The topic of this comparative historical paper is how and why Religion had an indelible effect on each of the Atlantic Revolutions. In what ways did religion constitute a pivotal nudge and how did it grant momentum to each Revolution in question? There were of course social, civil, military and economic catalysts of the French, American and Haitian Revolutions. These could also be seen as lenses that historians use to better understand those times and events. In this comparative historical paper or perhaps monograph, I will be focusing on religious catalysts and it is my intention to show that religion bears more than a perceived placebo effect in its influence upon the French, American and Haitian Revolutions. I will be using religion as a rather unique lens, and my methodology will be using the historical methods of Leopold Von Ranke. I resonate with the rationale of gathering information as a first step in making rational, methodical, balanced and informed conclusions.
How does this paper contribute to Historiography? In the field of generalities, historians and academics, from what I have observed, tend to avoid the topic of religion in connection with history or academia. I have not really encountered monographs of this sort before. But...can religion really be a lens? The concrete and the tangible can be a welcome relief from the metaphysical which can at times be vague and ambiguous. This paper will contribute to the historiography of the Atlantic Revolutions because it is an informative foray into a topic academics do not often approach. If this topic, the effect of Religion as an influence on certain catalysts of the Atlantic Revolutions has not been proportionally examined in academia, there will be gaps and my research here will add to what little or much might exist on the topic. Herein is this topic’s contribution to historiography. Naturally, the next question becomes whether the effort, or premise or topic is viable for a comparative historical paper.
Initially I was dubious and in doubt. I had great skepticism that this was a viable topic. In the lapse of time since that point, I have undertaken what at times seems like a blind man’s bluff search, but the research has at the least, not disproven my intention, and at the most, it has hinted at an affirmation of my theories. Does the research show that Religion had a strong impact on the Atlantic Revolutions? I have decided to let the sources conclusively answer this question. I expect my sources to throw light on this topic and on each other as well as the number of gaps I anticipate finding and examining. For reasons of time and space, I will be treating upon this topic with sufficient details to establish the veracity of what transpired in the context of the event or catalyst in question, but I will be omitting redundant and irrelevant information.
The topic involves specific events that cannot be separated from the fact that they in part stemmed from religious roots. Religious events, clergy and essentially religious ideas in connection with freedom were some catalysts of the Haitian, French and American Revolutions. Establishing this point and utilizing the efficacy of religion as a historical lens are central to the rationale of this paper. The Haitian Revolution was in part initiated and perpetrated by a certain religious ceremony. The French Revolution was initiated in part by religious people...specifically certain lower echelons of the clergy. The American Revolution was strongly sanctioned and encouraged by very religious people and affirmed by religious ideals nurtured and matured away and apart from traditional, at time castigating, top to bottom religious organizations in Europe.
I of course have theories and in the realm of momentary considerations I am careful not to refer to my theories as facts. I would like, however, to immediately delve into the sources I have collected and to establish my theories in the records of the past. What are my theories? They are theories regarding the French, American and Haitian Revolutions. My theory is that religion, in one way or another, had an active hand in each revolution just as social issues, economics, civics and the military were legitimate catalysts that also contributed to these Atlantic Revolutions. It is my intent that my sources clinch my persuasive endeavors. And I will use my sources as available information to make rational and informed conclusions.
What are being compared would be the specific catalysts within the three revolutions that were of a religious nature. More specifically I will look at what the sources have to say about important details regarding each of these catalysts and I will compare the records my sources provide as well. I will also delve into the framework which was evident in the styles of the different historians. I will make the comparisons by synthesizing what the sources say in what they agree on or disagree with. First, I will state my theories and go from there. I am attempting to make this an interpretive framework that is based on sources. It is worth noting that some of my sources may not be of an interpretive mindset when it comes to a framework. As a first step, informing myself and my audience about the specific events will be a primary step which at times may transcend yet not contradict the framework in question. I will start with the French Revolution and move on to the American and Haitian Revolutions.
Theory: The French Revolution occurred in part because of the clergy and a pivotal decision some of them made within the lower rungs of their order. Certain members of the French clergy hesitantly made the choice in question by joining the 3rd estate and they are partially culpable for the French Revolution. What do the sources say? Is there enough substantial information in their records to substantiate this theory, or is it like a statue made of butter in the hot desert sun? On to the sources!
William Doyle~ He has not only written one published work on the French Revolution but three. When I was conducting essential research, which would validate religious influences as a revolutionary catalyst and as a legitimate topic for this comparative historical paper, Doyle’s coverage of the event in question (actuated by the clergy) and his extensive treatise of the event left me in no doubt of his standing as a credible secondary source on the French Revolution. We can say that his framework was interpretive in nature. Doyle provided a view of the crisis and then condensed a narrative of the Revolution. Our first motive here is informative.
On page 171 in his book, Origins of the French Revolution, William Doyle comments that “on June 10th, 1789, the 3rd estate took their 1st revolutionary action in that a final invitation should be sent to clergy and the nobility to verify credentials in common.”
In essence, verifying credentials in common was an effort on the part of the 3rd estate for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd estate to be thereafter comprised of one legislative body. This may not, perhaps, be interpreted by other historians as the 1st revolutionary action, but for all intents and purposes, it was a velvet glove covering a metal handed ultimatum to go forward whether the 1st or 2nd estate joined them or not. It was the culmination of six weeks of overtures by the 3rd estate in their efforts to further their goal of one body...one estate, not three, and their frustration was evident. Doyle continues further.
“It was a motion within the 3rd estate to ignore the separate existence of each estate and it was passed by an overwhelming majority of 493-41. The representatives of the 3rd estate (or close to 95% of the population) were counting by head.” [1]
This was significant since this action was synonymous with a democracy, not a monarchy where votes by class was the established order. It is here, that Doyle identifies as the end of the origins of the French Revolution. The 3rd estate had sent this, perhaps exasperated call for legislative unity, which was rejected by the nobles as the other overtures had. When it was delivered to the clergy, a small number of clerics broke rank and joined the 3rd estate. On page 40 of the book, The French Revolution, also by William Doyle, we read the following.
“After an overwhelming vote in favor (within the 3rd estate for the three estates to become one), they invited the other orders to verify credentials in common, and three days later a handful of parish priests broke the solidarity of the privileged orders to answer the invitation. Other clergy trickled in over the next few days, and a body that was no longer just representative of the third estate recognized that it now needed a new name.”
Disaffected and disillusioned for one reason or another, a significant percentage of the priests in the clergy joined the 3rd estate. If a percentage of the clergy had not sanctioned these developments by finally joining hands with the 3rd estate it is uncertain that the French Revolution would still have been prevented, but it is certain that the continued non-committal stance of the clergy, would have cast doubt in the minds of many that the actions of the 3rd estate translated to universal approbation or permission. Momentum would have slowed and the legitimacy of the cause of the 3rd estate, even in the face of famine and desperation would have been less certain with perhaps a delay of the inevitable. As such it is not an error to consider that an event of a political religious nature, perpetrated by religious people affected the French Revolution. Religion affected the French Revolution in that some members of religious orders, by their defection, enabled and strengthened the numerical as well the spiritual approbation of the 3rd estate in the view and in the minds of many citizens. Of course, we cannot rest our word on one source and so we move on to more.
Edmund Burke~ This historian is of course a primary source and reading his works may require the readers to look around more proverbial corners than the works of other writers and historians. Edmund Burke’s record of the 1st estate’s involvement and partial participation of the French Revolution is certainly different from Doyle’s, but it is not of a contradictory nature, and it is worthy of inclusion. Burke’s specific framework has been rather challenging to pin down and I am tempted to say that his framework might have been ethical, though his views seem to be one of observation of whether ideas produced actual results or if they were ideas that did not conclude in the concrete, tangible or good of society. While he was not opposed to the American Revolution, he was very much against the French Revolution. i
2“I found the representation for the third estate composed of six hundred people. They were equal in number to the representatives of both the other orders (clergy and nobility). If the orders were to act separately, the number would not, beyond the consideration of the expense, be of much moment. But when it became apparent that the three orders were to be melted down into one, the policy and necessary effect of these numerous representations became obvious. A very [2]small desertion from either of the other two orders must throw' the power of both into the hands of the third.”
Edmund Burke correctly points out that whether it had been the nobles or clergy, if there had been even a small desertion in the direction of the 3rd estate, the balance of power would have been in the hands of the 3rd estate. And it was the clergy, not the nobles that joined the 3rd estate and enabled that transfer of power. Burke and Doyle do not contradict each other in the basic facts though one is a primary source, and the other is a secondary source. They both confirm that it was the 1st estate, the clergy that had a precipitous role in the unraveling of the Estates General into the French Revolution. The specific political situation that the Estates General had devolved into, favored the prospect of the clergy, some of the lower echelons of whom were discontent and disillusioned, to naturally consider that their lot might be better under what they perceived that the 3rd estate offered in retrospect of what the church, their superiors and the holy orders did not. It is true that some clerics defected to the 3rd estate. If this action on their part might be deemed as improbable, then such consideration would be unrealistic considering the situation in question.
Peter Mcphee~ Like William Doyle, Peter Mcphee specializes in the French Revolution and has of course written books on it. His expertise and coverage of the French Revolution was extensive enough to cover my topic with enough fitting details to render it a legitimate subject of research for the paper that I am now writing. Like William Doyle, Peter Mcphee utilizes an interpretive framework and excessive details are not in keeping with how he elucidates his audience as to the basic facts. He does this without including too many minute incidents to cloud his narrative up. Mcphee makes the following observations.
“Ultimately, Louis's acquiescence in the nobility's demand for voting to be in three separate chambers galvanized the outrage of the bourgeois deputies. In this they were encouraged by defections from the privileged orders. On 13 June three cures from Poitou joined the Third Estate, followed by six others, including Gregoire, the next day.”
Peter Mcphee informs us that while the 3rd estate wanted legislative unity and cohesion (as well as reforms), the 2nd estate plied the King with entreaties to keep the three estates separate. The knowledge of what the 2nd estate had done in working against any sort of cohesion does help us understand the frustration of the 3rd estate. And after they had been joined by some clerics, and after they referred to themselves the only legitimate assembly in France did more clergy join them. Mcphee continues in informing his readers yet further.
“The Third Estate deputies' resolve was sustained by the steady trickle to their ranks of liberal nobles (the Marquis De Lafayette?) and of many among the more reformist parish priests who numerically dominated the First Estate representation. The vote to join the Third Estate taken by 149 clerical deputies, against 137, on 19 June was a decisive turning-point."
We can certainly conclude that these three sources do not contradict each other in the main issue of the clergy being a central contributing factor in the French Revolution. Of course, none of the three sources I have mentioned state this in the same way or from the same direction, but they harmonize on the main points. There are some differences regarding some details. For instance, while Mcphee mentions that three clerics (followed by 6 the next day) were the first to [3]break off from the clergy without regards to informing their superiors before joining hands with the 3rd estate, Doyle specifically mentions “a handful of parish priests” and that “Other clergy trickled in over the next few days.”
Simon Schama~ Long before I ever dreamed of getting an MA in history and when I was fresh out of high school, I often went to the college library and watched videos in my free time. It was always either Laurel and Hardy or Simon Schama’s ‘A History of England.’ I knew nothing about British History but a lot about British comedy and that series in part started my love of history and I will be using him as a secondary and credible academic source. I am going to speculate that he is of an interpretive framework because I have found no direct confirmation.
“Ironically, it was the electoral process which, for the first time, eliminated the immense distance between the mighty and the midgets among the nobility, so that the poor and the many could actually dictate to the few and the sophisticated what the collective position of the noble estate should be. A similar process of polarization within the First Estate — the clergy — produced, as we shall see, the opposite result, with poor cures pressing democracy on a rich and recalcitrant episcopacy. But in both cases, the disintegration of the old order occurred not when outsiders exasperated with their exclusion from privilege determined to destroy it by force. It came instead from insiders.”
Both Doyle and Burke mention that a lot of people represented the 3rd estate, but Doyle comes closer to five hundred and fifty while Burke mentions six hundred. Which of either estimated or perhaps preferred round numbers? Burke and Doyle were clear in the details about how the clergy's capitulation or complicity strengthened the hand of the National Assembly and was a determining factor in the French Revolution. Simon Schama is less specific than Doyle, Burke or Mcphee, and yet, the insiders he mentions within the “recalcitrant episcopacy” were the insiders who to a specific degree enabled momentum to accelerate. McPhee’s critique supports this main point also and yet doing so required a little extrapolation to translate or reveal a domino rational that naturally renders his critique as an academic windfall in favor of the main point. In view of time and space, my sources will now focus on the American Revolution.
Theory: My theory is that the active religious culture of some colonies, the influence of colonial clergyman, as well as the breakdown of Imperial British Protestantism in the years just preceding the revolution were culpable for the American Revolution. In the lens of religion, these factors helped to bring about the American Revolution. From the colonial voices that were the most passionate, there echoed an implacable religious persuasion in connection to freedom, which uncoincidentally came in part from the lips and pens of colonial clergymen. Revolution was encouraged on the one hand by the flavor of the religious freedom of Rhode Island. On the other hand, some preachers endeavored to link Christian duty, among other aspects, as comprising resistance to tyranny. In some ways this translated to and became a determined resolve to resist the military and taxation ambitions of Parliament and George III who harbored yet could not dictate what had become the sentiment, yet no longer the discretion of the divine right of Kings. George III would nevertheless come to be viewed as an oppressor, and again, some preachers encouraged resistance against tyranny on religious grounds. That revolution could be the possible result did not seem to intimidate some members of the colonial clergy.
The lasting flavor of the religious freedom of Rhode Island, then in its infancy, could not be universal while many colonists felt proud to be British after the Seven years’ war. British [4]religious culture in colonial American was not as tyrannical as some religious organizations in other countries. It was in some respects more organized, smooth and of course integral to the operations of the British crown in America. One historian bears this fact out regarding the British in the American colonies in connection to religion. Before going to an introduction to this secondary source, Kate Carte, it is well to look at a section of a summary of her book from the University of North Carolina Press that bears this out. This is an example of a source that is not academic in nature, but which, like others do confirm the validity of specific pieces of information. They do not comprise the numerical inclusion of academic sources though there are referenced at the end of this paper.
5“As Katherine Carté argues, British imperial Protestantism proved remarkably effective in advancing both the interests of empire and the cause of religion until the war for American independence disrupted it. That Revolution forced a reassessment of the role of religion in public life on both sides of the Atlantic. Religious communities struggled to reorganize within and across new national borders. Religious leaders recalibrated their relationships to government. If these shifts were more pronounced in the United States than in Britain, the loss of a shared system nonetheless mattered to both nations.”
Katherine Carte~ As a Ph.D, the author of the book, Religion and the American Revolution: An Imperial History is certainly a credible scholarly source. I was not surprised to discover that someone had already written on a topic of a similar vein to mine, albeit with more of a focus on religion after the revolution. I can say that I had the idea before I had ever heard of Kate Carte. I venture, from what I have read, to surmise that her historical framework would perhaps be centering on continuity and change. In the hours I spent on the internet researching Katherine Carte, I could hardly find more than a snatch of a quote from anything written by her, but what I did find was a book review by Gavin Neville to be found on the Journal of the American Revolution, and it was a very short quote from her book, Religion and the American Revolution: An Imperial History. However brief, it was a confirmation of a tenant of my theory, and that was the fact that revolution was encouraged from the pulpits and by clergyman, and thereby religion had a significant and active influence on the American Revolution. It is significant because it harmonizes with other publications that confirm the same information though naturally in a different style.
“Carté quotes some blistering sermons given by New England Congregationalist ministers. In resisting the acts of Parliament, Samuel Sherwood insisted, the colonists were merely acting as their forebears had in resisting James II, a “tyrannical oppressive prince.” If it was wrong to do so, then the colonists might as well “throw up the present constitution of England and the Hanover family” and “return back in our allegiance to the Stuart family; and to their popish plan of government.”
The man in this quote, Samuel Sherwood, was, not surprisingly a clergyman and while only two of his sermons survive, there are places wherein Sherwood’s sentiments and beliefs regarding tyranny are quite palpable. A quote from one of his sermons will suffice to validate his [5]strong sentiments and in part lay out an example of a clergyman who had uncompromising views about colonial resistance to tyranny.
“No free state was ever yet enslaved and brought into bondage, where the people were incessantly vigilant and watchful; and instantly took alarm at the first addition made to the power exercised over them.”
That this record, which has been left to us, came from a clergyman and not a politician is significant in helping to establish the point of the religious influence on the American Revolution. Edmund Burke in his March 1775 speech on Conciliation with the Colonies makes what is not a disharmonious point in the University of Chicago press.
“By 1763, Americans viewed infringements on their liberty as having wicked origins. As British politician Edmund Burke would later put it, the colonists could “snuff (or sniff) the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”
There is a very important issue to be taken care of and that is the question of what America as a Christian nation would become and what it was during its colonial stage. The subject of the spreading religious flavor of Rhode Island might appear to contradict what Kate Carte wrote about in her book, Religion and American Revolution: An Imperial History, with regard to the widespread Imperial Religious culture, and I would note that both are accurate. Before going on, it would be good to talk about American as a religious nation and colonial American in the same sense. What would America as a Christian nation mean and what would it as a Christian nation become? Suffice it to say for time and space that Roger Williams and the Massachusetts Bay Colony had a falling out and the upshot was Williams being banished.
In 1640, five years after his expulsion from the Massachusetts bay colony, Williams established the first colony where church and state were separated and this was utilized. It did provide Religious freedom and the idea was a hit, to say the least. In a biography of Roger William, William Gammel had this to say.
“He believed that no human power had the right to inter-meddle in matters of conscience; and that neither church nor state, neither bishop nor priest nor King, may prescribe the smallest iota of religious faith. For this, he maintained, a man is responsible to God alone.”
The Puritan’s religious leaders had often disagreed with Roger William on one point or another. They felt he was too radical, and yet, in practice, they were of the old world although Puritanism would undergo a change also. What was America as a Christian nation? What did it become? It would become a nation where anyone could come and worship according to the dictates of their conscience. The colonies were British, and in many places, according to Kate Carte, the Imperial protestant religion was more prevalent, yet Imperial British Protestantism would also change when British colonial rule came to an end. America became a country of religious freedom where live and let live eventually became the religious sentiment that so many cherished. It would become the right of exercising their discretion regarding religious duty.
John Wingate Thornton~ Whether this man is truly an academic is hard to say since he died in the 1870’s. He went to Harvard to get his LL.B and worked as a lawyer. His quote here is in line with sources such as Katherine Carte regarding some religious persuasions of clergyman [6]in colonial America as well as some details about Mr. Gordon below that are similar to sentiments by Samuel Sherman, another colonial clergyman.
The colonists also came to believe that providence had sanctioned their resistance to tyranny. In a thanksgiving sermon in 1775, a cleric named Mr. Gordon gave a sermon, or discourse and one of the subtitles was the Christian's duty to resist tyrants. His motivations seem to be religious and civil freedom. In relating how the continental congress had come together, and that there was a mission, purpose and harmony that was unanticipated, Mr. Gordon admonished his adherents with the following words.
“These are favorable circumstances, beyond what the most sanguine friends of liberty expected; that appear to be of the Lord's doing, and are marvelous in our eyes; that, if foretold, would have been deemed morally impossible by those who are still inimical to them, though evidencing a wonderful interposition of Providence; and that may justly encourage us, as well as keep us from fainting, especially when taken in connection with that spirit of prayer and humiliation which has discovered itself in different places on occasion of the times. Would to God there was more of this!”
Jerold C Brauer~ A Ph.D in the history of Christianity at the University of Chicago. He also taught at Union Theological School in New York. His historical assessment of the effect of religion on the American Revolution is sensible. This could be a long article or short book. His historical framework seems interpretive in nature.
“Religion was one of the premier forces that brought the colonies into being and provided them with a set of symbols, beliefs, and values which undergirded their society. As history unfolded, New Englanders gradually brought these peripheral elements under heavy attack from the center itself so that Crown and Parliament were viewed as detrimental to the central values of covenant, consent, the rule of fundamental law, the structure of New England’s organic society, and the liberties of its inhabitants. Thus, Puritanism was a major force in engendering a revolution in attitude toward Crown and Parliament.”
The Haitian Revolution
The Haitian Revolution is interesting in that a religious ceremony became the spark that lit the fuse, but Religion thereafter is not given, so far as could I ascertain, much or any mention. And at the beginning of the Haitian revolution, religion, or the religious practice of Voodoo was much more pivotal to the success of establishing the country of Haiti.
Theory: The religious ceremony of Voodoo had a very profound impact on the Haitian Revolution and was in the beginning, almost like a sort of glue that helped hold the Haitian Revolutionaries together and that also catapulted the initial rebellion that preceded the Revolution.
Julius S. Scott~ The late Julius S. Scott is a scholar who graduated with a P.h.D from Duke University in 1986. Much of his academic work and life centered on the history of the Atlantic and Caribbean slave trade. He is regarded by many in the realm of academia to be the last word in the history of slavery in Atlantic history. As such, I would be ill-advised not to use him as a secondary source. I have perceived his historical framework as interpretive. [7]
“Plymouth, who led a ban of marrons in the 1730’s, came to Saint Dominique from one of the British colonies. Mackandal, leader of than other outlying group of rebels in the 1760’s, escaped from Jamaica, and did Boukman, the religious figure credited with organizing the initial revolt which signaled the oncoming Revolution in August of 1791.”
C.L.R. James~ Though not a Ph.D, James was a historian and did go to Paris for the purpose of conducting his research on the Haitian Revolution for writing ‘the Black Jacobeans.’ At the risk of repeating myself, books about the Haitian Revolution are in short supply and James's scholarly approach does recommend that I include him as a secondary source. His framework, like Julius S Scott seems to be interpretive in nature without an intent to specifically zero in on Region but to include it as a pivotal cause.
“Voodoo was the medium of the conspiracy. In spite of all prohibitions, the slaves travelled miles to sing and dance and practice the rites and talk; and now, since the revolution, to hear the political news and make their plans. Boukman, a Papaloi or High Priest, a gigantic Negro, was the leader. He was headman of a plantation and followed the political situation both among the whites and among the Mulattoes. By the end of July 1791, the blacks in and around [8]Le Cap were ready and waiting. The plan was conceived on a massive scale and they aimed at exterminating the whites and taking the colony for themselves.”
The two sources I have mentioned, Julius S. Scott and C.L.R. James do not contradict each other in regards to the short amount of space in their books they devote to, or mention confirmatory facts regarding religion as a catalyst of the Haitian Revolution. My basis for establishing the religious practice of Voodoo as a catalyst for the Haitian Revolution is much less consuming than my treatise on the religious catalysts of the French and American Revolutions. This is due to several factors. One, there are fewer sources than there are for the American and French Revolution, particularly when it comes to any mention of religious practices or terminology. There is much less to go through. Secondly, I have made an attempt to connect, but not oversell the distinct and, shall I term it, metal link between religion and the two Revolutions preceding the Haitian Revolution. Nevertheless, establishing this “metal link,” called for an exhaustive, but edifying search to confirm the claims of what I will now term as more than what started out as my theories at the beginning of this paper.
In regard to the American Revolution, there is the appearance that Katherine Carte in her well-founded position of the British Imperial Protestantism in the Colonies, that seems to be at odds with what I have discussed in regard to the religious flavor of the colony of Rhode Island but not in regards to her very short mention of “blistering sermons”. And in Jerold C Brauer’s quote, he mentions that transformed Puritanism, so similar to the faith of Roger Williams came to be at odds with the tyranny of the British crown, and coupled with what colonial clergymen like Mr. Gordon and Samuel Sherman were inspiring their adherents with, these factors eventually caused the collapse of not only the British Crown in America, but the old ideas of religion and politics from the old world.
In regards to gaps, I hesitate to say there were none in the French Revolution, because of course, this is not true, but identifying them in the light of so many sources has proved challenging. The gaps in the American Revolution are not so challenging, but also not easily discernable. The gaps in the Haitian Revolution are not hard because there is so little information on the religious life of Haitian Revolutionaries beside the pivotal mention of the ceremony of Voodoo in the initial stages. While not necessarily a gap, it is understandable that Haitian people would be repulsed by the religion of their former masters and this begs more information as to the religious practices or lack thereof regarding the religion of their masters in question.
Sources:
~The French Revolution Primary Sources
1. Edmund Burke~ “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 1790, Accessed Feb 9th, 2022 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45683/page/n3/mode/2up
2. William Doyle~ William Doyle, The French Revolution, New York (2001), William Doyle, Origins of the French Revolution, (1988)
3. Simon Schama~ Citizens: A chronicle of the French Revolution, New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House (1989)
4. Peter McPhee – The French Revolution: 1789-1799, (Oxford University Press, 2002) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mcph_0/mode/2up?view=theater&q
~The American Revolution Secondary Sources
5. John Wingate Thornton~ 1818-1878. The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Or, The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776. With a Historical Introduction, Notes, And Illustrations. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1860.
6. Catherine Carte~ Religion and the American Revolution: An Imperial History, Williamsburg and Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture/University of North Carolina Press, 2021
7. Jerold C Brauer~ Region and the American Revolution (contributor), Augsburg Fortress Publishing, (January 1976)
~The Haitian Revolution Primary Sources
8. Julius S. Scott~ The Common Wind: Afro-American Currents in the Age of the Haitian Revolution, Verso publishers, November 2018
9. C.L.R. James~ The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, New York: Vintage Books, (1989)
~Confirmatory Sources: These sources, most of which are not academic in nature, do confirm the validity of specific pieces of information. I am not including them numerically as I am the academic sources. I will put the links to scholarly journals first, and I hope, given their scholarly nature, that they will help to make up for the fact that I only have 8 scholarly books mentioned when the paper called for 10-15.
~ https://uncpress.org/book/9781469662640/religion-and-the-american-revolution (p. 9)
~.https://allthingsliberty.com/2022/02/religion-and-the-american-revolution-an-imperial-history/ (p. 10)
-William Gammel, Life of Roger Williams, founder of the state of Rhode Island, Boston, Gould, Kendall & Lincoln (1846) (p. 12)
-With a Historical Introduction, Notes, And Illustrations. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1860. (p. 15)
- https://selfeducatedamerican.com/2011/09/11/samuel-sherwood-scriptural-instructions-to-civil-rulers/ (Samuel Sherwood)
[1] Edmund Burke~ “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 1790, Accessed Feb 9th, 2022 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45683/page/n3/mode/2up -The French Revolution, (2001)
[2] Edmund Burke~ “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 1790, Accessed Feb 9th, 2022
[3] Peter McPhee – The French Revolution: 1789-1799, (Oxford University Press, 2002
[4] Simon Schama~ Citizens: A chronicle of the French Revolution, New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House (1989)
[5] Catherine Carte~ Religion and the American Revolution: An Imperial History, Williamsburg and Chapel Hill
[6] John Wingate Thornton~ 1818-1878. The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Or, The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776.
[7] Julius S. Scott~ The Common Wind: Afro-American Currents in the Age of the Haitian Revolution, Verso publishers, November 2018
[8] C.L.R. James~ The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, New York: Vintage Books, (1989)
