>
The american contribution to their own wealth was to not pay the debt they contracted to Louis XVI when France became a Republic (and they were right to do it for legal reason).According to a U.S. State Department history [1]: "In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts with the French Government with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately assumed French debts at a slightly higher interest rate. Swan then resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. The United States no longer owed money to foreign governments, although it continued to owe money to private investors both in the United States and in Europe."
Granted, 1795 was a bit too late to help Louis XVI, who had lost his head two years before. Still, it was only 12 years after the peace treaty with Britain -- not too terrible for a brand-new nation, I'd say. And in any case, it'd be unconventional (to say the least) to try to blame the Americans for the French royal government's mismanagement of its financial affairs.
---
> Le baron de Beaumarchais (famous writer and weapon smuggler) that lobbied the french monarchy for helping the US revolution was clearly doing it for the sake of freeing the people from monarchy (he was one of the philosoph supporting the strange idea that merit matters more than birth rights).
Nations aren't monoliths; their governments act in response to pressures from all sorts of different people who have all sorts of different opinions and motives.
(Example: When the U.S. entered WWII, the triggering event was the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor. But for months before that, and especially after the Nazi German invasion of the USSR in June 1941, a significant number of Americans had wanted the U.S. to enter the European war --- some to help the British, and some because they were Communists or sympathizers who wanted an immediate second front in Europe to take the pressure off the Soviet Union.)
[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans