History of Philosophy

While the American, French, and Glorious Revolutions are often presented as legitimate because they invoked protection of rights and popular sovereignty, a critical look shows that calling them unequivocally legitimate is problematic. 1. Unclear fulfillment of the social-contract criterion - Locke’s model requires that governments systematically violate natural rights before revolt is justified. In each case, the extent and uniformity of such violations were contested. For example, many colonial Americans accepted British rule or sought reform rather than independence; the alleged systematic denial of rights was debated rather than universally manifest. In France, long-standing social and economic strain existed, but some aristocrats and provincials did not view the monarchy as utterly illegitimate prior to 1789. 2. Premature exhaustion of peaceful remedies - A legitimate revolution presupposes that lawful, peaceful channels for change have been exhausted. The American colonists had varying degrees of recourse (petitions, legal appeals, boycotts) that some argue had not been fully exhausted before armed rebellion. In France, early reform efforts and attempts at negotiation coexisted with radical escalation; alternatives to violent overthrow arguably remained for a time. The Glorious Revolution, too, involved political maneuvers and elite bargaining rather than a mass popular mandate. 3. Mixed motives and exclusionary aims - Legitimate revolt should aim principally to protect broad, impartial rights. Each of these revolts mixed such aims with narrower, self-interested motives. The American Revolution protected property and political influence of colonial elites and left slavery intact; many Indigenous peoples’ rights were disregarded. The French Revolution combined aspirations for liberty with intense factionalism and class conflict, and it soon produced terror and authoritarian measures that violated the very rights it proclaimed. The Glorious Revolution was largely an elite settlement to secure Protestant succession and parliamentary prerogative, with limited input from the broader population. 4. Unintended harms and post-revolutionary violations - Legitimacy is weakened when revolutions produce widespread injustice after succeeding. The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, revolutionary wars, and suppression of dissent show how an initially justice-oriented uprising can devolve into rights-violating regimes. The American Revolution resulted in dispossession of Indigenous lands and continuation of slavery—serious violations of the natural rights purportedly defended. Such outcomes cast doubt on whether the revolts truly served justice. 5. Lack of clear, sustained popular consensus - Legitimate revolution requires broad-based consent. In many instances, support was uneven, regionally fragmented, or concentrated among elites. The Glorious Revolution was orchestrated by a political elite and military actors rather than a popular uprisal; the American and French cases also show deep divisions within societies about the desirability and form of radical change. Conclusion - While these revolutions advanced important political ideals and reshaped modern government, labeling them unambiguously “legitimate” oversimplifies complex realities. Questions about whether constitutional remedies were exhausted, the proportionality and impartiality of motives, the inclusiveness of consent, and the post-revolution record all provide credible grounds for skepticism. A stricter Lockean standard for legitimacy—requiring clear, systemic rights violations, exhausted peaceful remedies, broad consent, and just outcomes—would make it harder to treat these episodes as unquestionably legitimate revolutions. References for further reading - John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (especially the Second Treatise). - Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights. - Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution.