Should France have gotten involved in the US Revolutionary War?

[Nye Bevan]

Taxation without representation hardly equates to the use of WMDs. And the French mainland was not threatened by the conflict. Obviously Benjamin Franklin was very successful in persuading France to intervene, but was it right for them to do so?

6 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, it was right for France to intervene militarily in the US Revolutionary War.
	4 (67%)
	No, France should have stayed out of the conflict.
	2 (33%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Certainly not from the French people's point of view. See 1789 for what happened next.

[FarCenter]

8. Assisting the Americans ran up French debt and they lost their main fleet

They should have cut their losses after losing the Seven Years War.

But imperial prestige was on the line, so they rearmed, supported the Americans, and lost their new fleet.

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

The imperial hubris of Louis XV and XVI played a large role in the ruinous taxation that led to France's downfall.

[Marr]

2. They didn't do it for us. They did it for France.

And from the perspective of the average French citizen-- no, they shouldn't have.

[TheKentuckian]

4. No shit, how many bites at the apple are these folks going to take to sell their war?

[Marr]

7. It's like stepping back in time to 2003.

It's really bizarre. Seriously-- 99% of the arguments I've seen in favor of action against Syria have been nearly verbatim repeats of arguments we heard in 2002-2003. Exactly the same emotional, simplistic nonsense-- only with an asterisk attached and a notation that, "Obama is not Bush".

[sarisataka]

3. We should not have fought the Crown

the U.S. is obviously a failed experiment in government. We, and the world, would be much better under a monarchy.

[Xithras]

5. The Revolutionary War was largely a proxy war between England and France.

Between 1740 and 1775, France and England had fought against each other in two wars that spanned a total of 19 years. The peace between them was uneasy, and it was widely understood that there would be another war between them in the very near future (and there was, starting in 1792). The French weren't really interested in helping the colonists gain their freedom, and in fact our freedom worked against France's own long term interests, but they WERE interested in keeping the British military busy and bleeding, to weaken them for a future war.

It was a classic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario.

[One_Life_To_Give]

21. +1

[zipplewrath]

32. Yup, and at least 1 point France tried to sell us out.

Adams became very frustrated with the French because he became aware they didn't really care at all whether we won or not. And we came to understand that at one point they were ready to sell us out TO the British.

[Historic NY]

6. France got in seeking to gain opportunity ...

over Britain along with it territories in the New World. In the end a depleted treasury did them in.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Exactly.

If one has any doubt, one has only to glance at the history of England and France since 1066 to see nearly continuous war. Once the New World was discovered, things really heated up. The "superpowers" of Europe rushed to allot New World's territory among themselves. With Portugal's power waning earlier and Spain's power much diminished after the defeat of the Armada, Britain and France literally found themselves to be the last ones standing.

France saw assisting the American colonies with their revolution as a way to shore up their influence in the New World which had taken very bad hits - and losses of territory - after the Battle for Quebec. Ironically, with France's own treasury depleted as a result of its intervention and with the French Revolution one of the outcomes, it was Napoleon Bonaparte who sold the Louisiana Purchase to the US in the early 1800s to finance his wars throughout continental Europe and the Middle East, thus relinquishing the most important French holdings without any battle at all. It was also Napoleon Bonaparte who added Syrian territory, among others, to his French Empire, which didn't last long.

Those additions have certainly had their adverse reverberations today.

[cthulu2016]

9. It was a low-cost way to damage Britain

I doubt that the very symbol of arrogant monarchy, the late pre-Revolution French crown, was motivated by a desire to make the world democratic.

[dembotoz]

12. yep

worked out pretty good for us though

[JVS]

11. It was a bad move for the French king.

Supporting the creation of a republic in the new world really bit the royal family on the ass when France decided to become a republic.

[karynnj]

13. They actually had the gall to put troops on the ground to aid the insurgents!

Actually - this was part of at least 100 years of Britain and France sporadically fighting. Remember that they had just lost what we call the "French and Indian" war.

[LondonReign2]

16. Were the Americans religious zealots that had recently attacked France?

'cause see, that's where your attempted analogy falls on its face

[karynnj]

18. I wasn't attempting an analogy.

Note too that they put troops here.

You completely ignore that I did then cite the real history.

[LondonReign2]

19. Are you suggesting we put troops in Syria then?

[hootinholler]

14. Isn't Britain not going to war during our civil war a better analogy?

The south was begging them for help.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Yep and I was going to add the burning of Atlanta would be even more analogous. n/t

[LittleBlue]

15. It was in their strategic interest to do so

To weaken the British Empire, they supported us. So yeah, it made sense. And they certainly didn't come to the colonies, fire off a few barrages and go home.

