(Experience of comparative characteristics)

Per last years in the United States of America, works appeared in which the American Revolution of the 18th century. compared with other revolutions, and above all with the closest in time - the French. This topic is really of great interest. It is now attracting particular attention in connection with the widespread propaganda campaign in the United States in preparation for the 200th anniversary of the American Revolution, which is being celebrated in 1976. One of the goals of this campaign is to prove the "advantages" of the American type of revolution. The author of the article, without claiming to provide a comprehensive coverage of the problem, aims to touch on some topical issues comparative history of two revolutions of the 18th century.

This topic has always had a political sound, starting with the first essays written in the wake of the events of those distant years, and ending with the latest historical and sociological research. The first to speak more or less fully on this subject was F. Gentz, who published in the spring of 1800 in his Berlin Historisches Journal an essay entitled "Comparison of the French and American Revolutions." D. C. Adams, son of US President D. Adams, then US envoy to Prussia, later envoy to Russia, and then president of the United States, translated this essay into English and then published it in Philadelphia as a separate book. Both the author and the translator were clearly addressing American public opinion. When comparing the two revolutions, the American was favored as more moderate and less destructive, while the French was severely criticized for its radicalism.

Publisher of a reactionary magazine, later secretary of the Austrian Chancellor Metternich, Gentz ​​devoted his entire life to the struggle against the French Revolution. By his political convictions, he was a conservative, a supporter of legitimism. The republican system that had taken root in the United States was by no means his ideal. In a recently published book, the French historian A. Gerard noted that Gentz's reactionary philosophy was a "preventive tool" by which he hoped to "protect his fellow citizens from the virus of revolution" 1 . As for D. K. Adams and his father, they also belonged to the conservative camp and were by no means sympathetic to the French Revolution. AT election campaign 1800 D. Adams vigorously opposed T. Jefferson, who believed that "the tree of freedom should periodically be fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants" 2, and found confirmation in the French Revolution

1 A. Gerard. La Revolution Francaise. Myths et interpretations (1789 - 1970). P. 1970, p. 19.

2 T. Jefferson to W. Smith 13.XI.1787."Thomas Jefferson Papers". Ed. by J. Boyd. Vol. XII. princeton. 1955, p. 356.

denial of their radical beliefs. Thus, the publication of Gentz-Adams had a quite definite political orientation.

The next edition of this book appeared in the USA in 1955, a century and a half later 3 . By coincidence, or not coincidence, in the same year at the X International Congress of Historical Sciences in Rome, a report was read that directly related to the topic to which Gentz ​​devoted his opus. The American historian R. Palmer, together with the French historian J. Godchaux, decided to substantiate the idea of ​​an "Atlantic civilization" historically. One of the main theses of their report "Problems of the Atlantic" was the connectedness of the history of these countries, that the development of America and France in modern times was determined almost simultaneously by what happened in the 18th century. "democratic revolutions" 4 .

A few years earlier, the American historian L. Gottsock put forward the thesis that at the end of the 18th century. the "first world revolution" took place. In it, he said, there were American and French phases. Gottsock's student Palmer developed this point. He published a series of articles, and later with a two-volume essay, The Age of Democratic Revolution. He also initiated the presentation of the report "Problems of the Atlantic" at the Congress of Historians 5 . Substantiating the formulation of the problem, Palmer and Godchaux touched upon the history of the issue, referring to the use of the terms "Atlantic civilization", "Atlantic history", "Atlantic system", etc. Although they did not mention the North Atlantic Pact of 1949, however, the text of the report left no doubt in that it was this political event that had a decisive influence on the concept of Palmer and Godchaux. In the final part, they directly called on the Western countries to put aside differences and strengthen unity within the framework of the "Atlantic community" 6 .

Thus, a hundred and fifty years after the appearance of the first work comparing the French and American revolutions, events again brought up this theme. Subsequently, the cooling that set in in relations between the United States and France on the issue of participation in the North Atlantic bloc led to new shifts in the literature on the issue. Representatives of American historiography took a more critical position regarding the role of France and the French Revolution. An example of this is the recent work of the famous American historian R. B. Morris 7 . Political considerations have influenced and continue to influence the comparative study of the history of the American and French revolutions.

In evaluating the concept of Palmer-Godchaux, it is necessary to take into account the evolution that the views of bourgeois authors have undergone on the origin of the American Revolution. After the "nationalists" (D. Bancroft, D. Fiske), who considered the American Revolution in isolation from the rest of the world, there appeared the "imperial school" (G. Osgood, D. Beer, C. Andrews, L. Gipson), which interpreted the revolution as certain result in the development of the British Empire. Then came the era of "progressives" (C. Beard, A. Schlesinger, D. Jameson, and later M. Jensen), who deepened the socio-economic analysis of the American Revolution and raised the question of its similarity with the French, which represented

3 F. Gentz. American and French Revolutions, compared. N. Y. 1955.

4 J. Godechot, R. Palmer. Le Probleme de l "Atlantique du XVIII eme au XX eme siecle." Comitato internazionale di scienze storiche. X° Congresso internazionale". Relazioni. T. V. Firenze. 1956.

5 L. Gottschalk. Europe and the Modern World. 2 vols. Chicago. 1951 - 1954; R. Palmer. The Age of the Democratic Revolution. 2 vols. princeton. 1959 - 1964; J. Godechot. Les Revolutions. P. 1970, p. 272.

6 J. Godechot, R. Palmer. Op. cit., pp. 175 - 177.

7 R. B. Morris. The Peace Makers. N. Y. 1965; ejusd. The American Revolution Reconsidered. N. Y. 1967.

a definite step forward in the development of bourgeois historiography in the USA. The "progressives" were replaced by "neoconservatives" (R. Brown, D. Burstin, L. Hartz, K. Rossiter), who attacked their predecessors for putting the American Revolution on a par with the historical events of the Old World, equating her to common standards, while she, in their opinion, was "an exceptional phenomenon" 8 .

Palmer and Godchaux approached the American Revolution as an organic part of the world-historical process, which, it would seem, does not contradict even the Marxist approach. However, both of them demonstrated their hostility to Marxism, supporting the theory of "exclusivity" and opposing the Marxist concept of changing socio-economic formations. Having taken a step forward in an attempt to comprehend the American Revolution as an integral part of world history, Palmer and Godchaux remained true to the traditional dogmas of bourgeois literature 9 . After speaking at the Congress of Rome in 1955, Palmer continued to adhere to the same positions, although he was forced to partially abandon the concept of "Atlantic civilization" and "Atlantic revolution". The latter was explained, on the one hand, by the development of centrifugal forces within the North Atlantic Alliance, and, on the other hand, by the serious criticism to which its concept was subjected. So a few years later, when presenting an article to the American Council for the Study of the Social Sciences to the Commission for Historical Analysis on the methodology for studying revolutions, Palmer announced that he was revising his conclusions about "Atlantic civilization." “My doubts,” he wrote in a letter addressed to the commission, “were born during the 1955 congress in Rome, where I met many British and other Europeans who opposed this concept, which, as I understand it, is stupid to insist on an American. You do not you can go everywhere and talk about the desire to marry a woman who not only refuses, but even shudders at the mere thought of it. Thus, the theory of "Atlantic civilization" has given a serious crack.

Turning to specific aspects of the comparative history of the American and French revolutions, it should first of all be said that they proceeded under different historical conditions in economic, social and other respects. On the one hand, France is a European country with a deep historical tradition and centuries-old culture. On the other hand, young America, or rather, the English colonies in America, relatively recently settled, did not yet have time to acquire traditions and only created their own culture. Occupying an area approximately equal to France, they had 10 times less population.

During the 4-5 centuries preceding the revolution, the population of France remained approximately at the same level.

8 See E. S. Morgan. The American Revolution. A Review of Changing Interpretations. Washington. 1958; E. Wright. Historians and the Revolution. "Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution". Chicago. 1966 (hereinafter - "Causes"); J. P. Green. The Reappraisal of the American Revolution in Recent Historical Literature. Washington. 1967. In Soviet literature, see articles: N. N. Bolkhovitinov. The American War of Independence and Modern American Historiography. "Questions of history", 1969, N 12; A. I. Utkin. American historiography of the colonial period. "Main Problems of US History in American Historiography". M. 1971; P. B. Umansky. Problems of the First American Revolution. There.

9 J. Godechot. France and the Atlantic Revolution of the Eighteenth Century, 1770 - 1799. N. Y. 1965, p. eight; R. Palmer. The Age of the Democratic Revolutions. Vol. I, pp. 9 - 13; ejusd. The revolution. "The Comparative Approach to American History". N. Y. 1968, p. 49.

10 R. Palmer. Generalizations about Revolution: A Case Study. "Generalizations in the Writing of History". Ed. by L. Gottschalk. Chicago. 1963, pp. 75 - 76.

not - about 18 million people. From the middle of the XVIII century. it began to increase rapidly and by 1789 reached 26 million people. The population increased, unemployment appeared, new taxes were introduced. The country was going through a severe economic crisis. One of its manifestations was the incessant rise in prices 11 .

Godchaux argues that a similar situation existed in America and that, just as in France, the so-called "demographic press" was the most important prerequisite for the revolution. Indeed, the population growth rate here was much higher than in any European country. In one century, the population increased several times and by the beginning of the revolution it was 2.5 million people. In every generation, the population doubled, partly due to the influx of new immigrants, and partly due to high birth rates 13 . "Americans marry early," said French diplomat Barbe de Marbois, "and have as many children as possible." Therefore, families had 5-7 children, and the offspring of one person often reached 50 or even 100 people 14 .

The population grew rapidly. However, the "demographic press" did not exist. Except for a brief period of stagnation caused by the British crackdown on Boston, America, unlike France, did not experience unemployment. Representatives of the French diplomatic service noted that in America, "despite the amazing growth of the population, complaints are constantly heard about the lack of workers" 15 . Subsequently, this conclusion was confirmed in a detailed study by R. Morris, who showed that during the first two centuries of its history, America constantly experienced a shortage of labor 16 .

Unlike Europe, there was no food problem in the colonies. A French diplomat who visited America at the time wrote that while "in other countries half the population died of starvation, here only those who are forced to pay a fixed rent in money suffer" 17 . But there were few of them. On the eve of the revolution, the total fixed rent in the colonies was $100,000. The main part of this amount was collected in Maryland and North Carolina, and for the remaining 11 colonies, the institution of a fixed rent had no meaning or was purely symbolic. The wages of an American worker were 30 to 100 percent higher than those of a worker in England. The standard of living in the colonies was on average much higher than in Europe 18 .

Gauchaux argues that, just as in France, the American Revolution was preceded by rising prices. He refers to the intensification of tax oppression in the colonies after the Seven Years' War and the rise in the cost of such goods.

11 E. Labrousse. Esquisse du mouvement des prix et des revenues en France au XVIII e siecle. P. 1933.

12 J. Godechot. La Prize de la Bastille. P. 1965, p. twenty.

13 E. Wright. American Independence in Its American Context: Social and Political Aspects, Western Expansion. "The New Cambridge Modern History". Vol. VIII. Cambridge. 1968, p. 513.

14 Note by Barbe de Marbois 1783 Ministere des Affaires Extrangeres. Archives diplomatique (hereinafter - Archives). memoires and documents. Etats-Unis. Vol. 8, p. 29.

15 Ibid., pp. 29 - 31.

16 R. B. Morris. Government and Labor in Early America. N. Y. 1946.

17 Gerard - Vergennus 29.VII.1778. Archives. Correspondence politique, Etats Unis. Vol. 6, p. twenty.

18 J. Jameson. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Boston. 1956, p. 33; F. B. Tolies. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement: A Reevaluation. "Causes", p. 263; R. B. Morris. Government and Labor in Early America, p. 45.

ditch like molasses, paper, glass, lead and tea 19 . However, this assertion is doubtful. First, the discontent in the colonies was caused not so much by the severity of the new taxes as by the very fact of their introduction. On average, taxes per capita in the colonies were 26 times less than in the mother country 20 . Secondly, no matter how important articles of trade the listed goods were, they were still not essential items. In a word, the economic situation in the American colonies was relatively prosperous, in no way reminiscent of the crisis that France was going through on the eve of the revolution.

An important aspect of the origin of both revolutions is their social roots, driving forces. Comparing the social forces of the American and French revolutions, Palmer argues that in France the main role belonged to the middle class of cities, in America - to farmers. Undoubtedly, the role of the urban masses in the French Revolution was more significant than in America. In France, about 10% of the population lived in cities, more than 60 thousand in each of such cities as Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon and Nantes. The role played by Paris as the center of the revolutionary movement is well known. Its population was 600 thousand people. In America, only 3% lived in cities, and the population of the largest cities - Philadelphia and Boston - totaled only 28 and 16 thousand people 21 . While recognizing the role of the urban masses in the French Revolution, one should, however, take into account the fact that the participation of the peasantry in it was no less important. Without peasant uprisings and transformations in the countryside, the bourgeois revolution in France could not have been victorious.

On the other hand, the French Revolution was preceded by the active resistance of the aristocracy. She fought against the proposed reforms and attempts by the government to oblige the aristocracy to pay taxes and in this respect to equate them with the third estate. At the stage, which the French historian J. Lefebvre called the "aristocratic revolution" 23 , the aristocracy acted jointly with the third estate, hoping in this way to preserve their privileges. But then it was the representatives of the third estate who deprived her of these privileges, and the French aristocracy shared the fate of royal power, from whose encroachments it defended itself and with the fall of which it lost what it had. It was one of the most important outcomes of the French Revolution.

In America, events developed differently. This country practically did not know feudalism. F. Engels noted that the history of America began "on more favorable ground ... where there are no medieval ruins blocking the path ... in the presence of elements of modern bourgeois society already formed in the 17th century" 24 . Therefore, although attempts were made to impose feudal relations, feudal institutions were not of serious importance. Unlike France, where the demarcation of classes, the aggravation of class and social contradictions were of a classically pronounced nature, in America

19 J. Godechot. La Prize de la Bastille, p. twenty.

20 R. Palmer. Social and Psychological Foundations of the Revolutionary Era. "The New Cambridge Modern History". Vol. VIII, p. 438.

21 R. Palmer. The Great Inversion: America and Europe in the Eighteenth-Century Revolution. "Ideas in History". N. Y. 1965, p. eight; ejusd. Social and Psychological Foundations of the Revolutionary Era. "The New Cambridge Modern History". Vol. VIII, pp. 429 - 431.

22 G. Lefebvre. La Revolution Francaise et les paysans. "Etudes sur la Revolution Francaise". P. 1954, pp. 246 - 268; A. V. Ado. Peasant movement in France during the Great Bourgeois Revolution of the late 18th century. M. 1971.

23 G. Lefebvre. Revolution Francaise dans l "histoire du monde. "Etudes sur la Revolution Francaise", pp. 322 - 323.

24 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. 21, p. 347.

this conflict was more blurred. This circumstance was associated with the social diversity of the population, the "elasticity" of classes and social groups. In addition, the American Revolution was anti-colonial. Therefore, the demarcation of forces across the ocean took place not only between different classes and social groups, but also within them, 25 which is also characteristic of later revolutions of the anti-colonial type.

The American Revolution roused the "lower classes" - the propertyless workers, small artisans and poor farmers - who constituted the largest group of the colonial population. According to D. T. Maine, it numbered (including Negro slaves) up to 2/5 of all inhabitants of the colonies 26 . It was the "lower classes", hostile to the "property owners" and "gentlemen" who held administrative posts, that were the main driving force of the revolution. An important form of political activity has become the so-called "mass gatherings", which date back to community gatherings. They made decisions that were much more radical than any legislative proposals. These were the bodies of people's law-making, in which both the poor and those deprived of the right to vote participated. "The use of the crowd and mass gatherings as a political means, - writes M. Jensen, - has led to serious changes in the traditional model of political action" 27 . Along with the "lower strata", the "middle class" - farmers, merchants, artisans, shopkeepers and lawyers - took an active part in the revolution. These people - middle class owners - made up about 2/3 of the white population 28 .

The American Revolution was a revolt against the mother country. The slogan "No taxes without representation!", which marked the beginning of the movement in the colonies, protested against the domination of England. It was the war for independence. Nevertheless, it should be strongly emphasized that during the war with England the population of the colonies was divided. This delimitation took place according to a social principle, in accordance with the interests of various groups on such pressing issues as the development of trade and industry, the agrarian problem, etc. . "But their motives were only partly of a patriotic nature. They saw in the national liberation movement a fortunate opportunity to improve their social and economic situation."

The main issue of the revolution was agrarian, the struggle for free access to western lands, and this was affected by the fact that small and medium farmers made up about half of the whites and 2/5 of the entire population 30 . The second most important issue facing the American Revolution was the problem of free commercial and industrial development. A large group of the population was also interested in its solution. Although there is no exact information on how large this group was

25 F. B. Tolles. Op. cit., pp. 261 - 262.

26 J. T. Main. The Social Structure of Revolutionary America. princeton. 1965, pp. 271 - 272. About half of this group were Negro slaves. They were deprived of any rights whatsoever and, due to the specifics of their position, despite their active participation in the war for independence, they played a limited role in revolutionary transformations (W. Z. Foster. Negro people in the history of America. M. 1955, p. 63 - 65; G. Apteker, American Revolution, M. 1962, ch. 13).

27 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution. "The Journal of American History", 1970, June, p. fifteen.

28 J. T. Main. Op. cit., p. 273.

29 "The Making of American Democracy". Eds. R. A. Billington, J. B. Loewenberg, S. Brookinier. Vol. I. N. Y. 1960, p. 72.

30 J. T. Main. Op. cit., pp. 273 - 274.

na, it should be said that along with the urban poor, small and medium owners of cities, significant strata of farmers also belonged to it.

An important role in the American Revolution belonged to the wealthy sections of the bourgeoisie, who throughout the revolution acted together with part of the landed aristocracy - the planters. Representatives of the "upper class" made up a small percentage of the population of the colonies, but they controlled more than half of the total wealth 32 and they played a major role in leading the war for independence.

Many representatives of the aristocracy, connected by land grants with the British crown, as well as the highest colonial officials - governors, tax collectors and other "friends of the government" - found themselves in the camp of counterrevolution. A part of the commercial and industrial circles, closely connected with the mother country, as well as representatives of other segments of the population, for one reason or another, were interested in maintaining the same relations with England. They were in the minority, but still represented a fairly significant force. According to the most probable estimate, a third of the population of the colonies occupied a pro-British position. Subsequently, 60,000 "loyalists" emigrated to England 33 . It is quite natural that this included not only representatives of the upper class and the colonial administration. The counter-revolutionary forces also included a part of those strata of the population who, for the most part, were the backbone of the revolution.

America is split into two camps. But the most significant thing was that, as D. Adams put it, "the colonies were groping for the middle path" 34 . This path meant a political compromise, characteristic of subsequent American history. The essential feature of this compromise was the fact that the American bourgeoisie acted in close alliance with the landed aristocracy. The relations of these two groups were far from unanimous, but at this historical stage they were more united than separated. In this regard, J. Lefebvre rightly noted that in America the revolution was carried out "in the common interests of the united aristocracy and the bourgeoisie." In this, he said, the American Revolution was more like the English. "The French Revolution," wrote Lefebvre, "was quite different" 35 .

Indeed, the American and French revolutions were very different from each other. They took place on different and very distant continents. No matter what the supporters of the "Atlantic civilization" now say, flying from Europe to America on high-speed liners, in those days the ocean - a giant body of water - rather separated than brought together. Suffice it to say that it then took the French envoy to the US 65 days to reach his destination 36 . Moreover, it was the geographical factor that played a significant role in the fact that America achieved independence and the revolution was able to win. At the same time, both revolutions were united by an era, the main content of which was the rapid development of bourgeois relations, the change of the feudal system more

31 Ibid., pp. 274 - 275.

32 Ibid., pp. 276 - 277.

33 G. Apteker. Decree. cit., p. 78; R. Palmer. The Age of the Democratic Revolution, pp. 188, 200.

34 E. S. Wright. Op. cit, p. 527.

35 G. Lefebvre. Revolution Franchise dans l "histoire du monde, p. 321.

36 Otto - Montmorand 18.I.1788. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats-Unis. Vol. 33, p. eleven.

progressive capitalist system. To use the expression of K. Marx, "the victory of the bourgeoisie then meant the victory of the new social order" 37 .

The American and French revolutions took place in the same era and were neighbors, so to speak. They even developed certain relationships among themselves, which allow you to better understand their character and characteristics. These relationships have left a mark in history and literature. Scholars and novelists wrote about them. For example, L. Feuchtwanger's novel "Foxes in the Vineyard" is devoted to the attitude of France to the American Revolution. Indeed, it was a story full of romanticism, dramatic situations and paradoxes! First of all, it was a paradox that the absolutist government of the Bourbons came to the aid of the American Revolution, which in the not too distant future was itself to fall under the blows of the revolution. Although the revolt of the American colonies did not at all arouse the sympathy of the French court, France came out on their side to strike at her rival England. In making this decision, French absolutism was guided by its interests in international politics.

Documents from the French Foreign Ministry show that the decision to take the side of the United States was not taken immediately and that the French court showed serious hesitation, weighing the possible pros and cons. In a note to the king in early 1777, it was said that it would make sense for France to take advantage of the Anglo-American conflict in order to take revenge for the defeat in the Seven Years' War. But the author of the note warned against a formal declaration of war on England, considering it "completely undesirable from the point of view of our finances." "Whatever our desire to see England defeated," he wrote, "we must not take part in the war directly." Well, what if England suddenly voluntarily wants to make concessions to France and pays well? In this case, you can even agree to neutrality. And then you won't have to endanger the state treasury 38 . In the end, however, other considerations prevailed. In October 1777, American troops won a major victory at Saratoga. As soon as the news of this reached Paris, negotiations for a military alliance were started there. Now caution has given way to haste. Afraid of being late 39 . In February 1778 the treaty was signed. France provided armed assistance to the United States, sent troops across the ocean and contributed to the success of the war of independence. Meanwhile, the very fact of the victorious revolution in America inspired the French revolutionaries to fight the old regime.

Another paradox was that the aid to the United States and the war against England actually brought the French treasury to the brink of disaster. Many European countries were experiencing financial difficulties at that time, but in none of them was the financial crisis as deep as in France. From the time of Louis XIV, the French budget suffered from a chronic deficit, and in 1770 the state treasury was in danger of complete collapse, and only emergency measures saved it from bankruptcy. Now it is again facing serious trials. The entry into the war against England led to a colossal increase in government spending, which sharply worsened the already deplorable state of French finances. And this contributed to the deepening of the economic crisis.

37 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. Vol. 6, p. 115.

38 Note "Thoughts of one Frenchman about the rebels of America". January 1777 Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. I, pp. 76 - 79.

39 Note "Reflections on current events. Military aspect". 10.I.1778. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 3, pp. 12 - 17.

sis, which brought the revolution closer. By providing material support to the American Revolution, French absolutism objectively prepared the ground for a revolution in its own country.

It would be wrong, however, to reduce the attitude of France towards the American Revolution to the policy of the government alone. An equally important role was played by public opinion, the reaction of various social groups to events in America. The behavior of the famous French playwright Beaumarchais, who created the semi-legal "Gortalez e company" and took over the organization of armed assistance to the rebels, the reaction to the arrival and stay in France of B. Franklin and other envoys of the American Republic - all this was fanned by the romance of rebellious moods.

Thus, various and sometimes very contradictory factors determined the position of France, which came out in support of the American revolution. One should not, of course, overestimate the importance of French aid. The American Revolution would have won without her, although the Americans would have had to make much greater sacrifices and the victory would not have been so quick. However, it is necessary to strongly object to the currently widespread attempts to belittle the role of France 40 . Whatever the arguments put forward, it is impossible to disprove the fact that France played an important role in asserting the independence of the United States and the victory of the American Revolution.

The Franco-American relations of those years, to which much attention has recently been paid, 41 played a role in the prehistory of the revolution in France, although they did not determine so much. The study of the relationship between the United States and France during the French Revolution is important and instructive, it is of interest not only in itself, but also because it makes it possible to take a retrospective look at what happened in America, to assess the political views and actions of the "founding fathers", who led the Revolutionary War and then led the American government. In this sense, the Franco-American relations of that time provide invaluable material for the comparative characterization of the two revolutions.

What did the United States do when the revolution broke out in France? At the end of 1792, Ternan, a French chargé d'affaires in the USA, noted that "the mood of the American public ... is everywhere in our favor" 42 . However, this conclusion suffered from excessive optimism. More correct was the assessment of D. Adams, who believed that a third of the population sympathized with the French revolution, a third was indifferent, and a third was hostile 43 . As for the US government, it took a position generally unfriendly to the French Revolution. The paradox of this situation was that America, the country of the victorious revolution, refused to extend a helping hand to France, which at one time came to its aid, and now itself, having entered the revolution, met with more than a cold attitude towards itself across the ocean. When war broke out between France and England, Ternan stated that the news of this did not make a "strong impression" on the Americans. “Their policy,” he wrote, “was always directed towards neutrality, since in America this is the only position capable of providing benefits and avoiding harm.

40 Along with the already noted work of R. B. Morris, this trend is reflected in the book: W. C. Stinchcombe. The American Revolution and the French Alliance. N. Y. 1969.

41 In particular, almost a third of the book is devoted to this topic: R. B. Morris. The American Revolution Reconsidered.

42 Ternan - to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 20.XII.1792. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 36, p. 462.

43 J. R. Alden. The American Revolution. N.Y., 1954, p. 87.

convenience" 44. The prose of American reality was that, absorbed in its own affairs, the young republic was not inclined to spend its forces on other people's affairs. But it was not only a matter of prosaic motives. Palmer explains the negative attitude of the United States towards the French Revolution by "misunderstanding" 45 "Probably, not everything that happened in France was understood overseas. But at the same time, it is indisputable that the majority of American leaders had a negative attitude towards the revolution in France. As early as the end of 1789, the French envoy Mustier noted that among the members of the government there were "many people" who are not very well-disposed toward France.46 As the French Revolution developed, these sentiments intensified. The French Chargé d'Affaires Otto emphasized that, "contrary to the principles of freedom laid down in the United States", "the enemies of our revolution found a way win many influential people over to their side "47. The exception was T. Jeff Pherson, around whom united those who welcomed the revolution in France. Jefferson, according to Otto, "showed the most keen interest in this great revolution." "He often told me," wrote a French diplomat, "that the activities of the National Assembly would serve to renew not only France, but also the United States, whose principles had already begun to be perverted." However, Jefferson and his supporters were in the minority and could not influence the government.

The decisive word in US foreign policy has always belonged to the president. What was the position of D. Washington, who had the decisive word in foreign policy? Conservative by nature and moderate in his views, the former American commander-in-chief disapproved of the overthrow of the government in France. As long as Lafayette, a participant in the American Revolutionary War, his comrade-in-arms and personal friend, took part in the revolution, Washington more or less benevolently watched the developments in France. Lafayette even sent Washington the key to the Bastille as a gift, which was regularly displayed during the president's audience. However, Otto believed that this trophy was exhibited only because the very fact of its sending flattered the vanity of the Americans 49 . "The President and all prominent Americans constantly show the greatest interest in our revolution, and they are imbued with the conviction that the fate of all of Europe depends on it," Otto reported. It was right. But Otto, like other French diplomats in the United States, still overestimated the location of Washington. US leaders were not only interested, but also concerned about the development of events in France. And if D. Washington was sympathetic to the revolution only as long as Lafayette took part in it, this was far from being explained only by his personal sympathies, but also by the fact that a new stage had begun in the French Revolution, which he did not approve of. Lafayette, a representative of the liberal-gentry opposition, remained a monarchist. After the overthrow of the royal power, he, having failed in an attempt to start a counter-revolutionary rebellion, fled from France. News of the overthrow of the monarchy and the execution of

44 Ternan - to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 10.IV.1793. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 36, p. 462.

45 R. Palmer. The Great Inversion, p. 16.

46 Mustier - Montmorand 3.X.1789. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 34, pp. 285 - 286.

47 Otto - Montmorand 23.VII.1791. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 35, p. 375.

49 See L. M. Sears. George Washington and the French Revolution. Detroit. 1960; Otto - Montmorand 12.XII.1790. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats-Unis. Vol. 35, pp. 231 - 232.

roles were met in America not only without enthusiasm, but also with condemnation 50 .

American researchers D. Miller and S. M. Lipset suggested that US leaders, like conservatives in other countries, feared that French agents and official representatives did not organize a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Many researchers agree that anti-French sentiments in the American leadership were fueled by the behavior of the newly appointed French envoy, Genet, who, upon arriving in the USA, addressed the people over the head of the government and met with an enthusiastic reception among the broad masses of the population. Of course, such fears existed, but they were not the only ones that determined the American position.

The US refused to support France. This was in line with their general foreign policy orientation: America did not want to get involved in world politics. But, in addition, there was a struggle in the government for the foreign policy orientation of the country. As a result of various diplomatic vicissitudes, in 1793 the USA concluded an agreement with England 52 . The prehistory of this treaty is directly related to the struggle over the attitude towards the French Revolution. While Secretary of State T. Jefferson, who was in charge of foreign policy, advocated establishing close relations with France, Vice President D. Adams and Secretary of the Treasury A. Hamilton acted in the opposite direction. D. Adams attacked the French Revolution with a series of newspaper articles. And when he was reminded that the French revolutionaries, criticizing the "old order", used his own book containing attacks on the British aristocratic order, D. Adams told Otto literally the following: "I see that I need to go to France again to explain them my book, which they misunderstood" 53 . D. Adams criticized Jefferson and his supporters. As for Hamilton, he began to weave a secret intrigue against them. As the president's right-hand man, Hamilton used all his influence to thwart Jefferson's plans. He was pro-British. Conservative by conviction and in every respect a complete antipode to Jefferson, Hamilton did not stop at nothing in his actions. He entered into an agreement with the British secret service, achieved the resignation of Jefferson and the conclusion of an agreement with England. Many circumstances of this story remained unknown for almost a century and a half. Having discovered new documents in the archives of British intelligence, they were reported in 1964 by the American historian D. Boyd, publisher of the Thomas Jefferson Papers. Boyd's book is called "Number 7" - under this number Hamilton was listed in the reports of the British intelligence officer Beckwith, with whom he had a secret connection 54 .

Every revolution carries a double beginning. She destroys and creates. Both revolutions marked the birth of new bourgeois nations. Instead of provinces fenced off by various barriers and regions

50 Otto - Montmorand 4.VIII.1790. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 35, p. 147; A. Z. Manfred. The Great French Bourgeois Revolution of 1789 - 1794. M. 1956, p. 160.

51 J. C. Miller. Crisis in Freedom. Boston. 1951, p. fourteen; S. M. Lipset. The First New Nation. N. Y. 1967, p. 44; A. De Conde. The Entangling Alliances. N. Y. 1964, p. 197 f.

52 See S. F. Bemis. Jay's Treaty. New Haven. 1962.

53 Otto - Montmorand 13.VI.1790. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 35, p. 115.

54 J. Boyd. Number 7. Alexander Hamilton's Secret Attempts to Control American Foreign Policy. Princeton. 1964,

In France, separate and poorly connected separate colonies in America, two new nations arose. The French nation took shape in the 16th-18th centuries, that is, mainly before the revolution, which played the role of the final chord in this process. In America, it's rather the opposite. The American historian E. Morgan says that "it was not a nation that gave birth to a revolution, but a revolution that gave birth to a nation" 55 . Indeed, there were prerequisites for the formation of an American nation, but only the war for independence turned them into a real possibility. A new nation appeared, but the process of its further formation continued, and it was to take several more decades 56 . The American Revolution had a pronounced national liberation character. She freed the colonies from the oppression of England. The French Revolution broke the fetters that hindered the development of a single national organism. The revolutions in America and France destroyed the obstacles to the further progress of these countries.

By what kind of work a revolution does, its results and character are judged. The French Revolution is called the Great. This name corresponds to the gigantic transformations that she made. "France," wrote F. Engels, "during the great revolution crushed feudalism and founded the pure rule of the bourgeoisie with such classical clarity as no other European country" 57 . The overthrow of absolutism, the elimination of estates and class inequality, the abolition of guild regulation, as well as feudal duties and noble privileges, the liquidation of church property, the introduction of bourgeois-democratic freedoms and suffrage - such is the list of the main changes made by the French Revolution, which cleansed the national soil of the rubbish of feudal vestiges and created the conditions for the rapid development of capitalism.

For centuries, the old order was created. The remnants of the feudal system permeated literally all aspects of life. To use Danton's expression, "courage, courage, and more courage" was needed. Colossal efforts were required to fight internal and external counter-revolution in order to break the old system and clear the ground for a new order. This task was carried out by the French bourgeoisie, relying on the support of the entire people. It met with the desperate resistance of the old classes, and it took the ruthless dictatorship of the Jacobins to break it. The Jacobin dictatorship and the actions of the plebeian masses were the pinnacle of the revolutionary upsurge in France. The American Revolution did not know such phenomena. True, in America, too, a struggle was waged against the "loyalists." A decree was passed to confiscate the property of supporters of the crown, and spontaneous protest resulted in brutal reprisals against those who did not want to support the struggle for independence. But these measures cannot be compared with the Jacobin revolutionary-democratic dictatorship. Whatever persecution the "loyalists" were subjected to, the fact remains that not a single royal governor suffered, and some of the supporters of England even managed to keep their property. However, in America there was no particular need for terror, since the destruction of the old did not require such efforts as in France.

55 E. S. Morgan. The Birth of the Republic. 1763 - 1789. N. Y. 1956, p. 101.

56 See N. N. Bolkhovitinov. Some problems of the genesis of American capitalism (XVII - the first half of the XIX century). "Problems of the Genesis of Capitalism". M. 1970; V. F. Stratanovich. On the question of the primitive accumulation of capital in the English colonies in North America in the 17th - 18th centuries; his own. Industrial development of the North American colonies of England in the 17th - 18th centuries. "Scientific Notes" of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute named after N. K. Krupskaya. Volume CLIX, no. 6; volume. 171, no. 7.

57 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. 21, p. 259.

58 A. Z. Manfred. Decree. cit., pp. 99-104, 282-284; G. Lefebvre. Revolution Franchise dans l "histoire du monde, p. 323.

America did not know such a depth of conflicts, nor such a scope of revolutionary struggle. Class boundaries were fluid, and class contradictions had not yet acquired such sharpness as in Europe. One of the most important reasons for this was the reserve of free land in the West, where, despite the British ban, a mass of colonists constantly rushed. It was a kind of outlet, which in subsequent American history served as a kind of valve that relieved the tension of class conflicts.

Palmer argues that the American Revolution was "a painful conflict from which many suffered." He compares the scale of counter-revolutionary emigration from America (60,000) and from France (129,000), estimating that the number of emigrants from America (24 people per thousand population) was relatively larger than from France (5 people per thousand population). ). Based on these data, an American journal even concluded that the revolution in America was in a certain sense more radical than in France. This statement, of course, cannot be taken seriously.

The Thermidorian reaction came to replace the Jacobin dictatorship in France. The American Revolution did not know such amplitudes. But she also had her own little "thermidor" - the constitution of 1787. Representatives of the French court accredited to the US government commented with great satisfaction on this event, believing that it was "infinitely favorable to the interests of the kingdom (that is, France. - A. F.)". According to Mustier's envoy, the significance of the new constitution was so great that he called it the "second revolution." 60 The new legal order ignored the interests of the “lower classes.” Contrary to the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed the right of everyone “to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, "the constitution of 1787 passed over in silence the question of elementary civil liberties. Only a few years later, under the pressure of mass demonstrations and under the influence of the revolution that had begun in France, it was supplemented by the Bill of Rights, which proclaimed freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion , the right to inviolability of the person, home, etc. The Constitution of 1787 was a step backwards, it is against contradicted the practice of the revolutionary years, when most political decisions were previously widely discussed. The constitutional convention met behind closed doors, and the speeches of its participants were not subject to publicity. At one time C. Beard, analyzing the composition of the convention, showed that it consisted entirely of representatives of the "upper class". Of the 56 delegates, 50 were land and other owners. They were personally interested in the organization of a new system of government and derived economic benefits from it; as for the poor masses, they were excluded from participating in the preparation of the constitution.

For several decades, the evaluation of the constitution has been the subject of fierce battles between historians. These debates have taken center stage in discussions about the nature of the American Revolution and its role and place in world history. Now in the American bourgeois

59 R. Palmer. The Age of the Democratic Revolution. Vol. I, p. 188; "Newsweeb, January 13, 1969.

60 Otto - Montmorand 20.X.1787, 25.XII.1789, 13.III.1790; Mustier - Montmorand 2.II.1788, 25.V.1789, 5.VI.1789. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol 32, pp. 375 - 380; vol. 33, p. 238; vol. 34, pp. 112, 158, 353; vol. 35, p. 66.

61 Ch. Beard. An Economic Interpretation of the Consitution of the United States N. Y. 1913, pp. 324, 149, 151.

historiography is dominated by the “neoconservative” trend, whose supporters seek to prove that, in essence, there was no revolution in America at all. In fact, it represents a version of the "exclusivity" theory of American capitalism. Advocates of this trend deny the significance of Beard's conclusions 62 . They argue that, unlike Europe, American history developed under the sign of "continuity" and "accord", never knew the class and social contradictions inherent in the Old World, and therefore it did not have to experience social "collisions". Smoothing out class conflicts during the era of the American Revolution, "neoconservatives" claim that it had no "social goals" at all. And if this is the case, they conclude, then there could be no "Thermidor" 63 .

Describing the revolutions of the 18th century, K. Marx noted that they developed along an ascending line 64 . In France, this became possible as a result of the increasingly active participation of the "grassroots" in the political struggle. The American Revolution also advanced through the efforts of the people. Therefore, the remark of K. Marx can equally be attributed to the American Revolution. It developed within the framework of the liberation war for independence. However, the revolution did not stop with the end of the war against England. The post-war period (until the adoption of the constitution of 1787) was marked by the aggravation of class conflicts and attempts to deepen the revolution. This found expression in the strengthening of the social protest of the "lower classes", the leveling demands of the masses and armed uprisings, the most significant of which was the uprising of D. Shays. One of the main purposes of the constitution was to put an end to these phenomena. Contrary to the assertion of the "neo-conservatives", the adoption of the constitution was due to class conflict and was in the interests of the propertied classes. In this sense, she was a "thermidor". As M. Jensen rightly noted, the members of the constitutional convention unanimously saw the "basic evil" in democracy, and their goal was to stop the development of the democratic movement 65 .

Speaking about the importance of studying the events connected with the adoption of the constitution of 1787, the French historian A. Kaspi notes that the cardinal question is whether the United States remained true to the spirit of 76. He himself answers this question in the affirmative, because those who advocated the adoption of the constitution represented, in his words, the "new generation" who were aware of their responsibility to the future of America, and the opponents of the constitution were "supporters of the society of the past." The constitution, according to Kaspi, corresponded to the Americans' ideas about democracy "based on property and the protection of freedoms" and "absolutely did not contradict the spirit of 1976" 66 . However, arguing in this way, the French researcher practically joins the assertions of the "neo-conservatives" that the slogan of the American Revolution was "freedom and property" and not "freedom and democracy" 67 . Meanwhile, it was the struggle for democracy that was one of the most important components of the war for independence. As W. Z. Foster noted, the American Revolution "was a bourgeois revolution in which the democratic element was very strong." This position-

62 See N. N. Bolkhovitinov. Contemporary American Historiography: New Trends and Problems. "New and recent history", 1969, N 6, pp. 117 - 119; his own. The US War for Independence and Modern American Historiography.

63 R. Brown. Reinterpretation of the Formation of the American Constitution. Boston. 1963, pp. 21, 40.

64 See K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. Vol. 8, p. 122.

65 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution, pp. 5 - 6.

66 A. Kaspi. La naissance des Etats Unu. P. 1972, pp. 23, 24, 26.

67 See E. S. Morgan. The American Revolution. William and Mary Quarterly. 1957, January, pp. 3 - 15.

68 W. Z. Foster. Essays on the political history of America. M. 1953, p. 117.

This idea is convincingly disclosed in the works of M. Jensen, who has shown on a vast amount of factual material the role and place of the democratic movement in the revolution 69 . By belittling the significance of this movement as the leading force of the revolution and portraying political development The United States from the Declaration of Independence to the adoption of the constitution as a kind of harmonious process, Caspi pours water on the mill of those who deny the existence of classes and class contradictions in American society. Whether he wants it or not, he supports the theory of "continuity" and "consent," whose supporters portray the matter as if the constitution was adopted not in the interests of the ruling classes, but of the whole people. Meanwhile, the purpose of the constitution was just the opposite. It was called upon to consolidate the power of the bourgeoisie and the plantation owners, to get rid of the "horrors of uncontrolled democracy", "to find a kind of refuge from democracy" 70 .

The representative of the "new left" in modern US historiography, S. Lind, states that the American Revolution did not fulfill the most important socio-economic transformations. In this sense, "America," he said, "had no bourgeois revolution comparable to the French Revolution." Lind correctly notes that the cardinal issue of the revolution was the abolition of slavery. But in order to accomplish this task, another revolution was required 71 . When drafting the Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson included in it a clause on the abolition of slavery. Under pressure from representatives of the southern colonies, this clause was excluded. However, the provision that every American has the right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" extended to all without exception. Therefore, subsequently, the leaders of the abolitionists, who advocated the abolition of the system of slavery, referred to the Declaration of Independence. Meanwhile, the US constitution legalized the institution of slavery, fixing it in a special resolution. This was its fundamental difference from the Declaration of Independence.

Many researchers note that, unlike America, in France, as a result of the revolution, a decree was adopted that abolished slavery in the French colonial possessions. There is no doubt that for France the solution of this issue was easier and not so painful. Suffice it to say that the black population of the United States was 460,000 in 1770 and 750,000 in 1790. Of these, 90% lived in the South and 9/10 were slaves. Therefore, the abolition of slavery was associated with transformations of colossal proportions. Nevertheless, the elimination of slavery was objectively the most important task of the bourgeois revolution, and if this did not happen in the United States, then the reason for this was the counter-revolutionary conspiracy of the participants in the constitutional convention. Although the northern bourgeoisie, which played a leading role in the revolution, was opposed to the slave system, it was forced for political reasons to compromise with the southern planters. This deal received strong support from the propertied, rich sections of the population, and it is significant that they were joined by those who managed to

69 M. Jensen. Democracy and the American Revolution. "Huntington Library Quarterly", 1957, August, pp. 321 - 341; ejusd. The New Nation. N. Y. 1967; ejusd. The Founding of a Nation. N. Y. 1968.

70 M. Jensen. The New Nation, p. 426.

71 S. Lynd. Beyond Beard. "Towards a New Past". new york. 1969, pp. 50 - 51. "New Left" (D. Lemish, S. Lind, A. Young) - representatives of the modern critical trend in US bourgeois historiography. In assessing the American Revolution, their criticism echoes many of the positions of "progressives" and also of Marxist historians (W. Foster, G. Apteker, G. Morays). The views of the "new left" have attracted wide attention. Although many of their propositions had been fruitfully and comprehensively worked out by American Marxists a decade and a half or two decades earlier, the bourgeois historiography of the United States deliberately hushed up these achievements of Marxist science.

to escape repression and the counter-revolutionaries-loyalists who survived after the war of independence 72 . The reactionary political bloc thus formed sought to create a strong central government in order to erect a barrier to the development of the democratic movement.

Skeptical of contemporary New Left historiography that views the American Revolution in the light of the class struggle, Kaspi asks: "Are they looking to the history of the revolution for answers to the questions Americans face today?" 73 . However, this position is fully justified. First, there is nothing unnatural in trying to find the roots of modernity in the events of the past. Secondly, if the legitimacy of the position of the "new left" is questioned, then why are the statements of the "neoconservatives" who pragmatically evaluate history depending on the political tasks of today, unconditionally accepted? It's no secret that representatives of this trend profess frankly apologetic views. Even such an "establishment" organ as the "Newsweek" magazine had to admit that for a long time the US past was presented in an idealized light, as a smooth, conflict-free process. "Until recently," he noted in 1969, "the history of America has been written as a history of achievement. From the founding of the colonies to the American Revolution ... American historians have depicted the nation's tumultuous past in the light of resolute optimism as an uninterrupted triumph of freedom." In recent years, even representatives of the orthodox trend in US bourgeois historiography have begun to question the legitimacy of such assessments. Criticizing the concept of "consent" and "continuity", the well-known American historian D. Dowd noted that "the scientific approach requires that no social institution be accepted as given forever, nothing should remain outside the field of criticism" 75 . Apparently, Kaspi does not share this approach. He denies the social class nature of the conflicts of the American Revolution, following the apologetic concept of "neoconservatives".

Undoubtedly, the class contradictions in France were incomparably more acute than in America. However, this fact does not detract from the significance of class conflicts and contradictions in the American Revolution. Whatever the representatives of the apologetic school may now say, American society consisted of different property strata, the position of which was not the same in all respects. The purpose of the 1787 constitution was to secure rights and power in the United States to a wealthy minority in defiance of the democratic majority. The framers of the constitution spoke about this directly. “Those who own property and those who do not have it have always represented different interests in society,” wrote Madison. “The same can be said about creditors and debtors. groups inevitably manifest themselves in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, guided in their actions by different feelings and views. The regulation of these different and conflicting interests is the main task of modern legislation ... "76.

Of decisive importance was the fact that representatives of the propertied classes took upon themselves the implementation of this mission, who arrogated to themselves the right to develop new legislation, regulating the interests of various

72 R. Morris. The Emerging Nations and the American Revolution. N. Y. 1970, p. 9.

73 A. Kaspi. Op. cit., p. 26.

74 "Newsweek", January 13, 1969.

75 See "The State of American History". Ed. by H. Bass. Chicago. 1970, p. 265 (cited in: New and Contemporary History, 1972, No. 4, p. 188).

76 Op. by: M. Jensen. The New Nation, p. 427.

strata of the population in a completely different manner than during the years of the war for independence. Compared to wartime in politics ruling class there have been noticeable changes. This circumstance was noted by the French charge d'affaires Otto. Describing the policy of the war years, he wrote that "in those terrible times it was necessary to agree that all power should come only from the people, that everything should be subordinated to its supreme will, and that officials are nothing more than his servants." However, after the War of Independence ended, "a class of people known as gentlemen" began, in the words of Otto, "to claim a dominion with which the people do not want to accept." "... Almost all of them," wrote the French diplomat, "are afraid of the people's desire to deprive them of their property, besides, they are creditors and therefore are interested in strengthening the government and ensuring the implementation of laws" 77 .

Thus, the adoption of the constitution of 1787 was dictated by the interests of asserting the power of the big bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy. If we talk about its general assessment as a political document, then one cannot but admit that for that time it was an advanced constitution, especially after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which should also be considered as a definite result of the class struggle. It was because of the absence of a Bill of Rights that the constitution met with massive opposition. Representing the interests of the poor, opponents of the constitution strongly insisted on the adoption of amendments to it and criticized it for its lack of guarantees of elementary political freedoms. The creators of the constitution were, according to the testimony of the French envoy Mustier, "absolutely not inclined to engage in amendments until the government is fully organized." However, in the end they were forced to do so. Finding that "their opponents had prepared a long list of additions capable of weakening or even subverting the whole new system, they decided to propose themselves what could not harm it, and to control the debate in order to make it more favorable for themselves." Thus, the proponents of the constitution achieved a double effect. On the one hand, they beat the trump card out of the hands of the opposition, and on the other hand, they formulated additions to the constitution in a form acceptable to them. "These amendments," wrote Moustier, "were drafted by the ruling party in such a manner as not to cause any damage to the spirit of the constitution and to allay excessive anxiety..." 78 . At the same time, the adoption of the Bill of Rights was a serious success for the democratic forces.

In the USA, the ruling classes were forced to make concessions that the French bourgeoisie did not make. Neither during the Napoleonic era, nor even more so during the Restoration period, France received such democratic freedoms. This was due to the difference in the conditions in which both revolutions took place. The French Revolution made incomparably greater efforts to eliminate the old order, but brought more limited freedom to the people. This applies not only to political reforms, but also to such an important problem as the agrarian one. The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, but the solution of the agrarian problem in America took a more democratic path. In France, the process of democratization of land relations turned out to be much more difficult.

77 Otto - Vergennus 10.XI.1786. "Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution. 1764 - 1788". Ed. by S. E. Morison. Oxford. 1953, pp. 233 - 234.

78 Mustier - Montmorand 12.IX.1789. Archives. Correspondence policy. Etats Unis. Vol. 34, p. 256.

The French Revolution destroyed the feudal structure of landed property and the remnants of non-economic coercion. These historic gains were supported by the radical measures of the Jacobin dictatorship. However, with the onset of the Thermidorian reaction, movement began in the opposite direction. The small landowners did not succeed in completely freeing themselves from all sorts of "rents". Some of the duties abolished by the Jacobins were reinstated. Large landed property was preserved, although it received a different legal form. At the same time, the peasant masses experienced acute land shortages. “Therefore, large landed property, combined with peasant land need and poverty,” writes A. V. Ado, “became a source of enslaving rent, various forms of sharecropping, usurious intermediary rent, which were never affected by the revolution, despite the bitter complaints of the peasants. Ultimately, the French Revolution proved unable to radically solve the agrarian problem without providing the conditions for the farming path of development of capitalism in agriculture.

The solution of the agrarian question in the USA - this most important problem for the American revolution - did not encounter such difficulties. Of course, the system of slavery hindered the development of the capitalist way of life in agriculture, but feudal institutions, which, as already noted, were largely symbolic in nature, were forever abolished. Many large landed estates were divided and sold in smaller parts. Although a significant proportion of the expropriated land was seized by land speculators, some of it passed into the hands of small and medium-sized owners. Finally, the solution of the question of western lands was of exceptional importance. They were turned into a nationalized public fund and put on free sale. Initially, the terms of the sale were such that it was beneficial only to large owners. Only after the Civil War of 1861-1865. and the adoption of the Homestead Act, the land began to be distributed in small plots. However, the very act of nationalizing the western lands, which opened them up to the free investment of capital, democratized agrarian relations. Private ownership of land arose there on a new capitalist basis, and this, as V. I. Lenin pointed out, was the most important condition for the advanced farming path of development of capitalism in agriculture 80 . Ultimately, the solution of the agrarian problem was also important for industrial capitalism, since it "predetermined the creation in the near future of an internal market for the developing industry of cities" 81 .

