either in North America or in France.
Clark, p. 230.
This comes as something of a blow, as I had thought I was learning some things, both in Palmer's works, and also in Bailyn's.....
yet one can see the reasoning of the distinctions.
There was as little reason to accuse most of the Founders of being democrats as there was of accusing most Repulicans of being abolitionists in the mid 19th.
Most of the rebellions were either religious radical fringe insurgencies, out of power dynastic plots, or great power rivalry subversions of neighbors' lower and middle social levels for short term ancien regime political and diplomatic (not democratic) ends, or all three.
One has to read someone like Clark to see how and why someone like Palmer had been confused.
Palmer's book is filled with these, and he never figures out why they aren't more democratic, but they must nevertheless somehow be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment