The relics of the old constitution were not so much boundaries to the omnipotent desolating power of the revolution，as landmarks，designating its victorious progress．The constitution，of 1791，was only a short and voluntary pause；a sort of resting point，at which nobody meant long to wait．The second national assembly did not make a pass，no，not one，which was not an attack upon some ruin or other of the monarchy．The establishment of the republic did not satisfy its authors．The execution of the king scarcely appeased the ravenousness of his butchers，for a single instant．In the year 1793 the thirst for destruction had gone so far，that it was at a loss for an object．The well known saying，that Robespierre meant to reduce the population of France by one half，had its foundation in the lively sense of the impossibility of satisfying the hitherto insatiate revolution，with any thing less，than such a hecatomb.
When there was nothing more left in the country to attack，the offensive frenzy turned itself against the neighbouring states，and finally declared war in solemn decrees against all civil society．It was certainly not the want of will in those，who then conducted this war，if Europe preserved any thing，besides“bread and iron.”Fortunately，no strength was great enough long to support such a will．The unavoidable exhaustion of the assailants，and not the power or the merit of the resistance made，saved society；and，finally，brought the work shops themselves，where the weapons for its destruction were forged，within its beneficent bonds again.
As the American revolution was a defensive revolution，it was of course finished，at the moment，when it had overcome the attack，by which it had been occasioned．The French revolution，true to the character of a most violent offensive revolution，could not but proceed so long as there remained objects for it to attack，and it retained strength for the assault.
3．The American revolution，at every stage of its duration，had a fixed and definite object，and moved within definite limits，and by a definite direction towards this object．The French revolution never had a definite object；and，in a thousand various directions，continually crossing each other，ran through the unbounded space of a fantastic arbitrary will，and of a bottomless anarchy.
It lay in the very nature of a defensive revolution，like that of America，to proceed from definite objects，and to pursue definite ends．The peculiar situation，and the peculiar character of the North-Americans confirmed and secured this moderate and beneficent quality to the progress of their revolution.
In the course of it，two principal periods may be observed；that，from the first breaking out of the contests in 1765，until the declaration of independence in 1776，and that，from this declaration，until the peace with England.
In the first period，the single towns and provinces，and afterwards the members of the general congress，had for their declared and sole object the salvation of their constitution，and of their rights and liberties，as they then stood，from the oppressive usurpations of the British parliament．And I think I have clearly shown，in the former sections of this essay，that every step they took，during that critical period was calculated for preservation，not for conquest，for resistance against innovations，not for ardour after them；for defence，not for attack.
In the second period，indeed，a new object came in the place of that，which they had until then pursued：the British parliament had compelled the congress to proclaim the independence of the colonies；but，even this decisive measure by no means threw America into the precipice of lawlessness，into the horrible gulph of an unmeasurable interregnum，or into the slippery career of wild and chimerical theories—The machine of government was，and remained，completely organized：the revolution had taken from the king his negative upon legislative acts，almost the only essential prerogative，which as sovereign of the colonies he immediately exercised：but every province took care that this important function should be performed by another authority，distinct from the legislature，and Georgia and Pennsylvania，were the only ones，which entrusted the legislative powers to an undivided senate．The royal governors，who till then had stood at the head of the executive power，were replaced by others，chosen by the provinces themselves；and as the former governors，owing to their great distance from the mother country，had always held powers in the highest degree discretionary and independent，this alteration could not be much felt—The great and immediate exigences of social life，the local administration，the police，and course of judicial proceeding were continued as before．Nothing but the loose tie，which had connected America with England，was broken；none of the internal relations were discomposed；all the laws remained in force；the condition of persons and of property suffered no other revolution，than that which was necessarily brought with it!“The people，”says that very well informed American historian Dr．Ramsay，“scarcely perceived that an alteration in their political constitution had taken place.”
As the founders and conducters of the American revolution，from the beginning，knew exactly how far they were to go，and where they must stop；as the new existence of their country，the constitutions of the several provinces，and even the organization of the federal government，at least in its principles was definitely prescribed to them；as their purpose was in no sort to create，but only to preserve，not to erect a new building，but to free the old one from an external，burdensome，straitening scaffolding，and as it never occurred to them，in the rigorous sense of the word，to reform，even their own country，much less the whole world，they escaped the most dangerous of all the rocks，which in our times threaten the founders of any great revolution，the deadly passion for making political experiments with abstract theories，and untried systems．It is of the utmost importance，in judging the American revolution，never to lose sight of this point，and by so much the more important，as certain expressions in the early resolves of congress，the maxims of single writers，but especially the frequent appeals of the first leaders of the French revolution to the example of their predecessors in America，have encouraged，and spread abroad the opinion that these，in truth，opened the wide field of revolutionary speculations，and of systematic anarchy—True it is，that the declaration of independence published by the congress，in the name of the colonies，is proceeded by an introduction，in which the natural and unalienable rights of mankind are considered as the foundation of all government；that after this assertion，so indefinite，and so exposed to the greatest misconstructions，follow certain principles，no less indefinite，no less liable to be abused，from which an inference might be drawn of the unlimited right of the people to change their form of government，and what in the new revolutionary language，is called their sovereignty．It is likewise true，that most of the constitutions of the United States，are preceded by those idle declaration of rights，so dangerous in their application，from which so much misery has at a later period been derived upon France，and the whole civilized world．Much，however，as it were to be wished，that the legislators of America had disdained this empty pomp of words，that they had exclusively confined themselves within the clear and lawful motives of their resistance；a resistance at first constitutional，and afterwards necessary，and within the limits of their uncontrovertible rights，yet it cannot escape the observation of those，who attentively study the history of their revolution，that they allowed to these speculative ideas，no visible influence upon their practical measures and resolves—They erroneously believed them necessary to justify their first steps；(9) but here the dominion of empty speculation，was forever abandoned—Never，in the whole course of the American revolution，were the rights of man，appealed to，for the destruction of the rights of a citizen；never was the sovereignty of the people used as a pretext to undermine the respect，due to the laws，or the foundations of social security；no example was ever seen of an individual，or a whole class of individuals，or even the representatives of this，or that single state，who recurred to the declaration of rights，to escape from positive obligation，or to renounce obedience to the common sovereign；finally，never did it enter the head of any legislator，or statesman in America，to combat the lawfulness of foreign constitutions，and to set up the American revolution，as a new epocha in the general relations of civil society.
What was here and there occasionally said by single writers，must carefully be distinguished from the principles and way of thinking of those Americans，who were acknowledged and revered as examples and authorities，but especially from those，who took an active part in the new government．There certainly was in America，a Thomas Paine；and I will not deny but that his celebrated work had influence among certain classes of people，and so far contributed to promote the revolution.(10)But to judge of the spirit and principles of the American revolution by this work，would be as unjust，as to confound the efficaciously active heads in the English revolution，of 1688，with the authors of some popular lampoon against the house of Stewart；or the opposition of lord Chatham，with that of Mr．Wilkes．When Paine's work appeared，in the year 1776，the American revolution had long since assumed its whole form and consistence，and the principles，which will forever characterize it stood firm．In no public resolve，in no public debate，in no state paper of congress，is the most distant expression to be found，which discovers either a formal，or a tacit approbation of a systematical revolutionary policy．And what a contrast between the wild，extravagant，rhapsodical declamation of a Paine，and the mild，moderate，and considerate tone in the speeches and letters of a Washington.