The American Revolution preceded the French Revolution, influencing the development of revolutionary events in France. The example of a victorious uprising inspired the French revolutionaries and strengthened their faith in the success of the revolution. K. Marx noted that the American War of Independence gave "the first impetus to the European revolution of the 18th century" and "sounded the alarm bell for the European bourgeoisie" 82 . However, unwarranted attempts are sometimes made to attribute a role to the American Revolution that it did not play. For example, MacDonald attributed the peasant uprisings in France to the influence of French soldiers who fought in America. This assertion was refuted by Godchaux 83 . Program Documents of the American Revolution

79 A. V. Ado. Decree. cit., pp. 394 - 414.

80 See V. I. Lenin. PSS. T. 17, p. 129.

81 G. P. Kuropyatnik. On the path of development of capitalism in US agriculture in the pre-monopoly era. "New and Contemporary History", 1958, N 4, p. 41.

82 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. 16, p. 17; v. 23, p. 9.

83 F. McDonald. The Relation of the French Peasant Veterans of the American Revolution to the Fall of Feudalism in France. 1789 - 1792. "Agricultural History", 1951.

tions, the Declaration of Independence, and the constitutions of the individual states, especially that of Pennsylvania, of course, influenced the French Declaration of the Rights of the Citizen in Man, and also the constitutions of 1791 and 1793. But we should not forget that the creators of the American and French revolutionary declarations, as well as constitutions, used the same source - the ideas of English bourgeois philosophers and French enlighteners.

The interpretation of the American Revolution and its comparison with that of France is often driven by political considerations. This is also reflected in the disputes that are being waged around the question of which of the revolutions played a greater role and had a stronger influence on the subsequent development of the world. Even those who attack "social revolutions" as a matter of principle insist strongly on the merits of the American Revolution. K. Boulding remarked on this: “We feel a certain obligation to love the resolution in principle, since we ourselves were born as a result of the revolution. On the other hand, we are afraid and treat revolutions with suspicion ... Our attitude towards the revolution consists of a mixed feeling love and hate. On the one hand, we look with tenderness at our first steps, and on the other, there is a subconscious fear of breaking in us" 84 .

It is significant that "neo-conservatives", while questioning or even denying the social nature of the war for independence, when it comes to comparing the American revolution with other revolutions, insist on its priority. Representatives of the apologetic school do not notice, or deliberately turn a blind eye to the fact that they fall into an insoluble contradiction. For, on the one hand, when substantiating the thesis about the "conflict-free" nature of the development of the United States, they insist on the "exclusivity" of the American revolution, and on the other hand, wanting to portray it as a standard of democratic development and a model for developing countries, they prove its "universalism". Obviously, "exclusivity" and "universalism" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Meanwhile, in the literature of recent years, more and more persistent attempts have been made to link the consideration of the American Revolution and its comparative characteristics to the political tasks of today. "Did the American Revolution set a precedent in the history of the Western world, is the United States called upon to fulfill a historic mission, and does it set a model for all by its example?" The French historian Kaspi concludes his work with this question. The American historian R. Morris speaks more decisively on this matter. Emphasizing the advantages of the American revolution over the French, Morris explicitly states that the newly independent countries of the colonial world should follow the example of the United States. His latest work, The Developing Nations and the American Revolution, is entirely devoted to this topic. Morris is also trying to support his recommendations by comparing the revolution in the USA with the socialist revolutions, and above all with the Great October Socialist Revolution. He states that "mankind must make a choice between the July Revolution of '76 in America or the October Revolution of '17 in Russia." For Morris, this issue is resolved unequivocally - in favor of the American

October, pp. 151 - 161; J. Godechot. Les combattants de la guerre d "Independance des Etats-Unis et les troubles agraires en France de 1789 a 1792." Annales Historiques de la Revolution Francaise ", 1956, pp. 292 - 294.

84 K. E. Boulding. The United States and Revolution. Santa Barbara. 1961, p. 4 (quoted in "Causes", p. 14).

85 A. Kaspi. Op. cit., p. 26.

Russian revolution. But for the world revolutionary movement, as the American historian is forced to admit, it is by no means solved in this way.

The well-known sociologist H. Arendt in his book "On Revolutions" also assigns a central place to this issue. The author does not hide the fact that she is interested in the problem of the priority of the American revolution from the point of view of the prestige of the United States in the international arena. She speaks of the Atlantic Community as "the last bastion of Western civilization" and bitterly regrets that the American Revolution has not yet received due recognition. “In recent times, when revolution has become one of the most widespread phenomena of all countries and continents,” she writes, “the refusal to include the American revolution in the revolutionary tradition has hit a boomerang on US foreign policy ... Even the revolutions on the American continent speak and act as if they have learned by heart the experience of revolutions in France, Russia, China, and have never heard anything like it about such a thing as a revolution in America. Another American historian, D. Lacey, who emphasizes its "universalism" in his book "The Significance of the American Revolution", also regrets that the 19th and 20th centuries. turned out to be "disappointing" in finding that Americanism could not be extended to the rest of the world 88 .

Of course, there is no reason to exclude the American Revolution from the world revolutionary tradition. In 1918 V. I. Lenin wrote in his "Letter to the American Workers" that the struggle for independence in America showed at that time "a model of revolutionary war." He noted that the revolt of the American colonies against England was "one of those great, truly liberating, truly revolutionary wars, of which there were so few among the vast mass of predatory wars" 89 . However, the contribution of the French Revolution and its services to history were immeasurably more significant. “For her class, for which she worked, for the bourgeoisie,” Lenin said, “she did so much that the entire 19th century, that century that gave civilization and culture to all mankind, passed under the sign of the French Revolution. It is in all parts of the world he only did what he carried out, carried out in parts, completed what the great French revolutionaries of the bourgeoisie had created ... " 90 . This explains the fact that the experience of the revolutionary struggle in France had a strong influence on the subsequent development of the world revolutionary movement.

. Google. Yandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citation):

A. A. Date of update: 01/17/2017. URL: https://website/m/articles/view/AMERICAN-AND-FRENCH-REVOLUTION-XVIII-CENTURY (Accessed: 02/24/2019).

Author(s) of the publication - A. A. FURSENKO:

A. A. FURSENKO → other works, search: .

War for independence, which was raging at that time, united young and old people who took up arms against the British redcoats to repulse the colonists. The devotion to the ideals of freedom of these rough warriors is shown in countless paintings and illustrations, known from history to students all over the world. They became a desperate defense of the country, which, by and large, has not really formed yet.

But the event is not so distant in time as it often seems.

Indeed, some veteran survivors of the American Revolution lived happily into the 1980s, 1990s, and even into the early part of the next century, living long enough to be part of the era in which photography originated.

The first daguerreotypes and then photography on glass became popular in the 1840s and 1850s. By 1853, 70 years after the great and incredible American victory over the British, over 3,000,000 daguerreotypes had been produced in the United States.

By the time these photographic media were developed, the generation of people who survived the revolution continued to dwindle. So the desire to document these rapidly disappearing men was driven by a connection to history.

On the left you see a note from Reverend Smith attached to his daguerreotype: "October 20, 1854, Lucy R. Fullen, from her grandfather J. Smith, who was born March 10, 1761." (Courtesy of Joseph Bauman).

« Most likely, soon such an opportunity will disappear, so it would be unforgivable not to do this now.", - writes the Reverend E. B. Hillard, author of The Last Men of the Revolution. Published in 1864, the 64-page book was the only chronicle of its kind. It immortalizes the veterans of the revolution in photographs along with the stories of the heroes about the struggle for independence.

In July 1864, Hillard, accompanied by two brother photographers, N. A. and R. A. Moore, traveled through New England and New York State to interview and photograph all the surviving veterans. There were six in total. The photographs, taken as negatives on glass, were then printed on paper and inserted into the book, along with color lithographs depicting veterans' homes.

In 1976, Popular Photography honored the images of "The Last Men of the Revolution" in their issue of the United States Bicentennial. Among the readers was a journalist from Utah named Joe Bauman(Joe Bauman). He was already an avid collector of vintage photographs when he stumbled upon the publication.

« I realized that if these guys were alive in 1860 at the time when the photo on glass appeared, then, of course, there were many veterans who lived in the era of daguerreotype Bauman told TIME.

Using the skills honed in a career in investigative journalism, Bauman began to look for other portraits of revolutionary veterans. Given the scope of the war, in which almost everyone between the ages of 15 and 45 took an active part in one form or another, Bauman could cast wide nets. He needed daguerreotypes of men around the age of 80 or 90.

Once he got hold of daguerreotypes that met all the requirements. Then Bauman used the markings on the images to find the relevant pension, tax and other documents. He wanted to track down the people who had taken part in the revolution, if there were any. Among other images, Bauman received an image of an elderly gentleman with a note that the picture was addressed to his granddaughter. Signatory J. Smith indicated the date of the photo as October 20, 1854, and his birthday as March 10, 1761.

Bauman headed to the Salt Lake City Genealogy Library to dig through the census of all the J. Smiths who were still living in 1854. Judging by the age, such a person could take part in the revolution. After collecting a list of candidates, he began to search through the pension documents until he came across the one who signed J. Smith, just like on the back of the daguerreotype. When he checked the date of birth, he saw what he expected - March 10, 1761. Everything matched.

Thus began the process of historical digging, which was repeated for each of the collected images.

The collection, which now includes eight daguerreotypes, took three decades of searching. It is considered the largest known collection of daguerreotypes of war veterans to date.

A few years ago, Bauman published images along with stories of men in the e-book "Don" t Tread on Me: Photographs and Life Stories of American Revolutionaries. "People continue to wonder at the existence of these amazing images. No one suspected that such portraits could still be seen.

« It gives you a kind of direct contact with a person who lived a very long time ago and faced such almost legendary days. Bauman said.

Suddenly, an important part of America's past, which had entered our collective memory almost exclusively from paintings and drawings, was brought to a brilliant photographic reality in real life.

« Daguerreotype- a unique image. This is not a print or reproduction of any kind. Bauman explains. " When you set up your camera to create a daguerreotype and you have in front of you, for example, one of these old men who actually identified and knew and spoke to the leaders of the revolution... the light coming from the sun reflects off his face and, passing through camera, lays down on the plate».

The refracted and photographic light that shone on the men who witnessed the birth of the United States still shines. Through these signs that come from another world, our common history becomes a little more accessible to modern society.

« When we look at faces, then we learn the story of our life. She [history] will come to life before us again and again, and we will witness her great deeds", writes Hillard.

Elizabeth D. Herman is a freelance photographer and researcher. Currently resides in New York.

Peter Mackintosh, daguerreotype.

Peter McIntosh was a 16-year-old blacksmith's apprentice in Boston. He was working in the shop of his owner, Richard Gridley, when, on the night of December 16, 1773, a group of young men broke into the shop. The intruders grabbed ashes from the hearth and smeared their faces with it. They were among those who worked at Griffin's Wharf and took part in the Boston Tea Party protest that started the revolution. Mackintosh later served in the artillery as a Continental craftsman attached to the army who shod horses and repaired cannons, as well as one mortar, which General George Washington oversaw personally repairing.

In the last years of his life, McIntosh and his lawyers sued for the retirement benefits he deserved. The government awarded his family only after the veteran's death. He died on November 23, 1846 at the age of 89.

Simeon Hicks, daguerreotype.

Simeon Hicks was a militiaman from Rehoboth, Massachusetts. He trained in drill every Saturday in preparation for war. When Hicks heard the alarm the day after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, he immediately joined thousands of other revolutionaries in New England in blockading the enemy garrison in Boston. He volunteered for service several times and participated in the Battle of Bennington on August 16, 1777.

After the war, Hicks lived in Sunderland, Vermont. He became a celebrity as he was the last survivor of the Battle of Bennington.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

Jonathan Smith, daguerreotype.

Jonathan Smith fought at the Battle of Long Island on August 29, 1778. His unit was the first brigade to reach Long Island. It was written off in December after a heavy snow storm. After the war, he became a Baptist minister.
Smith was married three times and had eleven children. The first two wives died, and for some reason he left his third wife in Rhode Island, lived with two children in Massachusetts. On October 20, 1854, this daguerreotype was made to leave to his granddaughter. He died on January 3, 1855.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

George Fishley, daguerreotype.

George Fishley was a soldier in the Continental Army. When the British troops evacuated from Philadelphia and retreated to New York, his unit participated in the Battle of Monmouth. Later, he took part in the genocide, attacking the Indians, who were on the side of the British, and marched led by General John Sullivan through the "Indian country", New York and Pennsylvania. After the Battle of Chemung on August 28, 1779, the Americans devastated forty Indian cities and burned all their cultural heritage.

Later, Fishley went on a private vessel with a license to mine enemy ships, as a result of which he was captured by the British. Fishley was a famous character after the war in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where he lived. He was known as "the last of our cocked hats". Continental soldiers wore tall, wide, Napoleonic headdresses with a cockade. He also wore a hat in parades, which, as his obituary said, was "almost the same age as himself." Fishli in a hat and on a daguerreotype.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

James W. Head, daguerreotype.

James W. Head is a teenager from Boston who joined the Continental Navy at the age of 13. He served as a midshipman on the frigate "Queen of France". When Charleston and South Carolina came under fire, five frigates, including the "Queen of France" and several merchant ships, were sunk in the channel to stop the royal troops from approaching the city from one of the strategic directions. Head and other sailors fought as gunners in the fortress and were captured when the Americans surrendered. It was the largest and perhaps the most disastrous surrender of the Patriots.

Captured Head was released in Providence, Rhode Island, and he went home. His brother wrote that when James returned he was deaf in one ear and had hearing loss in the other ear due to a concussion from the guns. Settling in the outlying region of Massachusetts that later became Maine, he was elected a delegate to the Massachusetts convention in Boston upon the ratification of the Constitution. When he died, he was the richest man in Warren, Maine, and completely deaf due to an injury sustained during the war.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

Reverend Levi Hayes, daguerreotype.

The Reverend Levi Hayes was a bugler in the Connecticut Regiment who raced to West Point to defend it from the oncoming enemy. He was also involved in a skirmish with the enemy "Cow Boys" on the border of an area called no man's land (most of Westchester County, New York and the southwestern corner of Connecticut). In the early years of the nineteenth century, he helped to organize a religiously oriented organization that headed for the desert land, that is, the West. Settling in Granville, Ohio, he became the village treasurer and deacon of the church.

On his daguerreotype, Levi Hayes is holding a large book, most likely a Bible.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

Daniel Spencer, daguerreotype.

Daniel Spencer served in the reserve troops sent on a secret mission to capture Benedict Arnold after he defected to the British. The maneuver failed when Arnold moved his headquarters. A member of Sheldon's elite dragoon regiment, Spencer was involved in several skirmishes. He sat up all night courting his commanding officer, Captain George Harlbut, who was shot dead in a fight during which the British took over a supply ship. Spencer's account of the officer's death differed markedly from General Washington's account.

Daniel Spencer reported that the officer's wounds almost healed, but he picked up the disease from a prostitute, and this sore killed him. Washington said he died from his wounds. Spencer's pension payments were canceled shortly after they were granted, and for many years he and his family lived in extreme poverty. In the end, his pension was restored, and he was the guest of honor at a celebration in New York on July 4, 1853.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

Dr. Eneas Munson, daguerreotype.

As a boy, Dr. Aeneas Munson knew Nathan Hale, a heroic spy who was executed and said he was sorry he only had one life to give for his country. As a teenager, Munson treated the wounded from his hometown, New Haven, Connecticut, following the British invasion. He was appointed assistant surgeon before graduating from Yale, when he was 16 years old. Munson removed bullets from soldiers during combat. In 1781, he was among General Washington's troops at the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, which led to the surrender of General John Burgoyne and the American victory in the revolution. During the fighting at Yorktown, he was an eyewitness to the actions of General Washington, General Knox and Colonel Alexander Hamilton.

Dr. Aeneas Munson left medicine after the war and became a wealthy businessman: trading and whaling ships, underwriting and further deepening into real estate and banking. But throughout his life, as the doctor's family said, he loved to remember the exciting war days when he was a teenage officer.

(Courtesy of Joseph Bauman)

American Revolution

American Revolution- political events in the British colonies of North America in 1775-1783, ending in the formation of the United States. They were caused by the reluctance of the colonies to submit to the interests of the mother country. The concept of "American Revolution" is not identical to the concept of "US War of Independence" - the war is part and final stage of the revolution.

Prerequisites

The Americans made a successful raid in May 1775, taking by surprise two forts near the Canadian border and many artillery pieces. Then they failed: a futile winter siege of Quebec put an end to hopes of a quick victory. Throughout the war, Canada remained British and served as a base for their military operations. At the same time, the British fortified Boston and, when the rebels began to occupy the heights on the outskirts of the city, under the command of General William Howe, they launched a counterattack. They chose the initially erroneous tactics of advancing up the slope and came under heavy fire from the defenders. The American positions were still crushed, but the victory at Bunkers Hill cost Howe half of his army of over 2,000 men and gave the colonists confidence that the British could be defeated.

Without waiting for the rebels to bring the guns captured in the forts to the city, the British left Boston in March 1776. Their attempts to conclude a peace treaty came to nothing. In America, there was a general desire to break completely with the mother country, and the pamphlet "Common Sense" written by the English-born radical Tom Payne strengthened the resolve of the supporters of independence.

US Independence

In July 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of secession and passed the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration condemned the tyranny of George III and proclaimed the right of all people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The 13 former colonies became known as the United States of America.

After an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Charleston (South Carolina), the British transferred their forces to the north, and from July 1776, William Howe won a series of victories: he captured New York and delivered several tangible blows to the troops of Washington, who had to retreat across the Delaware River. Washington had no special talent as a general and his men were no match for regular English forces, but this strong man never gave up, and the British, who were fighting in foreign territory, began to have problems with supplies and replenishment. Washington boosted the morale of his troops by crossing the Delaware River again and catching the enemy garrison by surprise on Christmas night in 1776, nearly a thousand strong. However, the following year, success was again on the side of General Howe, who captured Philadelphia. Washington's army was thinned out after that frosty winter.

The British were let down by hopelessly poor planning. While Howe's corps marched on Philadelphia, another general, John Burgoyne, hoping to link up with him north of New York, led his army from Canada towards the city of Albany through difficult terrain, falling into rebel ambush. As a result, the British were surrounded by superior enemy forces and laid down their arms near Saratoga. Inspired by the success of the rebels, the French entered the war on the side of America. The Spanish and Dutch soon followed suit. The British, who had lost command of the sea, had to fight on several fronts. George III was already ready to make concessions, but the Americans needed only independence.

New strategy

Whatever it was, Britain continued the war. Her troops left Philadelphia, but held New York, fighting was fought on the northern front with varying success. In 1778 the British switched to new strategy, aiming to capture the southern lands with their plantations of tobacco, rice and indigo. At first, everything went well: the British occupied Georgia, defeated the American and French units trying to capture Savannah, surrounded and forced the surrender of a large enemy formation near Charleston, and defeated General Gates - the winner in the battle of Saratoga - near Camden (South Carolina). Then the British commander Lord Cornwallis decided to capture North Carolina - and made a fatal mistake. The Americans under the command of Nathaniel Green retreated, exhausting the enemy along the way.

The British again retreated to the lands of Virginia, their headquarters took refuge in Yorktown, on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. The Americans, who, moreover, did not act in a very coordinated manner with the Allies, this time gathered large forces around the British, blocking them from the sea with French ships, and directed a flurry of artillery fire at them. Soon everything was completed.

Parisian world

The British surrendered on October 19, 1781. In fact, the American War of Independence has come to an end. British forces remained in New York for another two years, but the fighting was against the French and outside the States. In September 1783, the Peace of Paris was signed, recognizing the independence of the United States of America.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "American Revolution" is in other dictionaries:

- (American Revolution) The War of Independence, as a result of which the colonists of North America freed themselves from the rule of the British Empire and founded the United States. Despite the political upheavals of the 17th century, by the middle of the next century ... Political science. Dictionary.

American Revolution- (American Revolution), see the Revolutionary War in North America... The World History

American Revolutionary War Clockwise from top to bottom: Battle of Bunker Hill, Death of Montgomery at Quebec, Battle of Cowpens, Battle of Moonlight Date 1775–1783 ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Sons of Liberty (meanings). The Sons of Liberty was a revolutionary American organization that fought for the self-determination of the North American colonies. Founded in 1765 ... ... Wikipedia

American Civil War Clockwise from top right: Confederate prisoners at Gettysburg; Battle of Fort Hindman, Arkansas; Rosecrans on the Stones River, Tennessee Date April 12, 1861 - April 9 ... Wikipedia

Story. General history. Grade 10. Basic and advanced levels Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 16. Revolutions of the XVIII century

England and its North American colonies in the 18th century. In the economy of European countries in the XVIII century. capitalism began to take over. At the manufactories owned by private entrepreneurs or the state, hired workers worked. The most favorable legal and political conditions for the development of capitalist industry were created in England. After the 17th century revolution its clear economic dominance was outlined.

In the political system of England in the XVIII century. the features of the rule of law were manifested to the greatest extent. As a result glorious revolution the power of the monarch was significantly limited by parliament, whose role increased. The parliamentary monarchy that arose in Great Britain (since 1707, after the unification of England with Scotland, this country is officially called), the parliamentary monarchy delighted Montesquieu and Voltaire. However, only 5% of the male population of England had the right to elect deputies to parliament.

By the 18th century England became a powerful colonial power, owning land in Asia, the Caribbean and North America. At the beginning of the XVII century. along the Atlantic coast of North America, 13 migrant colonies arose. Their population was formed mainly due to immigrants who left Britain due to religious persecution. On American soil, they became farmers, hunters, fishermen. Power in the South belonged to the landed aristocracy. The main labor force on the plantations of the southern colonies were black slaves, exported by slave traders from Africa.

Home of European settlers in North America. Picture. 19th century

The economy of the colonies developed successfully: American furs were valued in Europe; heavy smokers could not imagine their lives without tobacco grown in Virginia. The North American colonies were closely connected with England: the inhabitants continued to consider themselves subjects of the British crown, separated from their homeland by the ocean. But the laws passed by the English Parliament often did not take into account the interests of the colonists, who were not represented in it. The British authorities ruled the colonies with the help of appointed governors, giving them broad rights.

successful economic development colonies caused concern among English merchants and industrialists who feared competition, so a number of laws passed by Parliament were aimed at slowing down the industrial development of overseas territories. The situation in the colonies became explosive when the settlers were forbidden to settle on new lands, beyond the Allegheny Mountains. In addition, an additional stamp duty was imposed on business correspondence and printed matter. The colonists faced the threat of losing the rights they had as British subjects. Their main slogan was the demand to protect their interests in the British Parliament. "No taxes without representation!" they said. This position was expressed to members of parliament by the American educator Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790).

Introduced in 1766 by the British Parliament, new duties on imported wines, oil, fruits, glass, paper, leather and tea caused general indignation and led to a boycott by the colonists of all English goods. Parliament had to make some concessions. But in 1773, Parliament allowed the largest English trading company - the East India Company - to import tea into the colonies without duties. This decision undermined the economy of the colonies, since tea smuggling was widespread there. In December 1773, American colonists in the Boston port dropped a batch of tea from English ships into the sea. This action, called the "Boston Tea Party", marked the beginning of open disobedience to the authorities.

"Liberty Bell". XVIIIin. Philadelphia. USA. Photo

War of Independence for the North American Colonies. American Revolution. The events in North America were the first attempt to fight for the implementation of the ideas of the Enlightenment in a revolutionary way. The people rose up against tyranny, defending their natural rights. The armed detachments of the colonists, soon organized into an army under the command of George Washington (1732 - 1799), began hostilities against the British troops.

J. Trumbull. Adoption of the Declaration of Independence

In 1776, the II Continental Congress, which served as the general government of 13 colonies, adopted the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. Its authors were supporters of the ideas of the Enlightenment, the future US presidents Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) and John Adams (1735 - 1826). The Declaration proclaimed: “All men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments have been established among the people, deriving their power from the ruled. If this form of government becomes harmful to this goal, the people can correct it and even completely destroy it and replace it with a new one ... ”For the first time, the principles of popular sovereignty and the protection of natural human rights, proclaimed by the French enlighteners, were affirmed in practice.

After a series of military defeats, Great Britain recognized the sovereignty of the United States of America, and in 1783 a peace treaty was signed between the two states.

The main problem for the young independent state was to achieve the right balance between the rights of individual states - the former colonies - and the central government. This is the goal set by the authors of the US Constitution, adopted in 1787 and in force to this day. The Constitution for the first time strictly demarcated three branches of government: the legislative branch belonged to the Congress, elected by the population, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives; the executive was handed over to the president (in 1789 it was George Washington), and the judiciary included the US Supreme Court and state courts. All branches of government exercised control over the activities of each other. This prevented the strengthening of one of the branches of power to the detriment of the other.

