“A Rousing Defense of Liberty”: Princeton Historian Reviews “Rage and the Republic”

Princeton historian Professor Andrew Fagal has published the latest review of my new book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution. Dr. Fagal calls the book “a rousing defense of liberty.” Not surprisingly, given his accomplished career, the review in the Washington Examiner is insightful and informative, and I recommend it to readers. These reviews are opportunities for academic exchanges about the book, and Dr. Fagal raises a couple of historical points that I would like to address more fully.

I have been delighted by the reviews and the reception of the book, including debuting at #2 on the New York Times Bestsellers list (NF). I particularly value the reviews of other writers and historians who share their own perspectives on the underlying sources and accounts.

Notably, Dr. Fagal stresses that the book is about “ochlocracy.” It is a term that I do not use in favor of “mobocracy,” the term used by figures such as Benjamin Rush. The book discusses how the Founders wanted to avoid the historical pattern of democracies becoming a type of “democratic despotism,” devouring themselves in fits of impulse and violence.

The term refers to “mob rule,” using the  Greek word for “mob” (ochlos). It is often attributed to the historian Polybius. While I refer to the ochlos, I do not use the term simply because it is something of a tongue twister. However, it is synonymous with mobocracy.

This is a book about revolutions and traces the struggle to create a stable democracy back to Athens. The founders did not want to replicate Athenian democracy, which did not survive the pressures and passions of the system. It was viewed as an example of how direct democracies are inherently unstable.

The founders sought to establish a republic that could direct and control these pressures. The Madisonian system proved ideal in creating a system that allowed for democratic expression while protecting both governmental integrity and minority rights.

Dr. Fagal does catch an error in the book, which discusses at length the assassination of Marat, the blood-soaked Jacobin who directed many of the executions during the French Revolution. The book explores the fascinating story of Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d’Armont (known simply as Charlotte Corday), who killed Marat in his bathtub. Fagal notes that there is a stray reference to Marat in another part of the book of his dying on the guillotine. It was an error that was meant to be corrected in editing, but was only changed for the paperback.

I wanted to discuss two more arcane points that may be of interest to few outside of academia.

Dr. Fagal notes that I make a reference to Paine’s April 20, 1793, letter to Jefferson as part of my discussion of the execution of Louis XVI. He notes that the letter concerned General Charles Dumouriez’s defection to the Austrians. The lack of context is a fair point. However, the reference was not to the “extraordinary event” that prompted the letter, but to how Paine described the unraveling conditions in France. Fagal is right that “the event” was the defection, but the acknowledgment of the abuses of the Jacobins was relevant, in my view, to understanding the environment leading to the execution of Louis XVI that year. Paine had identified with the moderate wing of the Jacobins but was now seeing the terror unfold (Paine was attacked by “The Mountain,” or the more radical Jacobins, for calling for the sparing of the life of Louis XVI.

Dr. Fagal also notes that I briefly discuss Paine’s 1797 pamphlet, To the People of France and the French Armies. I cite the pamphlet as part of a criticism of Paine for losing sight of his overall commitment to free speech. As I discuss in the book, I love Paine for his courage and his principles. One of the few criticisms in the book was his brief support for a crackdown on Royalists, including an attack on free speech.

In Rage and the Republic, I write:

“there was a crackdown by Republicans on critics, including making it a crime punishable by death to call for the restoration of the monarchy. Paine supported the measure and asked, ‘Shall the Republic be destroyed by the darksome manoeuvres of a faction, or shall it be preserved by an exceptional act?’ It was a shocking statement from a man who was charged with sedition in England for criticizing the King.”

Dr. Fagal flags these lines and notes that the pamphlet was focused on the military coup of 18 Fructidor. He notes that the elections had produced a Royalist majority and “the Jacobins, rightly fearing that the royalists were plotting to restore the monarchy.” He adds that “I’m sure that Turley and other Madisonian constitutionalists would agree that justifying a military coup against a democratically elected bicameral legislature is still pretty bad. But it’s not exactly an attack on free speech!”

While Dr. Fagal is again right on the context for the comment, I disagree with his take on this pamphlet. The coup seized power from the democratically elected representatives in France, including republicans who believed in a constitutional monarchy. Paine himself was vehemently anti-monarchial, but came to oppose the unhinged attack on Louis XVI. (He wanted the King and Queen exiled to the United States).

The fact is that the measures included the criminalization of speech, and Paine supported those measures. I have exchanged thoughts on this curious chapter of his life with Dr. Fagal, and I am not aware of any public denunciation of the criminalization of speech by Paine at that time.

In the end, these lines should be considered in the book’s overall context, which follows Paine’s work in both revolutions. (With Lafayette, one of only two major figures playing a significant role in both the American and French revolutions). Paine was an inspiring figure. I consider him the most revolutionary figure of the American Revolution. I also consider him one of the extraordinary figures I have ever researched. In the book, I note:

“In an intriguing way, a new emerging people found the perfect embodiment in Paine—impatient, precocious, and unpredictable. He came to America to reinvent himself and found a nation looking for the very same thing. He would become the voice not of the powdered and pampered class of armchair revolutionaries, but of the common man.

…While Paine seemed perfectly clueless in dealing with other humans, he had a brilliant conception of humanity. His “Common Sense” was their sense of what was wrong with the world around them. Paine would also come to know that revolution, once unleashed, can develop an insatiable appetite. It is a lesson that is easily forgotten by a people that have not known revolution for centuries. Radicals today espouse the same reckless demand for change “by any means necessary.” History has shown that it is far easier to start a revolution than it is to contain one. Paine would discover that fact at great cost to himself and to those he loved. He was the ultimate example of Saturn’s children. He would be devoured by revolution and then emerge with a new perspective of how revolutions are won and lost. If you want to understand the American Revolution—and all revolutions—you would be wise to start with Thomas Paine.”

As noted earlier, these are rather precious points, but I thought that they warranted further discussion. I have great respect for Dr. Fagal and I am delighted by his review.