Tocqueville’s thesis of the hidden connection between the Ancien Regime and modern democracy (see Chap. 4 ) is primarily directed against Edmund Burke. His Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) assumed a fundamental break with tradition and origin, thus significantly shaping the historiography of the revolution in France (Col 2017). Engaging with the work of the Irish critic of the revolution also meant for Tocqueville the ignition to precede his own planned monumental work about the events after 1789 with a kind of prehistory, which should prove the continuity of centralism in France (Gannett 2003, 61–65). In the book about the old state itself, Burke is then on the one hand acknowledged as a significant contemporary witness of the revolutionary overthrow in France, on the other hand, Tocqueville sees him as exemplary for the gross errors and confusions, which the revolution triggered in its protagonists as well as in its observers. “The more Burke saw, the less he understood” (Lerner 2013, 75), with this aphorism from the secondary literature, Tocqueville’s judgment about Burke’s study of the revolution can be summarized quite accurately. In his eyes, Burke had no sense of the necessity to accurately distinguish between the long-term root causes and the accidental moments of the revolution. Also, that Burke more or less predicted the downfall of post-revolutionary France in the European concert of powers by completely ignoring the military potential gained through the revolution, makes his statements appear unjustified to Tocqueville.