Contrasting the Anglospheric and the French Revolutions
Did the French not believe in the natural rights of man? What is it you see as the difference in their revolution that caused it to fail so spectacularly?
Lack of experience with self-government. The French state, since their formation out of the barbarian Frank polity by Charles I (Clovis), had only known one of two conditions: absolute monarchy or anarchy, with French feudalism being essentially a fractal version of absolute monarchy (in which families of local nobles gained absolute powers from the monarchy for a long time).
Now, the French did have urban communal governments, of the same sort which led to muncipal, shire and county government in the Anglosphere, emerging from the urban revival of the High Middle Ages. But the French monarchy actively and energetically suppressed or at least rendered wholly subservient these local governments, most notably during the 15th-17th centuries, and most famously under Louis XIV (who set the tone for his two successors).
By the time that the French Revolution came, in 1789, it had been over a century since any Frenchman could lawfully assert an authority not derived at a fairly short administrative distance from the King. The other alternative was to do what one liked, without regard to color of law, for as long as one could get away with it (which rather a lot of French gentlemen actually did -- Dumas was only slightly exaggerating the chaos of French society in the early modern era).
So the Assembly was superseding a royal authority, which had the power de facto to kill or imprison or fine anyone it liked, for any reason or lack thereof that it chose to act. And was composed of a group of men whose concept of "liberty" was not far removed from the idea of being a brawling, duelling, plundering rake.
Is it really any wonder that it ended in tears?
By contrast, English and American local government strengthened in the 16th-18th centuries, while gradually suppressing the violent disorders of the nobles and gentry. Also, the court systems became more regular and were employed in an adverserial fashion even when dealing with royal edicts. Hence, by 1689 English and 1775 American gentlemen and bourgeoise (not as alienated from each other socially as were their French counterparts) had experience of the lawful exercise of local authority, and the successful appeal to right against even royal tyranny.
This, I submit, more so than religion (most of the French, even the French revolutionaries, had after all Christian upbringings) was the key difference between the Anglospheric and the French Revolutions, and the reason why the former succeeded, while the latter ended in bloody failure and the accession of a new tyrant.
Lack of experience with self-government. The French state, since their formation out of the barbarian Frank polity by Charles I (Clovis), had only known one of two conditions: absolute monarchy or anarchy, with French feudalism being essentially a fractal version of absolute monarchy (in which families of local nobles gained absolute powers from the monarchy for a long time).
Now, the French did have urban communal governments, of the same sort which led to muncipal, shire and county government in the Anglosphere, emerging from the urban revival of the High Middle Ages. But the French monarchy actively and energetically suppressed or at least rendered wholly subservient these local governments, most notably during the 15th-17th centuries, and most famously under Louis XIV (who set the tone for his two successors).
By the time that the French Revolution came, in 1789, it had been over a century since any Frenchman could lawfully assert an authority not derived at a fairly short administrative distance from the King. The other alternative was to do what one liked, without regard to color of law, for as long as one could get away with it (which rather a lot of French gentlemen actually did -- Dumas was only slightly exaggerating the chaos of French society in the early modern era).
So the Assembly was superseding a royal authority, which had the power de facto to kill or imprison or fine anyone it liked, for any reason or lack thereof that it chose to act. And was composed of a group of men whose concept of "liberty" was not far removed from the idea of being a brawling, duelling, plundering rake.
Is it really any wonder that it ended in tears?
By contrast, English and American local government strengthened in the 16th-18th centuries, while gradually suppressing the violent disorders of the nobles and gentry. Also, the court systems became more regular and were employed in an adverserial fashion even when dealing with royal edicts. Hence, by 1689 English and 1775 American gentlemen and bourgeoise (not as alienated from each other socially as were their French counterparts) had experience of the lawful exercise of local authority, and the successful appeal to right against even royal tyranny.
This, I submit, more so than religion (most of the French, even the French revolutionaries, had after all Christian upbringings) was the key difference between the Anglospheric and the French Revolutions, and the reason why the former succeeded, while the latter ended in bloody failure and the accession of a new tyrant.