This structure of the state was the result of a compromise between supporters of the expansion of the powers of the central government and defenders of the rights of the states. One of essential principles American domestic policy became federalism - delimitation of the spheres of competence of the federal and local authorities. The states transferred part of the sovereign rights to the center, retaining the rights to issue their own laws, regulate economic relations and ensure public order.

The most important part of the American Constitution was the Bill of Rights, which came into force in 1791, which proclaimed the basic civil liberties: conscience, press, unions, meetings, inviolability of private homes, as well as the right of citizens to own weapons. The drafters of the document proceeded from the principle: "everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed."

Beginning of the French Revolution. If in North America in the 1780s. the principles proclaimed by the Enlightenment had already been established, then in France, in the homeland of the Enlightenment, the Old Order was preserved (this was the general name for the system of social relations that existed from the 17th to the end of the 18th century). The third estate, which included the bourgeois, people of creative professions, peasants, workers, artisans and small merchants, who accounted for 98% of the total population, was limited in rights. Most of all, the peasantry suffered from the preservation of seigneurial orders, because, in addition to various requisitions in favor of the nobles, the peasants paid a lot of state taxes (land, head tax, salt tax) and church tithes.

In the late 1780s, under King Louis XVI (reigned 1774-1792), political, economic and financial crises erupted simultaneously in France. The situation was complicated by crop failure, mass unemployment and the general fear of famine among the population. In an effort to improve the financial situation of the state, the king was forced to convene the States General, which had not met for almost 175 years. All three estates were supposed to be represented in them, but according to tradition, the right to make decisions belonged to deputies from the nobility and clergy, and voting was carried out not by name, but by estate.

The first meeting of the Estates General opened in May 1789. The deputies from the third estate gathered in a separate meeting and "in the name of the whole nation" declared themselves the National Assembly. Some of the deputies from the nobility and the clergy soon joined the representatives of the third estate. Then the National Assembly, now composed of representatives of all classes, proclaimed itself Constituent, and the deputies announced that they were taking upon themselves the responsibility and the right to establish the constitution of the country.

Demonstrations and rallies began in Paris. The armed people moved to the fortress-prison of the Bastille - a symbol of royal tyranny. On July 14, 1789, after the storming of the Bastille, it was captured by the rebels.

On August 4, 1789, the Constituent Assembly abolished all noble privilege: judicial rights of seniors, rights to hunt, fish; the corvee was liquidated, however, natural and monetary duties in favor of the seigneur still remained and were subject to redemption. At the same time, estate privileges, the sale of positions, and restrictions on access to military service were abolished.

In August 1789 the Constituent Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It proclaimed: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." Every person was guaranteed "natural and inalienable rights", which meant "freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression". The nation was declared the source of supreme power (sovereignty), and the law was the expression of the “general will”. The provision on the equality of all citizens before the law was important. The Declaration stated that "the free expression of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious human rights." Private property was declared sacred and inviolable in the Declaration.

In 1789 - 1791. The Constituent Assembly carried out reforms that contributed to the formation of civil society in France: estates and hereditary titles of nobles were abolished; the church was placed under state control, spiritual positions became elective, church tithes were abolished. Workshops were abolished, internal duties were abolished, and freedom of trade and competition was proclaimed.

Storming of the Bastille. Engraving. 18th century

However, the workers were forbidden to form unions and organize strikes under threat of punishment. In addition, the Constituent Assembly adopted a law on the redemption of senior duties by peasants.

In the summer of 1791, the royal family made an attempt to escape from France, but failed. The monarchy lost its authority, and politicians began to discuss the idea of ​​establishing a republic. In the autumn of 1791, the French Constitution was adopted, which was based on the provisions of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The document proclaimed the principle of separation of powers. Thus, a constitutional monarchy was legally established in the country.

Allegory of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Picture. 18th century

The overthrow of the royal power in France. Girondins and Montagnards. The constitution of 1791 proved to be short-lived. The Legislative Assembly was elected to replace the Constituent Assembly. Since the deputies of the Constituent Assembly voluntarily refused to participate in the next elections, the road to power was opened for a new generation of politicians who showed themselves after the events of 1789. First of all, speakers and activists of political clubs, journalists, former lawyers gained popularity in revolutionary France, but they did not had neither experience in government, nor experience in foreign policy. It was these politicians and journalists who dominated the Legislative Assembly. They resisted the stabilization of relations in society and acted with the aim of unleashing a war with several European powers at once, hoping that the development of events would allow them to gain a foothold in power and acquire not only popularity, but also property. The group of Republican deputies who led this political line (their leaders were from the department of the Gironde, therefore this political group is called the Girondins) hoped that during the war there would be an explosion of public indignation, and in the conditions of a new political crisis, it would become possible and the abolition of the Constitution of 1791, and the overthrow of the monarchy.

These hopes of the Girondins coincided with the secret plan of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. The royal couple hoped that France, ill-prepared for war, would not withstand the onslaught of the Austrian and Prussian troops and the revolution would be strangled by the force of foreign armies. Therefore, in the spring of 1792, the king declared war on Austria and its allies. From the very beginning of the war against Austria and Prussia, the weak French army began to suffer defeat. Taking advantage of the panic that gripped the inhabitants of Paris in connection with the approach of the enemy to the capital, on August 10, 1792, the French revolutionaries raised an uprising with the participation of national guards and volunteers who arrived in Paris from departments. Tuileries Palace? was captured, Louis XVI was removed from power and arrested along with his entire family. Under critical conditions, the Legislative Assembly announced the convening of the National Convention to prepare a new Constitution.

In September 1792, the National Convention, elected on the basis of universal suffrage, proclaimed a republic in France and took measures to reorganize the army and strengthen the defense. At first, the leading role in the Convention belonged to the Girondins, but soon it passed to a more radical grouping of politicians-deputies, which was called the "Mountain" (the name was assigned to it due to the fact that these deputies were located in the hall on the upper benches). Politicians "Mountains" - Montagna?ry (in letters. per. with fr. "descended from the mountains") enjoyed the support of the Parisian radical revolutionaries who ruled the Commune of Paris (city government), and relied on the influential Jacobin Club (the name of the political club is associated with the former monastery of St. Jacob, where he met). Groups of deputies-Girondins and Montagnards were in the minority in the Convention, while the majority of the representatives of the people supported in the vote one group or another, for which they were called derisively "marsh" or "plain".

The Montagnards, who intended to take the place of the Girondins in the leadership of the republic, insisted on the use of harsh revolutionary measures. At their suggestion, King Louis XVI was convicted and executed in January 1793. This aroused the indignation of the European monarchs and increased the number of countries participating in the anti-French coalition. In the spring of 1793, the French troops suffered several heavy defeats. The population of France treated the revolutionaries with great distrust. In the department of Vende? I, local peasants began a war of defense against the Convention catholic church and monarchy.

Execution of Louis XVI. Picture. 18th century

The dictatorship of the Montagnards and its fall. At a difficult moment for the Republic, the radical revolutionaries of Paris organized May 31 and June 2, 1793 uprisings against the Girondins. Under the pressure of the armed crowd and the threat of physical violence, the frightened deputies of the National Convention expelled 29 Girondin deputies from their ranks and handed power in the country to the Montagnards. This is how a coup d'etat took place, when the deputies elected by the people were forced to submit to the will of the armed crowd.

The reaction of the population of France was not long in coming: in the north and south of the country, the formation of units began to march on Paris and overthrow the Montagnards. Mass movements against the coup on June 2 were noted in the largest cities: Toulon, Lyon, Bordeaux, Marseille, Nimes. In July 1793, a young republican from the province of Charlotte Corday? killed the well-known radical politician and journalist Montagnard Jean Paul Marat right in his house.

Expecting to receive the support of the population and stay in power, the Montagnards announced the complete abolition of the seigneurial duties of the peasantry without redemption, began to sell land confiscated from emigrants in small plots, hastily developed and approved in June 1793 a new Constitution of France, promising broad democratic rights. In fact, the implementation of this Constitution was postponed "until the onset of universal peace." In France, meanwhile, the Montagnards imposed a brutal dictatorial regime, which the Convention declared a "revolutionary order of government" (historians traditionally call it the "Jacobin dictatorship" or "Montagnard dictatorship"). At the same time, troops were sent against the rebellious inhabitants of cities and provinces by decision of the Convention.

On behalf of the Convention, the country was governed by the Committee of Public Safety (government), which was headed by Montagnard deputies: former lawyers Maximilien Robespierre and Georges Cuto?n and the aspiring writer Louis Antoine Saint-Just. At the same time, the Committee of Public Safety included prominent military specialists: Lazare Carnot?, Claude Prieur and others, who took the necessary measures to reform and strengthen the army, thanks to which, by the end of 1793, the real threat to France from the Austrian and Prussian troops were eliminated.

In order to supply the cities with food and necessities, the Committee of Public Safety established strictly fixed prices for basic goods, and also limited wages by decree to the so-called maximum. Nevertheless, the rebellion in the provinces against the authority of the Convention did not subside, and it had to be suppressed by extremely cruel methods. The civil war engulfed several economically and military-politically important regions of France. The revolutionary army suppressed the centers of the uprising, sparing neither the rebels nor the civilians. There were especially many innocent victims in Lyon, Nantes and in the Vendée region.

In order to retain power and intimidate all the dissatisfied, according to the decision of the Convention, a massive terror. In September 1793, the Suspicious Law was passed, according to which any citizen objectionable to the authorities could be sent to prison without trial and specific charges. A month later, the Convention created a revolutionary tribunal - a special judicial body for the prosecution of "enemies of the revolution", whose sentences were not subject to review. Public executions were carried out to whip up fear. Thousands of innocent French laid their heads on the guillotine, among them were Queen Marie Antoinette, and members of the royal family, and Girondin politicians, and scientists, generals, journalists, entrepreneurs ... Terror was directed not only against the political opponents of the Montagnards, but also against all who expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the actions of the authorities. Hundreds of thousands of French men and women, old people and children became victims of terror.

Robespierre, who headed the Committee of Public Salvation, dreamed of creating a society where only highly moral people live and "virtue" reigns, saw in terror the most effective remedy rid the country of "morally corrupted" citizens and argued that "virtue without terror is powerless." Robespierre and his supporters did not spare even their comrades from among the Montagnards, and by the end of 1793 terror had become their main method of control. Many former friends of Robespierre died on the guillotine, including politicians and publicists Georges Jacques Danto?n and Camille Desmoulins, who openly opposed repression.

The arrest of a royalist peasant in Brittany during the revolution. Engraving. 18th century

On June 10, 1794, Robespierre's supporters passed through the National Convention a law that abolished the still existing judicial procedures. From now on, several dozen people were guillotined every day in Paris.

Now most of the members of the Convention did not feel safe, so a conspiracy arose among the deputies against the omnipotence of Robespierre and his associates. As a result of the coup on July 27, 1794 (according to the revolutionary calendar, this day corresponded to 9 Thermidor), Robespierre and his closest supporters were overthrown, arrested and soon executed.

The French Revolution did not end there. The leaders of the National Convention now faced important and difficult tasks: to consolidate the revolutionary achievements of 1789-1791, to end the war against the European monarchies, to stop the civil war in France itself, to restore the economy and economy of the country.

The war for the independence of the American colonies from Britain took on the character of a revolution: yesterday's colonies, which during the 16th - 18th centuries. were the periphery of the Western world, turned into a new independent state - the United States of America. The events of the War of Independence had a great impact on European society as well. The young American republic seemed to Europeans the embodiment of educational ideals.

Having started a revolution in 1789, the French also wanted to create a new, more just society, but in Europe, the destruction of the old society and the creation of a new one was accompanied by severe upheavals, civil war and bloody terror. The historical significance of the two revolutions of the XVIII century. for modern civilization is that at this time for the first time were implemented broad suffrage, freedom of the press, the Constitution and the separation of powers. The traditions of the political culture of modernity were tested in practice precisely thanks to the American and French revolutions of the 18th century.

Questions and tasks

1. Analyze the contradictions between Britain and its North American colonies.

2. Why did the British, who asserted the principles of the rule of law in their homeland, infringe on the rights of the inhabitants of the colonies?

3. Discuss what principles formed the basis of the US Constitution and government.

4. How did the ideas of the Enlightenment influence the revolutionary events in North America and France? Justify your answer.

5. Make a table of the main events of the French Revolution (1789 - 1794). What were the consequences of the Jacobin terror?

“The items which, in the opinion of the National Convention, are the first necessity and for which it considers it necessary to set a maximum or highest price, are: fresh meat, corned beef and lard, cow's butter, vegetable oil, live cattle, salted fish, wine, vodka , vinegar, cider, beer, firewood, charcoal, coal, tallow candles ... salt, soda, soap, potash, sugar, honey, white paper, leather, iron, cast iron, lead, steel, copper, hemp, linen, wool, cloth, linen, factory raw materials, clogs, shoes , rape and turnip, tobacco ...

The maximum prices of all other foodstuffs and essential commodities ... will be throughout the Republic until September 1 next year, those prices that existed for them in 1790 ... with the addition of one third of them ...

All those persons who sell or buy goods ... above the maximum ... shall pay an administrative penalty in double the amount against the value of the sold item, going in favor of the informer. These persons will be included in the lists of suspects and prosecuted as such.

The maximum, or the highest amount, of wages, salaries, piecework or daily work ... is universally fixed by the general councils of the communes in the amounts that existed in 1790, with the addition of another half of this price.

Municipalities may declare mobilized and, if necessary, punish with three days of arrest those artisans, workers and representatives of all possible types workers who, without good reason, will refuse to engage in their usual work ... "

What was the purpose of setting maximum prices for products? What did the deputies of the National Convention want to achieve? Why did the decree on the "maximum" provide for a ban on raising the wages of workers? What do you think, what result did the implementation of the provisions of the decree on "maximum" lead to? Did the authors expect such a result?

From book secret history Ukraine-Rus author Buzina Oles Alekseevich

From the book History. General history. Grade 10. Basic and advanced levels author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 16. Revolutions of the 18th century England and its North American colonies in the 18th century. In the economy of European countries in the XVIII century. capitalism began to take over. At the manufactories owned by private entrepreneurs or the state, hired workers worked. Most

From the book Resurrection of Little Russia author Buzina Oles Alekseevich

author Woerman Karl

Preliminary remarks. French architecture of the 18th century 1. Overview of new styles in France XVIII century The main style of French art in the XVIII century is Rococo, which became widespread under Louis XV. In parallel with it, the Greek

From the book History of Art of All Times and Peoples. Volume 3 [Art of the 16th-19th centuries] author Woerman Karl

1. Overview of New Styles in France in the 18th Century The main style of French art in the 18th century is Rococo, which became widespread under Louis XV. At the same time he developed Greek style, which arose as a result of the desire to return to ancient motifs

From the book History of Art of All Times and Peoples. Volume 3 [Art of the 16th-19th centuries] author Woerman Karl

French sculpture of the 18th century 1. Classicism in sculpture At the beginning of the 18th century, French sculpture developed within the framework of classicism and made a significant breakthrough in artistic strength and naturalness.

From the book History of Art of All Times and Peoples. Volume 3 [Art of the 16th-19th centuries] author Woerman Karl

French painting of the 18th century 1. General overview of the development of painting The formation of painting in this period was influenced by the activities of the academies, primarily the Royal Academy. In the XVIII century, French painting confidently takes first place in Europe,

From the book History of the Cavalry [with illustrations] author Denison George Taylor

Chapter III. Russian cavalry in the second half of the 18th century, Peter the Great brought his cavalry into a very good condition, but even after him they do not stop making various changes and improvements in it in accordance with the concepts of time. So, under Elizabeth Petrovna,

From the book History of Denmark the author Paludan Helge

Foreign policy until the 90s of the XVIII century Since 1720, the goal of Danish foreign policy was to preserve the borders established at the end of the Great Northern War. Its most important result was the annexation by the kingdom during the war of a number of Gottorp possessions in Schleswig.

From the book Essays on priesthood author Pechersky Andrey

VII. SEARCHING FOR THE HIGHESTHIP AT THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY The temptation produced between the Old Believers in the fifties of the last century by the false bishops of Athenogens and Anfimos did not cool the zealots of "ancient piety" in the search for the bishopric. They were still going to

From the book Essays on the History of Natural Science in Russia in the 18th Century author Vernadsky Vladimir Ivanovich

1.2 Continuity of scientific creativity in Russia since the beginning of the 18th century. Starting to present history in Russia, one of the most important areas of scientific thought, I am forced to dwell on the general conditions of development characteristic of it, partly related to the peculiarities of Russian

From the book Secret History of Ukraine-Rus author Buzina Oles Alekseevich

Beria of the 18th century Citizens are surprised by the lawlessness. They sometimes resent the helplessness of the investigating authorities. Some even shout: “Where are the police looking?” Naive! Who is to blame that some still believe in the omnipotence of movie cops? No need to be a mug. In our

From the book Russia and South Africa: Three Centuries of Relations author Filatova Irina Ivanovna

Until the end of the 18th century ... Having reached the Cape of Good Hope, to entrust him with the Order of St. Vladimir of the 3rd class. Nominal decree of Catherine II, April 17, 1787. Early information Our country was spoken about in South Africa earlier than it was in Russia. This is not surprising. Employees

From the book Field Marshals of the XVIII century author Kopylov N. A.

18th century army Social conditions Europe XVIII century, influencing the military system, were closely connected with the economic. The vast majority of the non-noble European population was engaged in agriculture, the rest were employed in handicraft or trade

1. Background

After the victory in the Seven Years' War of 1756-63, Great Britain gained dominance in the North American continent. Now she owned not only 13 colonies along the Atlantic coast (up to Georgia in the south), but also the lands conquered from the French in the north - part of modern Canada. However, soon a new test began before Britain - the inhabitants of the colonies rebelled against her rule.

At the end of the 18th century, almost 3 million people lived in the 13 American colonies, mostly from Great Britain. Mostly small settlements developed steadily. The largest city was Philadelphia with a population of 40 thousand people, in the second largest city of New York, there were 25 thousand inhabitants. The northern lands were developed by merchants, fishermen and hunters, planters grew rich on the fertile lands of the south, but the bulk of the population were farmers who cultivate their own lands and relied only on their own strength - it was they who were destined to play a decisive role in the coming revolution and lay the foundations of the American nation.

2. Claims made

The people of America were accustomed to having their word listened to, although friction often arose between the electoral bodies of the colonists and the nobles from London. The British government was too far away and could not realistically assess the needs of overseas settlers - and did not want to. In England (as in other European countries), it was believed that overseas lands exist only for the benefit of the mother country, they were founded and patronized, and, based on this, they imposed severe restrictions on the trading operations of the colonies.

It is not surprising that in America, which possessed rich resources and a growing enterprising population, this could no longer continue, and victory in the Seven Years' War hastened the approach of the crisis. Aspiring to the development of new lands, the colonists did not like the government's decision at the end of the war to create an Indian reservation, limited by a demarcation line that the settlers were forbidden to cross. Such government decrees, despite good intentions, were not feasible. Moreover, the elimination of the threat from the French meant that the colonists no longer needed to hide behind the bayonets of British soldiers. These tendencies were reflected precisely at the time when the British authorities, under the weight of war debts, were forced to strengthen the colonial oppression.

3 Boston Tea Party

Great Britain began with the fact that Parliament in 1765 introduced two laws: on the billeting of troops and on stamp duty. And if the first (demanding better maintenance of the British military) simply did not please the colonists, then the second, which introduced an additional fee for the execution of any documents and for any printed materials, including newspapers, touched all sectors of society and infuriated people. Radical associations have raised their heads, such as the "Sons of Liberty". Riots broke out here and there, and American merchants fought back and refused to buy British goods. The colonists rallied a new slogan: "No taxes without representation" (in the British Parliament). In Britain, already at that time, there were forces that supported the colonists in 1766. The opposition came to power and repealed the Stamp Act, but indicated in a special declaration act that the parliament would continue to have the unshakable right to make laws for the colonies

The respite was short-lived. In 1767, the new British Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed almost all colonial imports. In America, unrest rose again, their focus was Boston, the capital of Massachusetts. Here, in March 1770, English soldiers faltered in front of an angry crowd and opened fire, killing several people. The news of the bloodshed in Boston sobered both sides, and they retreated. All fees were abolished, except for the tax on tea, which the settlers did not resist, but simply moved from the legal import of tea to its smuggling.

However, friction between the British crown and the colonies did not stop, and another fire occurred 3 years later, when the authorities decided to help the East India Company experienced difficulties and took a number of emergency measures, including a tax on tea. The colonists resisted in every possible way and did not allow ships with a cargo of tea to anchor in their ports. In December 1773, when the governor of Boston nevertheless allowed one ship to be unloaded, a group of citizens disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded the ship and dumped bales of tea into the water.

The British immediately punished the colonists for the demarche, which went down in history as the "Boston Tea Party": they closed the port until the locals paid for the damaged goods, but they did not agree to such conditions. As a result, the powers of local authorities were limited, and the English General Gage was appointed governor of Massachusetts, who received instructions to stop the unrest.

4. The storm is coming

The hour of the decisive battle has come. In power in Britain for a long time, from 1770 to 1782, there was the cabinet of Lord North, but in fact the decisions were made by King George III, whose stubbornness and short-sightedness had a detrimental effect on the country's policy. At the same time, the Americans, as never before, became ready for decisive action and approved their plan in September 1774 at the Philadelphian Congress, which brought together delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies. In April 1775, General Gage secretly ordered his troops to arrest two radicals and destroy an armory in nearby Concord. The colonists learned of these plans in time and sent horsemen to warn the locals of the approaching units.

5. First shots

Having received news of the danger, the rebel leaders fled, but in Lexington, where the troops sought to disband the militia, shots were fired, killing eight Americans.

The troops entered Concord and carried out Gage's assignment, but along the way they came under targeted fire from colonists who used guerrilla warfare tactics. Government units lost up to 300 people killed and, upon returning to Boston, were under siege.

6. The beginning of the war

In May 1775, truly revolutionary decisions were made at the Second Continental Congress, including the proclamation of an independent government. A regular army was created from the militia of Boston and the surrounding territories, it was headed by the venerable landowner from Virginia, George Washington. A struggle began, which the Americans called the Revolutionary, and the British - the American War of Independence.

The Americans made a successful raid in May 1775, taking by surprise two forts near the Canadian border and many artillery pieces. Then they failed: a futile winter siege of Quebec put an end to hopes of a quick victory. Throughout the war, Canada remained British and served as a base for their military operations. At the same time, the British fortified Boston and, when the rebels began to occupy the heights on the outskirts of the city, under the command of General Howe, they launched a counterattack. They chose the initially wrong tactics of advancing up the slope, and came under heavy fire from the defenders. The American positions were still crushed, but the victory at Bunkers Hill cost Howe half of his army of over 2,000 men and gave the colonists confidence that the British could be defeated.

Without waiting for the rebels to bring the guns captured in the forts to the city, the British left Boston in March 1776. Their attempts to conclude a peace treaty did not lead to anything. In America, a general desire to break completely with the mother country was growing, and the pamphlet "Common Sense" written by the English-born radical Tom Payne strengthened the resolve of the supporters of independence.

7. US Independence

Finally, in July 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of secession and adopted the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration condemned the tyranny of George III and proclaimed the right of all people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The 13 former colonies became known as the United States of America.

After an unsuccessful attempt, having captured the city of Charleston (South Carolina), the British transferred their forces to the north, and from July 1776 Howe won a series of victories: he captured New York and delivered several significant blows to the troops of Washington, who had to retreat across the Delaware River. Washington had no special talent as a general and his men were no match for regular English forces, but this strong man never gave up, and the British, who were fighting in foreign territory, began to have problems with supplies and replenishment. Washington boosted the morale of his troops by crossing the Delaware River again and unawares the enemy's nearly 1,000-strong garrison on Christmas night in 1776. However, the following year, General Howe again succeeded in capturing Philadelphia. Washington's army was severely thinned that frosty winter.

The British were let down by hopelessly bad planning. While Howe's corps marched on Philadelphia, another general, John Burgoyne, hoping to link up with him north of New York, led his army from Canada towards Albany through difficult terrain, falling into rebel ambush. As a result, the British were surrounded by superior enemy forces and laid down their arms near Saratoga. Inspired by the success of the rebels, the French entered the war on the side of America. The Spanish and Dutch soon followed suit. The British, who had lost command of the sea, had to fight on several fronts. George III was already ready to make concessions, but the Americans needed only independence.

8. New strategy

Whatever it was, Britain continued the war. Her troops left Philadelphia, but held New York, fighting was fought on the northern front with varying success. In 1778, the British switched to a new strategy, aiming to capture the southern lands with their tobacco, rice and indigo plantations. At first, everything went better: the British occupied Georgia, defeated the American and French units trying to capture Savannah, surrounded and forced the surrender of a large enemy formation near Charleston, and completely defeated General Gates - the winner of Saratoga - near Camden. Then the British commander Lord Cornwallis decided to capture North Carolina - and made a fatal mistake. The Americans, under the command of Nathaniel Green, retreated, exhausting the enemy along the way. The British again retreated to the lands of Virginia, their headquarters took refuge in Yorktown, on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. The Americans, to the fact that they were not very coordinated with the Allies, this time gathered large forces around the British, blocking them from the sea with French ships, and turned a barrage of artillery fire on them. Soon everything was completed.