, 1923-01-17
The Two Revolutions.

NRITICISING a reference by Herbert Hoover to
" the. "claptrap of the French revolution" the
Washington Times, a Hearst paper, remarks;
Don't dcspise revolutionary claptrap. The French
brand gave us our Revolution"
Which leads almost any informed American citi-
zen to inquire, What does a Hearst editor know
of the history of his own country, the history of
France, or what does he know about anything in
general?
The American Revolution began in 1875 and end.
ed in 1888. The French revolution took place in
the years 1889 to 1899. So the American war for
independence preceded the French struggle for a
change in form of government by several years, six
of them at least. And it would have been a diff
cult matter for the French uprising to have had
even a remote influence upon affairs going for
ward in America in the historic years 177517SS.
In their causes, conduct or consequences the two
revolutions bore no resemblance whatever, the one
to the other. The monarchy which was overthrown
by the French revolution came to the aid of,the
American colOnists in their rising against the
British crown.
Doubtless it is true that the success of the Amer
lean colonists in making good their Declaration of
Independence, was a source of inspiration TO the
Republican spirit in France. In their character
and in their declared principles the French revO-
lutionaries were as far removed from Washington
and his associates as one set of men could be
from another. The leaders of the American revO-
luton were sane patriots not blooded-handed
fiends. They were sages and warriors, not dema-
gogues and assassins. They had Tories to contend
with, but they did not make the streets of Boston,
Philadelphia or New York run red with their blood.
When independence was established they did not
~dissipate the results of revolution in tyranny es-
tablished in the name gossamer theories of govern
ment bearing no relation to human nature.
Because the Revolutionary patriots we're sane,
practical men rather than mere dcmagogical phrase
mongers, they have been roundly abused by some
of our modern writer's on politics and sociology,
who imagine it is as easy to create or maintain a
government as it is to string out words on the
subject. \
The French revolution brought little immediate
gain to the world because with all their fine talk
and attitudinizing, the leaders were demagogues
and doctrinaires and with it all, filled with envy
and hatred and lust for power rather than with
love of country and of mankind. In this they
were like the present military masters of Russia,
who WELD the bayonet and the bludgeon on those
who dare to disagree with them politically and
while protesting to be filed with love for humanity
hold a people in the most miserable thralldom.
Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, jefferson,
Adams, Hancock and their contemporaries of the
American Revolution rise above the tyfants and
assassins of the French and Russian revolutions
as Mount Everest towers above n mole hill. They
were mentally and morally SO far beyond Robes
pierre, Danton, Lenine and Trotsky that words
fail to measure the intervening distance.
There is no benefit to humanity in mere revolu-
ton for revolutions sake, even against tyranny,
unless those who effect revolution have virtue and
wisdom enough to substitute something better.
That our Revolutionary forefathers were able to
do this is their greatest glory. That the French
and Russian revolutionaries overthrow one tyranny
only to establish another representing their own
selfishness and brutality is to their everlasting
shame. The American who cannot grasp the diff
ference the practical political philosophy of our
movements engineered by cheap demagogues lust
ing for power and employing noble phrases to fur
their ignoble ends, is lacking in comprehension
of what Americanism means.