I'm not sure what strategic reason we have for supporting Al Qaeda in Syria, though.

[shenmue]

17. Yes

France helped us a lot. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

I guess we're just supposed to sit here and twiddle our thumbs and say by comparison, Syria doesn't mean anything. Their kids can just die and who cares, they didn't do anything for us...

That's what DU seems to think these days.

I feel sorry for the Syrian kids. Guess that makes me a horrible person.

[zipplewrath]

33. Which ones

I feel sorry for the Syrian kids.

Which ones? The ones we kill, the ones Assad kills, or the ones that the insurgents kill?

[LostOne4Ever]

35. +infinity (nt)

[LanternWaste]

39. Sorrow for one denies sorrow for the other?

"The ones we kill, the ones Assad kills, or the ones that the insurgents kill?..."

Sorrow for one denies sorrow for the other (directly implied by the use of the "or" qualifier)?

[zipplewrath]

42. We haven't killed any... yet

The expression was made for a desire to bomb because of sorrow for those already dead, and those feared to die. I was curious about the ones that won't die if we don't bomb. Aren't we just trading sorrows? How about we put our effort into halting the killing by everyone, instead of joining the killing ourselves?

[NuclearDem]

20. France wanted to bloody Britain's nose.

Incidentally, the way to do it was by helping the revolution.

[KamaAina]

22. France did not go in out of sympathy for our brave patriots.

They saw a chance to stick it to their rival Britain. Which Franklin played to the hilt.

So what's our ulterior motive in Syria?

[whatchamacallit]

23. Lame.

Very.

[Nye Bevan]

26. Actually, I have found several of the posts in this thread very informative.

Not yours, obviously.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Well I'm glad

someone schooled you.

[marmar]

24. Les pommes et les oranges

nt

[malthaussen]

25. France engaged in what was, essentially, a century-long war against Britain...

... the American Revolution being one phase of same. It bankrupted the nation and led directly to the French Revolution and the toppling of the Ancient Regime.

It was a very bad idea. But the French pundits believed it was in their national interest to oppose Britain by any means, anywhere on the globe. Unfortunately for la Belle France, their finances weren't up to the task.

-- Mal

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. The French wanted to help the South during the Civil War.

They offered to run blockades of Southern ports and fortify the Confederacy, but the Confederacy refused to give up slavery.

Slavery was more important than winning the war.

[hedgehog]

28. I don't know - but consider the possibilities -

if the American colonies had remained part of Great Britain -

- how would the fate of Native Americans have changed?

- what about WWI and WWII?

- would slavery have ended sooner without the attendant bloodshed?

- would racial relations be different today?

- would we have a National health system?

[Nye Bevan]

30. The US today would probably resemble Canada.

Queen Elizabeth would be on our currency. We would probably be a parliamentary democracy; no First Amendment, but no Second Amendment either. I suspect that the Civil War would have been much less likely to occur, but I really don't know what historians' opinions are of this.

[zipplewrath]

34. Effect on the Monarch

The hard part to tell is what effect the colonies would have had on the Monarchy. Would it have stayed in power because of the wealth generated in the colonies? Does westward expansion happen at all? How does it affect relations with France? Does the French revolution happen anyway?

[hedgehog]

36. The West Coast may well have been split between Mexico

(or Northern Mexico) and Russia.

And I don't even want to guess about Texas!

And it's up in the air where France would be today!

[GalaxyHunter]

37. yes. we had common enemies.

[LanternWaste]

38. a much stronger analogous thread, e.g., the Ottoman War of Succession 1509-12

One of these days, I'll read a thoughtful post which both compares and contrast one conflict with another, cites objective sources, and doesn't pretend that doing a thing in a war 150 years ago is the same as doing the same thing in a war in the here and now. But today is not that day...

One of these days, I'll read a post which contrast the current potential conflict to a historical event with a much stronger analogous thread, e.g., the Ottoman War of Succession 1509-12, and the political crisis from which it was born, and into which it sent the European powers. But today is not that day.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. Helping us helped push them into bankruptcy and helped hasten their own Revolutionary war.

[Dr Fate]

41. Yes, I am willing to bankrupt the US treasury to assist Syria.

If France was willing to do it for us, then unless we are hypocrites, we have to do it for Syria too.

Besides, the government and media tells us the cost will be "de minimus"- cheap as hell in other words.

We can too afford it, and if we have to go broke like France did, so be it.