnecessary offices; of the violation of public faith by searching letters sent through the mails; and of all exclusive privileges, except a limited privilege to inventors. Liberty of the press was likewise demanded, subject to legitimate restrictions.
Perhaps the most remarkable of these Cahiers is that of the bailliage of Nemours, among the deputies of which district was the Viscount de Noailles, one of the young officers who had fought in America. This paper affirms that the preservation of rights is the sole object of political society, and holds that the knowledge of these rights ought to be the basis of all laws and institutions. The States General ought to determine these rights. A public Declaration should then be made by the king, which is to be registered in all the courts, published several times a year in all the churches, and inserted in all books intended for the education of children. No person is to be entrusted with any charge, place, or office, unless he has repeated this Declaration from memory, and has sworn to conform his actions thereto.2
The electors of Nemours suggest certain truths which ought to be inserted in this Declaration. Some of these ideas are quite fanciful. Every man is said to have the right to do that which does not injure others. Every man has a right to the assistance of others, and to a reciprocal service from any one who has claimed his aid. Every helpless person has a right to the gratuitous assistance of others. No man ought to be interrupted or hindered in his work. No authority can compel any person to labor without salary; or with insufficient salary. These maxims are very wise, no doubt, but scarcely belong in a Declaration like the one intended. Other demands are: Freedom of contract; inviolability of person and property; no imprisonment without conviction; speedy trial; taxes to be levied in proportion to income; no authority to supplant that of the taxpayers or their representatives in levying taxes; freedom of speech, of petition, and of the press. This is the gist of the thirty articles this draft contains.
But already this draft seems to contain the germs of that spirit which eventually destroyed individual liberty in France; namely, the desire for a falsely conceived equality. Such appears to be the tendency of statements like the one that every person is entitled to the assistance of others; that every person in a state of infancy, helplessness, or infirmity has a right to the gratuitous help of others; that any person who has no income ought not be obliged to contribute to the payment of the public expenses, but has a right to gratuitous aid.
It was, as we have seen, an injunction of several districts of France upon the States General to enumerate and guarantee the Rights of Man and of the Citizen after the American fashion. It was universally felt that the insecurity of the individual was one of the chief evils from which the French were suffering, that lettres de cachet, Bastille, seignorial rights, ought to be abolished.
The members of the States General, those representing the Third Estate at least, were not likely to forget this behest.
It is true that in regard to the form of government the majority of the members of the Constituent Assembly took England, rather than America, as their model. Scarcely any one thought of the republic as a possible or desirable form of government for France. Almost without exception the monarchy was regarded as essential, even by such men as Lafayette. But it was to become a constitutional monarchy.
But nevertheless the American idea of a Declaration of the Rights of Man met with almost universal favor. It accorded perfectly with the tendency of thought. Madame de Staël speaks of the democratic declarations which found such applause in the Assembly, and states that this body was seized by an enthusiasm for philosophy, of which the example of America was a cause, the people of France believing that they might take as a basis the principles which the people of the new world had adopted.1