The preciseness of objects，the uniformity of means，and the moderation of principles，which distinguished the American revolution through all its periods，gave likewise to the war，which was carried on for its establishment and completion，a precise and definite，and，therefore，a less formidable character．With this war indeed，the whole train of evils，which usually attend upon war in general，and especially upon civil war，were connected．But as it had only one object，and that was clearly known，and confined within narrow bounds，its possible results，its possible consequences，and its possible duration，could in every case be calculated．America had either to maintain or to give up her independence；in this single alternative was included the whole fate of the contest；and whatever consequence either event might operate upon a distant futurity，neither the victory of the British parliament，nor that（which very early became more probable） of the American congress，could discompose the balance of Europe，or threaten its peace．The governments of our hemisphere could，with all the tranquillity of a perfect neutrality，look forward to the issue of a remote contest，which，without further danger to their external and internal political relations，opened an advantageous prospect to the European commerce．The congress might even form an alliance with one of the greatest European monarchies；for as they only wished to maintain clear and definite rights，as they owed their existence to a revolution，which was forced upon the colonies by external violence，as they had at no time，and in no way，so much as called in question，much less attacked，the lawfulness of other constitutions，and as they had declared war，not against monarchical principles，but only against the oppressive measures of the British ministry，there was，in itself，nothing unnatural，nothing revolting，nothing plainly irreconcileable with the maxims of the law of nations，and the laws of self-preservation，in the alliance，which France contracted with them．(11)
The peace，which concluded the American war，secured that existence independent of England，to the new federal republic，for which she had alone and exclusively contended，and immediately after，this republic entered into those peaceable and beneficent relations with all other states，and even with England herself，which the common wants，and the common laws of nations have founded between civilized states．It is true；the American revolution had in latter times a decisive influence upon the great devastations under which Europe groans to this hour；but it would be the highest injustice not to acknowledge that this influence was only accidental．In the origin of that revolution there was nothing that could justify another，or even revolutions in general；no state，other than one，in which all the extraordinary circumstances concurring in the case of the colonies，should again concur，could consider the conduct observed by these，as legitimating a similar conduct，and adopt the principles upon which they proceeded．The precision and lawfulness of their object refused every application of these principles to revolutions，which could not exhibit an object equally definite，and a right equally clear，to the pursuit of that object．The wise moderation，which the leaders of the American revolution introduced into all their declarations，and into every step they took，their glorious abhorrence of every extravagance，even of those proceeding from the most pardonable enthusiasm，the constant distance at which they kept from every thing that may be called proselyting and propagandism—all these happy characteristics of their undertaking must in a legal point of view forever secure humanity against all evil consequences of this revolution；whose only traces remaining，should be in the growing prosperity of a great people，spread over extensive and fertile regions，and above all in the wholesome lesson it gave to the powers of the earth against every attack upon the rights and constitutions of states，from ambition，or a spirit of innovation．The harshest injustice alone could impute to the Americans，what the ill-understood and misused example of their revolution has produced of evil in latter times；it was the work of an hostile demon，who seems to have condemned the close of the eighteenth century，to see the buds of destruction shoot from the most beneficent events，and the most poisonous fruits from the blossoms of its fairest hopes.
The contrast between the French and American revolutions，when you compare them with each other in respect to their objects is no less striking than that which has resulted from the comparison of their origin and progress．As the utmost precision of object，and consequently of principles and of means，distinguished the American revolution through its whole duration，so the utmost want of precision in the object，and consequently a perpetual mutability in the choice of the means and in the modification of principles has been one of the most stubborn，one of the most essential，and certainly one of the most terrible characteristics of the French revolution．Its history was nothing but a long series of uninterrupted developments of this extraordinary phenomenon；single and unexampled in its whole compass as this circumstance may be，it will not much astonish the man，who shall reflect upon its origin，and its nature．For so soon as in a great undertaking，a step is taken wholly out of the boundaries of definite rights，and every thing is declared lawful，which imaginary necessity，or unbridled passion inspires，so soon is the immeasurable field of arbitrary will entered upon；and a revolution，which has no other principle than to attack the existing constitution，must necessarily proceed to the last extremities of imagination and of criminal guilt.
