| Title | : | The Age of the Democratic Revolution, Vol 2: The Struggle |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0691005702 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780691005706 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 596 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1964 |
| Awards | : | National Book Award Finalist History and Biography (1965) |
Volume 1 of this distinguished two-volume work, "The Challenge," received critical accolades throughout the world. It was the winner of the Bancroft Prize in 1960 and was called "one of the classic works of American historical scholarship" ( Key Reporter ) and a book which "will enlarge and clarify our understanding of modern Western history. It will re-emphasize the strength and vitality of the roots that supported the growth of democracy in the Old and New Worlds" ( New York Times ). "Occasionally a historical work appears which, by synthesis of much previous specialized work and by intelligent reflection upon the whole, makes events of the past click into a new pattern and assume fresh meaning. Professor Palmer's book is such a work" ( American Historical Review ).
"The Challenge" took the story to the eve of the French Revolutionary wars; Volume 2, "The Struggle" continues the account to 1800.
The Age of the Democratic Revolution, Vol 2: The Struggle Reviews
-
A flawed, rambling, but fascinating account of the revolutions of the 1700s that connects them to each other while pointing out differences. Palmer does not discuss revolutions outside of Europe and America, but he does recount generally forgotten European movements, such as those in Poland, Austria, Italy, and the rest. The sister republics of the 1790s were clearly less puppets than is supposed and that is Palmer's best argument, pointing out how the coalition often recieved a chilly reception in northern Italy and the Netherlands. That said, the enigma of Napoleon Bonaparte is not really addressed.
Palmer's mission was to restore faith and reverence for the democratic (I feel republican is more accurate) revolutions in an age (1960s) when the horrors of communism had made revolution into a dirty word. In that sense it is an anti-communist book if only indirectly. It is hopeful perhaps to naivety. For in our time the spirit of democratic revolution has faded, wrecked by capitalism and the left's love of social, instead of political and economic, revolution. Palmer wrote "It was a prediction that even inequalities of wealth and income, like others, would be reduced either by revolution or otherwise. Such has in fact proved to be the case." I imagine today would leave him sick, as the left goes for a divisive politics and is tolerated by an elite that sees its power remaining generally unquestioned so long as they can hold onto vast quantities of wealth. Equality marches on, but unevenly and nothing says we cannot regress. Economically and democratically, we very clearly have regressed. On that point of hope, Palmer and I part ways but I find his hopeful sentiments to be more wise than naive, tempered as they are with a realistic viewpoint and adherence to evidence.
The ending is stirring, and given what I have seen of the American left of 2017, depressing.
"If a sense of inequality or injustice persists too long untreated, it will produce social disorganization. In a general breakdown, if a constructive doctrine and program are at hand, such as were furnished in the eighteenth century by the European Enlightenment, if the capacities of leaders and followers are adequate to the purpose, and if they are strong enough to prevail over their adversaries, then a revolution may not only occur and survive, but open the way toward a better society. The conditions are hard to meet, but the stakes are high, for the alternative may be worse."*
The left's current doctrine is not constructive, it leaders are idiots obsessed with purity tests, and in a war with the American right they will lose every time. The stakes are high, but we battle over trivialities while the right controls high fiance and the police. Palmer showed that the revolutionaries often had popular support and the conservatives did not. Who can say that is true today? I apologize in making my review contemporary, but these thoughts rang out in my mind as I read a book about an age of hope that came to naught, only to sow the seeds of greater equality. I cannot say that I see that in our future.
*Palmer might have added "so long as the regime is not completely murderous" for there is a reason Gorbachev and not Andropov oversaw the demise of the USSR. Indeed, the recipe for revolution s a regime too weak to defend itself but just strong enough to be repressive. -
It took an age to read
