America, France, the Revolutionary War, and non-interventionalism

[FrankRep]

A friend of mine brought up an interesting point about non-interventionalism.

The only reason why America won the Revolutionary won is because France got involved to help fight the British. If France practiced non-interventionalism, America wouldn’t exist.

What would be a good way to respond to that?

[LBT]

I've read that the French support was largely private, but I can't recall where.

I think Ron Paul would support private backing for international pursuits.

[Mortikhi]

France got involved because they were already at war with Britain and used our Revolutionary war to help break the British coffers I believe.

[rs3515]

Some interesting points in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War


"The French government was overwhelmed by debt maintenance, but war led to the financial crisis 'which provided the immediate occasion for the release of those forces which shattered the French political and social order.'"

"Its status as a great modern power was affirmed and its taste for revenge was satisfied, but the war was detrimental to the country’s finances."

"...the decisive siege of Yorktown in 1781 had a large financial cost (one billion livre tournois) which severely degraded fragile finances and increased the deficit in France."

"The weakening of the French state, the example of the American Revolution, and the rising visibility of viable alternatives to the absolute monarchy were all factors that helped influence the French Revolution."
Hmmm as much as I can appreciate the benefit of their help, the assistance was a factor in the financial woes of France which ultimately led to the French Revolution. Sound familiar?

[Ranger29860]

I would think britian owning all that land in america would be a national security threat to the french

just my 2 cents no historical backing to that .. will have to do some research

[Chester Copperpot]

The way to respond is with facts.. Your friend MAY be correct.. But France went bankrupt helping us and theyre govt was removed.. King got the guillotine.

[tnvoter]

A friend of mine brought up an interesting point about non-interventionalism.

The only reason why America won the Revolutionary won is because France got involved to help fight the British. If France practiced non-interventionalism, America wouldn’t exist.

What would be a good way to respond to that?

At the time wasn't France at declared war with the British already?

So that argument is laulaulauble.
What's laulaulauble?
Ask batman! (http://ualuealuealeualemirror.ytmnd.com/)

[davidkachel]

The French practiced interventionism and we benefited from that practice.
The United States is supposed to practice non-interventionism.

Two entirely unrelated topics.
The Russians were our allies during WWII, should we therefore be communists?

[tnvoter]

France got involved because they were already at war with Britain and used our Revolutionary war to help break the British coffers I believe.

This is where the emphasis needs to be when you reply.

[Christian Prophet]

Yes, revolutionaries for freedom often require intervention from countries interested in helping.

Non-interventionalism as a rule of thumb is probably wise. Non-interventionalism as an absolute is stupid as hell and turns voters off.

A great article which relates Ron Paul to the American Revolution (
http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-rebels-vs-establishment.html ) points out that the battle is always between rebels and loyalists to the establishment. Rebels simply cannot win without help from outside the particular establishment they are rebelling against.

[JimDude]

Well, for one thing, The congress offically accepted the help of France. We were the ones who went to get the French to help us. France didnt have to help us, so It was France's fault for deciding to help us. If another country were to ask for our help and our Congress approved it offically, possibly with a declaration of war, than it would be okay. We have to remember here, that most times, intervening is not a good idea, especially when your told you shouldnt. But I think it would be a mistake to think that not getting involved at all times is a good thing. Sometimes there are rare instances, where these things are necessary or good.

So, basically, we follow the constitution, and as long as both countries agree to it, thans it okay. Whats wrong is for action to be forced. In Iraq, nobody asked us to go there. If they ask for our help, than Congress will decide with a up or down vote if we should go there.

[R_Harris]

Non-interventionism and isolationism are not the same thing.

Non-interventionism basically says you don't go looking for a fight. We believe in national defense, not national offense (i.e. pre-emption).

Jefferson sent naval and marine forces to North Africa, because muslim pirates were attacking our peaceful merchant ships and taking the crews as slaves. Protecting Americans with US force is not antithetical to non-intervention; PROVOKING the North Africans prior to any offense on their part would be antithetical to non-intervention.

For some reason, people cannot perceive that difference.

Not even the founders, though, consistently held to that philosophy. James Monroe (would he be considered a founder?) inplemented the famous Monroe Doctrine, which basically told nations "hands off" with regard to the Caribbean and Central America. Not sure you can align that policy with non-intervention.

Madison, of course, has some great quotes about the damage that war and perpetual war can do to a free republic.

[foofighter20x]

A friend of mine brought up an interesting point about non-interventionalism.

The only reason why America won the Revolutionary won is because France got involved to help fight the British. If France practiced non-interventionalism, America wouldn’t exist.

What would be a good way to respond to that?

I'd respond with what George Washington did when France had its own revolution 15 years later...

He kept us the hell out of it!

Also, you may want to point out that it was the French Aristocracy that supported our revolution, not the French People. They didn't have a choice. We do.

[foofighter20x]

France got involved because they were already at war with Britain and used our Revolutionary war to help break the British coffers I believe.

Incorrect. The French were not at war with Britain in 1776.

They only did it to spite the British for the ass-whooping they got in the Seven Years War (known to us as the French-Indian War).

[Mortikhi]

Ok, I was sortaright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War
Not at war, but wanted to weaken Britain

[Highmesa]

Two entirely unrelated topics.
The Russians were our allies during WWII, should we therefore be communists?

Well, we're getting there. :)

[Janet0116]

Just from listening to the man, I don't believe Ron Paul is against war. He is against UNDECLARED wars. If the congress (and by that, the American people) decide a cause is worthy of enough to go to war, then declare it, let's get the full force of the american people and the military behind it, and WIN IT.

[hocaltar]

First of all, your friend's assumption is that we WOULD have lost the Revolutionary War had France not intervened, is NOT provable. However, as most here will admit, that is a weak arguement. So, here is what you can say to him.

You are correct. We may have lost our Revolutionary War without the help of France. However, look how France paid for helping us.

A little over 10 years after the final battle of our Revolutionary War, France was back at war with England, (and others) and it would last for 20 some odd years. Was France helping us the noble thing to do? Hardly, French desire to insult the British and hamstring their finances was the ultimate goal. With the British Crown collecting royalties from the American Colonies, there was no way France would be able to match the British economic powerhouse in a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Also, of importance is to look at who ended as the true victor: "On 18 June, Wellington and the Prussian general Gebhard Blücher defeat Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo, in what is now modern Belgium. War between France and Britain finally ends, and Napoleon is exiled to St Helena in the Atlantic. At the Congress of Vienna, Britain keeps its colonial gains from the wars."

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/napoleon/timeline1.html

So, your friend must understand his history, so that all of us may not repeat it. The more research one does, one understands Christ's philosophy of "those who live by the sword, die by the sword." Interventionism is the good intention paving the road to Hell.

[MS0453]

I find you're friends argument absurd for what other's said above concerning insane debts and war. Yeah, the French helped us and then a decade later they underwent one of the worst and bloodiest revolutions of all time.

If he wants to see extreme poverty and chaos ensue in America, then the Bourbon foreign policy is right for him.