What do you think?
Rate this book
Il grande incendio. Come la Rivoluzione americana conquistò il mondo 1775-1848
Un saggio che ricolloca la storia intellettuale della fondazione degli Stati Uniti nel suo contesto globale: il crogiuolo da cui nacque la modernità democratica
Jonathan Israel, uno dei maggiori storici mondiali dell'Illuminismo, ci spiega come le idee radicali dei fondatori americani come Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison e Monroe abbiano impostato il modello per le rivoluzioni democratiche, i movimenti e le costituzioni in Francia, Gran Bretagna, Irlanda, Paesi Bassi, Belgio, Polonia, Grecia, Canada, Haiti, Brasile e America spagnola. Perché la Rivoluzione americana fu un evento sorprendentemente radicale, che non si concluse con la trasformazione e l'indipendenza degli Stati Uniti, ma continuò a riverberare in Europa e nelle Americhe per i successivi tre quarti di secolo. Furono proprio le idee dell'Illuminismo radicale – con la distruzione dei tre pilastri della società europea di ancien régime (monarchia, aristocrazia e autorità religiosa) e la promozione del repubblicanesimo democratico, dell'autogoverno e della libertà – a ispirare le rivoluzioni in molte nazioni, dove i vari leader sposarono i valori democratici americani, seguendo esplicitamente l'esempio proposto dal Nuovo Continente. In che modo le idee espresse dalla Rivoluzione americana ispirarono le rivoluzioni in tutta Europa e nel mondo atlantico tra fine Settecento e Ottocento?
Jonathan Israel, uno dei maggiori storici mondiali dell'Illuminismo, ci spiega come le idee radicali dei fondatori americani come Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison e Monroe abbiano impostato il modello per le rivoluzioni democratiche, i movimenti e le costituzioni in Francia, Gran Bretagna, Irlanda, Paesi Bassi, Belgio, Polonia, Grecia, Canada, Haiti, Brasile e America spagnola. Perché la Rivoluzione americana fu un evento sorprendentemente radicale, che non si concluse con la trasformazione e l'indipendenza degli Stati Uniti, ma continuò a riverberare in Europa e nelle Americhe per i successivi tre quarti di secolo. Furono proprio le idee dell'Illuminismo radicale – con la distruzione dei tre pilastri della società europea di ancien régime (monarchia, aristocrazia e autorità religiosa) e la promozione del repubblicanesimo democratico, dell'autogoverno e della libertà – a ispirare le rivoluzioni in molte nazioni, dove i vari leader sposarono i valori democratici americani, seguendo esplicitamente l'esempio proposto dal Nuovo Continente. In che modo le idee espresse dalla Rivoluzione americana ispirarono le rivoluzioni in tutta Europa e nel mondo atlantico tra fine Settecento e Ottocento?
880 pages, Hardcover
First published September 5, 2017
25 people are currently reading
777 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan I. Israel
55 books160 followersJonathan Irvine Israel is a British writer on Dutch history, the Age of Enlightenment and European Jews. Israel was appointed as Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, in January 2001. He was previously Professor of Dutch History and Institutions at the University of London.
In recent years, Israel has focused his attention on a multi-volume history of the Age of Enlightenment. He contrasts two camps. The "radical Enlightenment" founded on a rationalist materialism first articulated by Spinoza. Standing in opposition was a "moderate Enlightenment" which he sees as profoundly weakened by its belief in God. In Israel’s highly controversial interpretation, the radical Enlightenment is the main source of the modern idea of freedom. He contends that the moderate Enlightenment, including Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, made no real contribution to the campaign against superstition and ignorance.
In recent years, Israel has focused his attention on a multi-volume history of the Age of Enlightenment. He contrasts two camps. The "radical Enlightenment" founded on a rationalist materialism first articulated by Spinoza. Standing in opposition was a "moderate Enlightenment" which he sees as profoundly weakened by its belief in God. In Israel’s highly controversial interpretation, the radical Enlightenment is the main source of the modern idea of freedom. He contends that the moderate Enlightenment, including Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, made no real contribution to the campaign against superstition and ignorance.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 6, 2017
Rather than viewing the American Revolution from a purely domestic perspective, Jonathan Israel, in ‘The Expanding Blaze’ chooses instead to focus on the relatively neglected theme of its “social, cultural, and ideological impact on the rest of the world” up to and including the Revolutions of 1848.
The charge of relative neglect is justified given that the concept of the ‘Atlantic Revolution’ only emerged with the publication in 1959 of ‘The Age of Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800” and because few followed in R. R. Palmer’s footsteps.
In doing so, Israel contends that the American Revolution “proved fundamental to the shaping of democratic modernity” insofar as it “commended the demolition” of the three pillars of the ancien regime by its challenges to monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority and by its creation of a new kind of polity “embodying a diametrically opposed social vision built on shared liberty and equal civil rights.”
There is obviously much in what Israel says, as the American revolutionaries were often publicly revered by their would-be imitators; the Statue of Liberty, the gift of the French people to the American people, is the most obvious and abiding expression of this sense of indebtedness, which is also manifest in the way in which the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was modelled on the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and not just because Jefferson assisted Lafayette.
But Israel goes further, following Henry F. May’s ‘The Enlightenment in America’, in claiming that the American Revolution provided two sets of exemplars for their trans-Atlantic followers. Thus Franklin, Jefferson and Paine – the “architects of the radically reforming American Revolution” - provided inspiration for those who admired the American Revolution in its “universalizing, secularizing, and egalitarian aspects”, whilst Adams, Hamilton, Morris, Jay, and, to a certain extent, Washington - the men associated with defence of the pre-Revolution status quo - provided a similar function for conservative or ‘aristocratic’ republicans.
It is true that the impact of the American Revolution was wider ranging geographically and longer lasting than the seventeenth-century English revolutions of 1640-1660 and 1688 because in the meantime Israel's 'enlighteners' predisposed the transatlantic intelligentsia towards embracing radical change. But this also illustrates the fact that transatlantic influence flowed in both directions. As Israel himself states “American ‘moderates’ exalted Locke, the legacy of the Glorious Revolution, and especially British ‘mixed government’ as the proper ground-plan for America and all societies”.
In short, Israel’s book effectively regards the ‘cultural turn’ of the late twentieth century as an intellectual cul-de-sac, intelligently expands upon the work of Palmer and May, puts the role of ideas centre stage and successfully breathes life back into the concept of the ‘Atlantic revolution’ or ‘revolutions’.
If the book has a fault it lies in Israel’s very emphasis on the ideological. He asserts, for example, that the ideologies directing revolutionary upheaval “far more often mold and exploit than derive from social or economic pressures” so that revolutions “are not shaped by sociability or general attitudes but by organized revolutionary vanguards … as a means of capturing, taking charge of, and interpreting the discontent generated by social and economic pressures”. This is true as far as it goes but it does not take account of all the factors in play.
At the risk of sounding schematic, a successful revolution, like the American, has at least three preconditions, namely, the delegitimation of the existing regime; the legitimation of the revolutionary position; and the construction of a force outside the control of the state.
Intellectuals are clearly crucial to the first two of these processes (which are effectively mirror images of one another) but anyone wishing to be more than an armchair revolutionary must then get their hands dirty, although constructing a force outside the control of the state is made immeasurably easier if the would-be revolutionary can exploit the very international dimension to which Israel draws so much attention. That is to say, this becomes much more straightforward if one can enlist practical assistance from some foreign power or powers. In the case of the Bolshevik revolution that help was provided by Germany (funding and transporting Lenin and helping to delegitimize the existing regime on the battlefield). In the case of the American Revolution the rebels received invaluable aid from the French, Dutch and Spanish.
So, yes, Israel sheds much new light on the way in which the American Revolution provided the ideological underpinning for a whole host of revolutionary movements but in the final analysis the reason why the Irish revolutionaries failed and the Greek revolutionaries succeeded lies not in the ideological sphere but in the fact that French intervention in the former case proved less effective than British intervention in the latter. A book which discusses Greek Independence without discussing the Battle of Navarino Bay is one that is missing a trick, however commendable it may be in other respects.
