French part in the American revolution

[bill1971]

If you were alive back then and were French, would you support this? Isnt it getting involved in another country's business? Or is it different because we asked them. I was thinking about this lately because of Libya and even Egypt before that.

[nate895]

The entire reason the French got involved was to get back at the British for the Seven Years' War. We just kind of took advantage of their want for revenge. It wasn't like they thought of themselves as the cavalry riding in to save the freedom fighters or anything.

[robert68]

Good question.

[robert68]

The entire reason the French got involved was to get back at the British for the Seven Years' War. We just kind of took advantage of their want for revenge. It wasn't like they thought of themselves as the cavalry riding in to save the freedom fighters or anything.

My understanding is that without Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy, there would have been no French alliance.

[nate895]

My understanding is that without Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy, there would have been no French alliance.

Yes, that was part of it. The main reason why France didn't join the war right away (they did send arms and money, though) was because they were afraid the rebels wanted to destroy monarchies everywhere. It took a lot of convincing that we weren't after that.

[Kludge]

The entire reason the French got involved was to get back at the British for the Seven Years' War. We just kind of took advantage of their want for revenge. It wasn't like they thought of themselves as the cavalry riding in to save the freedom fighters or anything.
They took advantage of the Revolutionaries, too.

The French certainly didn't do it for the sake of the Americans, at any rate - the French government intervened only because it was in their interests at that time. Once they were done with the Revolutionaries, they consistently undermined the US until a quasi-war broke out between France & the US from 1798-1800. In the first major joint military attack against the British, a French naval fleet abandoned the US forces, causing many casualties as the US was eventually overwhelmed and had to retreat. There were anti-France riots after that in the US from which French soldiers were murdered. When the USG won its war against GB, the French insisted the US enter into war against GB & Spain, even though it was not at all in our best interest. ... Then there was the XYZ Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair).

[nate895]

They took advantage of the Revolutionaries, too.

The French certainly didn't do it for the sake of the Americans, at any rate - the French government intervened only because it was in their interests at that time. Once they were done with the Revolutionaries, they consistently undermined the US until a quasi-war broke out between France & the US from 1798-1800. In the first major joint military attack against the British, a French naval fleet abandoned the US forces, causing many casualties as the US was eventually overwhelmed and had to retreat. There were anti-France riots after that in the US from which French soldiers were murdered. When the USG won its war against GB, the French insisted the US enter into war against GB & Spain, even though it was not at all in our best interest. ... Then there was the XYZ Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair).

All of those examples were under the revolutionary government. The Royal government was neutral at worst towards us. The revolutionary government was disappointed that we didn't send an expeditionary force to help them in their blood lust towards any and all monarchs on the face of the earth.

[nobody's_hero]

We had to essentially convince France that we had the will to win. I believe it was the turning-point victory at Saratoga that eventually tipped France into the war.

I'm not saying that this is the only pre-requisite for war-making, but compare that French entry into the War for Independence versus what we do militarily today.

France did not come over into the war from the start after making a simple assumption that we wanted to be free (as others pointed out, France's role was fueled more by a desire for revenge), whereas the U.S. president today will not hesitate to deploy troops to remove a tyrant when the people there have made no great sacrifices of their own.

My point is, it is pretty bad when we want freedom for someone else more than they want it for themselves.

[demolama]

Well French abandonment of the Americans after the war wasn't because they wanted to but because American's decided to default on the French loans before the new Constitution was solidified. Not to mention the first administration was pro-British in business trade which was solidified with Jay's treaty.

[doodle]

Frenchv did so much for freedom, it is time neocons rename "freedom fries" back to "french fries" and stop insulting the french anymore.

[bill1971]

Very interesting thoughtful responses. Its nice to be on this board. I dont see the hateful partisan rhetoric I see on the boards of the left or the right.

[acptulsa]

Very interesting thoughtful responses. Its nice to be on this board. I dont see the hateful partisan rhetoric I see on the boards of the left or the right.

Very nice to have you.

I think the bottom line speaks for itself. Shortly after supporting us, the Last of the Louies kind of got seperated from his head. And France then went from republic to Napoleon and generally had what you might call difficult times. Had to sell their New World empire to old Tommy Jefferson, in fact, not thirty years later.

[Orgoonian]

Very nice to have you.

I think the bottom line speaks for itself. Shortly after supporting us, the Last of the Louies kind of got seperated from his head. And France then went from republic to Supremacy and generally had what you might call difficult times. Had to sell their New World empire to old Tommy Jefferson, in fact, not thirty years later.

I was always curious as to why the French went with Napoleon after a successful revolution,and republic.
Do you think it had anything to do with the rejection of Roman influence?

[acptulsa]

I was always curious as to why the French went with Napoleon after a successful revolution,and republic.
Do you think it had anything to do with the rejection of Roman influence?

Don't know enough about it to comment intelligently. But I do think that they were in a mighty rough neighborhood for a little baby republic. I always attributed most of it to that.

[Orgoonian]

Don't know enough about it to comment intelligently. But I do think that they were in a mighty rough neighborhood for a little baby republic. I always attributed most of it to that.

Good point.
Fear makes it possible for good intentions to go bad.

[South Park Fan]

For the French situation to be analagous, we would have to assume that the alleged casus belli for France was the spreading of their form of government to the colonists and/or the protection of American lives. Since neither of these are true, it is clearly a flawed analogy. However, even if this were accurate, it would still be flawed since France did not attempt to occupy America or impose a puppet regime on it. France did not shell American cities or impose collective punishment on its inhabitants.

[DisillusionedPatriot]

This discussion cannot be complete without mention of Lafayette. He was a young member of the French aristocracy but a believer in the rights of man. He risked his position, his fortune, and his freedom to come to the colonies and fight against George III, whom he personally slighted. He was forbidden to leave and escaped in disguise. He invested a considerable amount of his personal finances into the endeavor, including the purchasing of his own ship. He brought men, supplies, and money to donate to the American cause. He paid for the training and upkeep of his own men. He commanded a division and was injured in the line of duty. He was friends with many of the Founding Fathers and particularly with George Washington. The two exchanged keys to each others' houses, and Washington kept it by his bedside at Mount Vernon.

His personal devotion to the cause is evidenced by the honors and awards bequeathed upon him by the American people. From Wikipedia, specifically referring to after his death, "American President Andrew Jackson ordered that Lafayette be accorded the same funeral honors as John Adams and George Washington. Therefore, 24-gun salutes were fired from military posts and ships, each shot representing a U.S. state. Flags flew at half mast for thirty-five days, and "military officers wore crepe for six months". The Congress hung black in chambers and asked the entire country to dress in black for the next thirty days. Lafayette was widely commemorated in the U.S. In 1824, the U.S. government named Lafayette Park in his honor; it lies immediately north of the White House in Washington, D.C. In 1826, Lafayette College was chartered in Easton, Pennsylvania. Lafayette was honored with a monument in New York City in 1917. Portraits display Washington and Lafayette in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. Numerous towns, cities, and counties across the United States were named in his honor. On 4 July 1917, shortly after the U.S. entered World War I, Colonel Charles E. Stanton visited the grave of Lafayette and uttered the famous phrase "Lafayette, we are here." After the war, a U.S. flag was permanently placed at the grave site. Every year, on the Independence Day, the flag is replaced in a joint French-American ceremony.The flag remained even during the German occupation of Paris during World War II."

[heavenlyboy34]

I was always curious as to why the French went with Napoleon after a successful revolution,and republic.
Do you think it had anything to do with the rejection of Roman influence?

Napoleon seized power in 1799 after a coup d'etat (coup de Brumiere). After this coup, a new Constitution was written, and Napoleon made the first consul of France. On 12/2/1894, Buonaparte crowned himself emperor(in the presence of the pope, btw). As an interesting side note, prior to Napoleon's self-anointment, Beethoven had dedicated what is now known as the Eroica symphony to Napoleon as an homage to his role in the people's revolution which overthrew the monarchy. After Napoleon crowned himself, Beethoven scratched out the dedication, calling Buonaparte "a tyrant". :cool: