- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
Even most "successful" revolutionaries fail the latter. Mao would be an example.I feel like most leaders of any successful revolution are going to tend to be on the right side of the bell curve. You have to successfully convince lots of other people to believe in an abstract vision of a better society, then lead them usually in a war where you're starting disadvantaged against a hostile state apparatus that's already set up, and finally try to set up a stable, functional government afterwards. You average high school grad really has to have the drive to show up to school most days for 4 years.
So would be the Founders of the U.S., although arguably that wasn't even a revolution in the same sense as something like the French Revolution, rejecting the previous society altogether. After the American Revolution, there was continuity between the colonial charters of the States and their subsequent constitutions, mostly mediated by the federal constitution's prohibitions on particularly reviled aspects of English jurisprudence.
However, the common law was generally retained except where specifically abrogated by statute. Early post-Revolutionary American case law often cites cases themselves based on English common law, and sometimes directly cites English law.
In a very real sense, the American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution (and why that's a GOOD THING) that preserved the good parts of the previous order while excising the bad. It didn't eliminate law and order and install a murderous tyranny (unlike the French Revolution), but merely changed at least the stated locus of power from some distant (and mentally diseased) monarch to the people themselves.