The charge of relative neglect is justified given that the concept of the ‘Atlantic Revolution’ only emerged with the publication in 1959 of ‘The Age of Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800” and because few followed in R. R. Palmer’s footsteps.
In doing so, Israel contends that the American Revolution “proved fundamental to the shaping of democratic modernity” insofar as it “commended the demolition” of the three pillars of the ancien regime by its challenges to monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority and by its creation of a new kind of polity “embodying a diametrically opposed social vision built on shared liberty and equal civil rights.”
There is obviously much in what Israel says, as the American revolutionaries were often publicly revered by their would-be imitators; the Statue of Liberty, the gift of the French people to the American people, is the most obvious and abiding expression of this sense of indebtedness, which is also manifest in the way in which the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was modelled on the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and not just because Jefferson assisted Lafayette.
But Israel goes further, following Henry F. May’s ‘The Enlightenment in America’, in claiming that the American Revolution provided two sets of exemplars for their trans-Atlantic followers. Thus Franklin, Jefferson and Paine – the “architects of the radically reforming American Revolution” - provided inspiration for those who admired the American Revolution in its “universalizing, secularizing, and egalitarian aspects”, whilst Adams, Hamilton, Morris, Jay, and, to a certain extent, Washington - the men associated with defence of the pre-Revolution status quo - provided a similar function for conservative or ‘aristocratic’ republicans.
It is true that the impact of the American Revolution was wider ranging geographically and longer lasting than the seventeenth-century English revolutions of 1640-1660 and 1688 because in the meantime Israel's 'enlighteners' predisposed the transatlantic intelligentsia towards embracing radical change. But this also illustrates the fact that transatlantic influence flowed in both directions. As Israel himself states “American ‘moderates’ exalted Locke, the legacy of the Glorious Revolution, and especially British ‘mixed government’ as the proper ground-plan for America and all societies”.
In short, Israel’s book effectively regards the ‘cultural turn’ of the late twentieth century as an intellectual cul-de-sac, intelligently expands upon the work of Palmer and May, puts the role of ideas centre stage and successfully breathes life back into the concept of the ‘Atlantic revolution’ or ‘revolutions’.
If the book has a fault it lies in Israel’s very emphasis on the ideological. He asserts, for example, that the ideologies directing revolutionary upheaval “far more often mold and exploit than derive from social or economic pressures” so that revolutions “are not shaped by sociability or general attitudes but by organized revolutionary vanguards … as a means of capturing, taking charge of, and interpreting the discontent generated by social and economic pressures”. This is true as far as it goes but it does not take account of all the factors in play.
At the risk of sounding schematic, a successful revolution, like the American, has at least three preconditions, namely, the delegitimation of the existing regime; the legitimation of the revolutionary position; and the construction of a force outside the control of the state.
Intellectuals are clearly crucial to the first two of these processes (which are effectively mirror images of one another) but anyone wishing to be more than an armchair revolutionary must then get their hands dirty, although constructing a force outside the control of the state is made immeasurably easier if the would-be revolutionary can exploit the very international dimension to which Israel draws so much attention. That is to say, this becomes much more straightforward if one can enlist practical assistance from some foreign power or powers. In the case of the Bolshevik revolution that help was provided by Germany (funding and transporting Lenin and helping to delegitimize the existing regime on the battlefield). In the case of the American Revolution the rebels received invaluable aid from the French, Dutch and Spanish.
So, yes, Israel sheds much new light on the way in which the American Revolution provided the ideological underpinning for a whole host of revolutionary movements but in the final analysis the reason why the Irish revolutionaries failed and the Greek revolutionaries succeeded lies not in the ideological sphere but in the fact that French intervention in the former case proved less effective than British intervention in the latter. A book which discusses Greek Independence without discussing the Battle of Navarino Bay is one that is missing a trick, however commendable it may be in other respects.
January 30, 2022
A deep and detailed history of the World during the revolutionary period of 1775-1848. Many people can talk about the American and French Revolution, and how it brought a new model for the world, but what they cannot tell you is about all the other revolutions that it brought with. It is a great book that shows that ideas were moving around the globe, even in the late 18th/early 19th century, albeit at a much slower pace. A long and thorough book, you are going to need to sit down and read this one. However, you will be happy that you did.
October 12, 2018
**Received as a Goodreads giveaway**
A look at the connections of the American Revolution with the other attempted republican revolutions of Europe and South America between 1789 and 1848. Isreal starts with a political history of the revolution in America, then follows the spirit of '76 as it ignites the rebellion in France and circles the Atlantic until it falls under the shadow of nationalism in the mid nineteenth century. There's a lot of ground to cover here but he manages to fit it into a relatively small space while hitting all the important events and relating it to the principles of the American Revolution. It's mostly an interesting and informative read, though at times it does feel a little dry and textbook-like.
A look at the connections of the American Revolution with the other attempted republican revolutions of Europe and South America between 1789 and 1848. Isreal starts with a political history of the revolution in America, then follows the spirit of '76 as it ignites the rebellion in France and circles the Atlantic until it falls under the shadow of nationalism in the mid nineteenth century. There's a lot of ground to cover here but he manages to fit it into a relatively small space while hitting all the important events and relating it to the principles of the American Revolution. It's mostly an interesting and informative read, though at times it does feel a little dry and textbook-like.
February 23, 2021
This book contains a wealth of information and detail. However, Israel's argument falls short. His thesis is that the American Revolution was divided into Radical and a Moderate wings. The Radical wing rejected all forms of the ancien regime, including aristocracy and organized religion. Many of them were deists. Israel argues this Radical wing, represented by Paine and Jefferson, was the true heart of the revolution. The early French Revolution was perfectly in line with this movement until it was hijacked by Robespierre. Israel strongly argues that Robespierre was not a true follower of the ideals of the Revolution. Where the Radical Enlightenment succeeded, the results were abolition of aristocracy, slavery, and organized religion. Where it failed these remained entrenched.
There are a number of flaws in this thesis. First, the idea of complete similarity between French and American Revolutions is assumed and never proved. Second, his defense of the Radical Enlightenment causes him to drastically minimize similarities (Jefferson, a supposed Radical Enlightener, supported slavery and was an ardent aristocrat. Hamilton, the villain of the story, was an opponent of slavery and a founder of an early abolition society). Finally, Israel's claim that the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence owed nothing to John Locke is simply part of his desire to tie the American Revolution to the pantheistic democracy of Spinoza.
There are a number of flaws in this thesis. First, the idea of complete similarity between French and American Revolutions is assumed and never proved. Second, his defense of the Radical Enlightenment causes him to drastically minimize similarities (Jefferson, a supposed Radical Enlightener, supported slavery and was an ardent aristocrat. Hamilton, the villain of the story, was an opponent of slavery and a founder of an early abolition society). Finally, Israel's claim that the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence owed nothing to John Locke is simply part of his desire to tie the American Revolution to the pantheistic democracy of Spinoza.
March 11, 2023
杰斐逊和亚当斯关于贵族民主和平民民主的争论，除了在宗教意义上的传统宗教和异教的冲突外，似乎和罗马共和国晚期元老院贵族民主与格拉古兄弟提倡的罗马公民民主冲突有类似之处，只是古罗马的这场冲突最后转变为流血冲突，最后成就了凯撒屋大维的帝制，而美国则通过一届届的选举，成功实现了从贵族民主向平民民主的转变，但同时也避免了多数人的暴政出现。汉娜阿伦特居然赞同美国革命对欧洲大陆的革命毫无影响，实在不能理解，且不说拉法耶特从美国革命过来，带来的独立宣言影响了人权宣言，他所推崇的贵族式民主，以及后来的七月王朝式的统治方式，无不受到美国革命中亚当斯派保守系的影响，就凭这一点，阿伦特的理解就有偏差。美国建国后居然有想把经营贵族化，世袭化的打算，应该是受到母国的影响，但是这样与他们反对的英王暴政有何区别，革命的意义何在？还好华盛顿保持冷静和自制，拒绝了《辛辛那图斯规约》，否则他就成了第二个凯撒和克伦威尔，抑或拿破仑的先驱。欧洲大陆赞颂美国民主的进步人士在宣扬美国民主时有意夸大了它的广泛性，淡化了它的贵族化，少数派倾向，以致迷惑了后世一众史家。
美国独立战争不仅影响了法国，还影响了荷兰，这一点没有想到，激进的荷兰民主主义者想效法英属美国居民一样取消对奥兰治家族的效忠，建立真正的共和国，而奥兰治家族则不赞成对英开战，扩大民主派势力。荷兰联省共和国的现状，和美国独立后13个殖民地非常类似，只是美国吸取了荷兰共和国各省之间矛盾重重的教训，通过联邦宪法维护了合众国的统一强大，同时尊重各州权利。荷兰激进派和奥兰治派的矛盾最终引来了普鲁士军队的镇压和法国军队的入侵，无论是哪一派最终都成了牺牲品。作为先后派驻荷兰的亚当斯父子在这些斗争中的矛盾心态颇值得玩味。
杰斐逊宣称民主主义，然而在对待海地黑人起义的态度却暴露了他只是假民主主义，他所支持的是白人的民主主义，这一点他的表现还不如亚当斯和布里索这样的保守主义者，可谓虚伪。美国开始利用海地对抗英国和法国，但是当美国与法国达成谅解，消除了法国从路易斯安那可能的威胁后久翻脸不认人，拒不承认海地共和国，只承认圣多明各，这应该是南方奴隶主的态度，生怕自己的黑人奴仆学习海地的榜样，美国直到1864年才承认海地共和国，这与美国内战形势的明朗应该不无关系。
希腊和拉美的革命后宪法制定和执行都遇到了同样的问题，想学习美国联邦宪法的榜样，但实际并没有实行民主宪法的政治土壤，温和派和激进派反复拉锯，最终还是走回了保守的老路，拉美国家走向了考迪罗统治，希腊则迎来了君主专制。只有有自治传统的瑞士才真正在革命后实行了类似美国的宪法和两院制。
路易十八在波旁王朝复辟后保留了一部分大革命的成果，降低了新闻检查的力度，另外欢迎外国革命者流亡到法国，这使得民主激进观念在他任内开始滋生，等到查理十世倒行逆施时终于爆发，原来的保皇派也转变为民主派，领导了街头的暴动。新上台的菲利普是在拉斐特和拉马克这些老民主派支持下登基的，但是他没过多久就抛弃了他们，在基佐等亲信的支持下开始缩小民主，提高选民资格，这让国内外民主派一致失望，最后被1848年革命推翻一点也不奇怪，连国民警卫队都拒绝为他效力。
拉马丁等共和派上台后同样遇到了与激进派争夺权力的问题，这一点就像吉伦特派和山岳派斗争一样，最终不能不通过街头战争解决。共和派扩大选举权的后果是造成保皇派和波拿巴派得势，在农民眼里，波拿巴皇帝远比收45生丁税的共和派亲切，卡芬雅克在大选中败给路易波拿巴也就不奇怪了。
美国独立战争不仅影响了法国，还影响了荷兰，这一点没有想到，激进的荷兰民主主义者想效法英属美国居民一样取消对奥兰治家族的效忠，建立真正的共和国，而奥兰治家族则不赞成对英开战，扩大民主派势力。荷兰联省共和国的现状，和美国独立后13个殖民地非常类似，只是美国吸取了荷兰共和国各省之间矛盾重重的教训，通过联邦宪法维护了合众国的统一强大，同时尊重各州权利。荷兰激进派和奥兰治派的矛盾最终引来了普鲁士军队的镇压和法国军队的入侵，无论是哪一派最终都成了牺牲品。作为先后派驻荷兰的亚当斯父子在这些斗争中的矛盾心态颇值得玩味。
杰斐逊宣称民主主义，然而在对待海地黑人起义的态度却暴露了他只是假民主主义，他所支持的是白人的民主主义，这一点他的表现还不如亚当斯和布里索这样的保守主义者，可谓虚伪。美国开始利用海地对抗英国和法国，但是当美国与法国达成谅解，消除了法国从路易斯安那可能的威胁后久翻脸不认人，拒不承认海地共和国，只承认圣多明各，这应该是南方奴隶主的态度，生怕自己的黑人奴仆学习海地的榜样，美国直到1864年才承认海地共和国，这与美国内战形势的明朗应该不无关系。
希腊和拉美的革命后宪法制定和执行都遇到了同样的问题，想学习美国联邦宪法的榜样，但实际并没有实行民主宪法的政治土壤，温和派和激进派反复拉锯，最终还是走回了保守的老路，拉美国家走向了考迪罗统治，希腊则迎来了君主专制。只有有自治传统的瑞士才真正在革命后实行了类似美国的宪法和两院制。
路易十八在波旁王朝复辟后保留了一部分大革命的成果，降低了新闻检查的力度，另外欢迎外国革命者流亡到法国，这使得民主激进观念在他任内开始滋生，等到查理十世倒行逆施时终于爆发，原来的保皇派也转变为民主派，领导了街头的暴动。新上台的菲利普是在拉斐特和拉马克这些老民主派支持下登基的，但是他没过多久就抛弃了他们，在基佐等亲信的支持下开始缩小民主，提高选民资格，这让国内外民主派一致失望，最后被1848年革命推翻一点也不奇怪，连国民警卫队都拒绝为他效力。
拉马丁等共和派上台后同样遇到了与激进派争夺权力的问题，这一点就像吉伦特派和山岳派斗争一样，最终不能不通过街头战争解决。共和派扩大选举权的后果是造成保皇派和波拿巴派得势，在农民眼里，波拿巴皇帝远比收45生丁税的共和派亲切，卡芬雅克在大选中败给路易波拿巴也就不奇怪了。
June 7, 2019
“Il grande incendio. Come la Rivoluzione americana conquistò il mondo 1775-1848”, titolo originale: “The Expanding Blaze. How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775-1848”, di Jonathan Israel, traduzione di Dario Ferrari e Sarah Malfatti, edizione Einaudi; ISBN: 978-88-06-23676-2.
Bellissimo saggio che mette in luce la grandissima influenza che ebbe la Rivoluzione americana su tutti i moti democratici avvicendatisi fra la fine del diciottesimo e la metà del diciannovesimo secolo e su tutte le carte costituzionali promosse nel medesimo lasso temporale.
In particolare, viene messo in rilievo l’apporto fondamentale che si deve all’influenza della corrente dell’illuminismo radicale (ad esempio: Condorcet, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, …) che promuoveva un pensiero politico basato sulla visione rivoluzionaria incentrata sul concetto dei “diritti dell’uomo” e, conseguentemente, perorava forme di egualitarismo per la rappresentanza politica, costituzioni laiche e auspicava un forte impegno statale finalizzato all’elevazione culturale delle “masse”.
Ad esso, si contrapponeva non solo tutto il pensiero conservatore legato al modello tradizionale incarnato nell’”ancien régime”, ma anche la corrente illuminista più conservatrice (ad esempio: Burke, Adams, …) che infine, sostanzialmente prevalse a lungo, e che rigettava le istanze egualitarie orientandosi su modelli costituzionali e rappresentativi che si ispiravano alla Costituzione inglese del 1668, incentrata su di un sistema bi-camerale che, non solo limitavano drasticamente la rappresentanza popolare, ma che in più, riservava l’accesso ad uno dei rami del parlamento ai soli ceti privilegiati.
Interessante anche notare la progressiva involuzione del pensiero politico americano che vide infine il prevalere dell’ala conservatrice supportata dal bigottismo religioso legato al fenomeno del “secondo grande risveglio”; essa fu causato da una parte dalla pressione delle élite, desiderose di limitare la rappresentanza popolare al fine di salvaguardare proprietà e privilegi, e dall’altra, dalla crisi dell’illuminismo radicale (a sua volta vulnerato dagli eccessi del “terrore” della rivoluzione francese) apparentemente incapace, all’atto pratico, di stabilizzare i moti rivoluzionari mitigando le istanze delle sue frange più estremiste. Nell’esperienza americana, come fattore corrosivo delle idee progressiste non va sminuito il danno collaterale derivante dall’accettazione dell’inestricabile incoerenza di principio legata all’insostenibile compromesso sulla questione della schiavitù, che, ricordiamo, infine, nel corso della seconda metà dell’Ottocento rischierà di mandare in pezzi il Paese precipitandolo nel vortice della guerra di secessione degli Stati schiavisti.
Bellissimo saggio che mette in luce la grandissima influenza che ebbe la Rivoluzione americana su tutti i moti democratici avvicendatisi fra la fine del diciottesimo e la metà del diciannovesimo secolo e su tutte le carte costituzionali promosse nel medesimo lasso temporale.
In particolare, viene messo in rilievo l’apporto fondamentale che si deve all’influenza della corrente dell’illuminismo radicale (ad esempio: Condorcet, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, …) che promuoveva un pensiero politico basato sulla visione rivoluzionaria incentrata sul concetto dei “diritti dell’uomo” e, conseguentemente, perorava forme di egualitarismo per la rappresentanza politica, costituzioni laiche e auspicava un forte impegno statale finalizzato all’elevazione culturale delle “masse”.
Ad esso, si contrapponeva non solo tutto il pensiero conservatore legato al modello tradizionale incarnato nell’”ancien régime”, ma anche la corrente illuminista più conservatrice (ad esempio: Burke, Adams, …) che infine, sostanzialmente prevalse a lungo, e che rigettava le istanze egualitarie orientandosi su modelli costituzionali e rappresentativi che si ispiravano alla Costituzione inglese del 1668, incentrata su di un sistema bi-camerale che, non solo limitavano drasticamente la rappresentanza popolare, ma che in più, riservava l’accesso ad uno dei rami del parlamento ai soli ceti privilegiati.
Interessante anche notare la progressiva involuzione del pensiero politico americano che vide infine il prevalere dell’ala conservatrice supportata dal bigottismo religioso legato al fenomeno del “secondo grande risveglio”; essa fu causato da una parte dalla pressione delle élite, desiderose di limitare la rappresentanza popolare al fine di salvaguardare proprietà e privilegi, e dall’altra, dalla crisi dell’illuminismo radicale (a sua volta vulnerato dagli eccessi del “terrore” della rivoluzione francese) apparentemente incapace, all’atto pratico, di stabilizzare i moti rivoluzionari mitigando le istanze delle sue frange più estremiste. Nell’esperienza americana, come fattore corrosivo delle idee progressiste non va sminuito il danno collaterale derivante dall’accettazione dell’inestricabile incoerenza di principio legata all’insostenibile compromesso sulla questione della schiavitù, che, ricordiamo, infine, nel corso della seconda metà dell’Ottocento rischierà di mandare in pezzi il Paese precipitandolo nel vortice della guerra di secessione degli Stati schiavisti.
September 20, 2020
Geen eenvoudig boek, dat je even gauw uitleest, maar wel ongelofelijk interessant. Israels is een Britse historicus, die ook veel over Nederland heeft geschreven, maar vooral, voor mij, bekend is door zijn boeken over de Verlichting. Hier wordt niet alleen de Amerikaanse Revolutie beschreven, maar vooral de invloed van deze omwenteling op andere landen met hun revoluties in Europa en Zuid-Amerika. Dat gaat dan van de Franse Revolutie, de Nederlandse Patriotten en nog veel meer tot de opstanden/revoluties van 1830 en 1848 in Europa. Het gaat ook heel veel over het Amerikaanse politieke systeem en geeft daardoor direct een goede kijk op de ontwikkeling van de Amerikaanse politiek tot in het heden. Het gelijkheidsprincipe, wat in het begin leidend was, zie je in Amerika langzaam overgaan in een soort nieuwe "aristocratie" en dan niet zo zeer de titels, als wel het bezit en toch ook de afkomst. Het boek stopt ongeveer in 1850, dus ruim voor de Amerikaanse burgeroorlog.
November 16, 2022
I really enjoyed this book. Israel ties together many global revolutions that followed and borrowed from the American Revolution. He also gives a thorough critique of advocates of mixed government like Locke and Montesquieu while praising radicals like Jefferson, Paine, and Condorcet. He even challenged the Marxist interpretation of the 1848 French Revolution thoroughly.
January 12, 2020
Just read this book
Outstanding
Outstanding
Read
July 6, 2018973.3 I856 2017
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews