Creating a new Society
14 July 1789 to 9 Thermidor II,(27 July 1794) (snapshot Napoleonic France 1804)
According to Joseph Weber, foster brother of Queen Antoinette, there were three primary causes of the French revolution 'the disorder of the finances, the state of mind, and the war in America.' The 'disorder in the finances' acknowledged that the bankruptcy of the monarchy opened the doors to defiance of the King's authority. The greatest single cause of the revolution was the economic crisis, which forced the King to recall the redundant Estates General which had not been called since 1614, which opened the debate for people to make complaints with the current system through the cahiers of the three Estates. The 'state of mind' largely attributed to the philosophes of the Enlightenment who challenged the very foundations that the Ancien Regime was based on. Another contributing factor to the crisis was a plight of millions of peasants, and the even more critical situation of the landless vagrants and the unemployed masses in the towns. Between 1715 and 1789 the population in France had increased from 18 million to 26 million. Land was a fixed resource, and thousands could not work in rural regions. As a result peasants were forced into the towns. Their situation was exacerbated by the bad harvest of 1788, which saw inflation of basic commodities such as bread, widespread unemployment and destitution accentuated the crisis.
*** Original revolutionary goals***
Original ideology: Enlightened
Document: Declaration of Rights of Man
The August decrees cleared the way for the erection of a constitution, but first they decided to lay down the principles on which it was based. It is a curious mixture of enlightenment theory and bourgeois aspirations. The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen , passed into law by the National Assembly on the 26 August 1789, It condemned the practices of the Ancien Regime and expressed the broad agreement which was to be found in the cahiers of all three orders.
1. Men are born free and equal in their rights
3. The fundamental source of all sovereignty resides in the nation - an application of Rousseau's principle of the 'general will'
7. No man may be accused, arrested, or detained except in cases determined by the law
13, General taxation is indispensable for the upkeep of the public force and for the expenses of govern...
... middle of paper ...
...an Catholic Chruch lost its dominant position in French society in effect society was largely de-Christianised and secularies
IMPORTANCE OF REV. HISTORIANS VIEWS
Since the revn most historians have argued that for better or worse, the revn profoundly altered most aspects of life in France. Since mid 1950s, when Alfred Cobban atacked 'the myth of the french revolution' revisionist historians have increasingly questioned the long accepted certainties of the origins and outcomes of the rev.
British historian Roger Price
'In political and ideological terms the revolution was no doubt crucial importance, but humanity was not transformed, thereby at the end of all the political upheavels fo the revolution and Empire little had changed in the daily life of most frenchment.'
Soboul: 'A classic bourgeois revn, its uncompromising aboliton of the feudal system and the seigneurial regime made it the starting point for a capitalist society and the liberal representative socialist revn.'
Nobles - greatest loses in the revn
- lost their feudal dues
- *Nobles who stayed in France and were not prosecuted during the Terror reatined their lands and never lost their position of economic dominance
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been
The National Constituent Assembly on August 1789 first paragraph begin as `Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights' (Resource book 3, A4, p 14). It means that people have equal rights when they are born and continue to have equal rights till they perish. Rights tells us what we are sanctioned to do, or what others are allowed to do to us, both as individuals and as fellow members of the society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Swiss philosopher had a brilliant utopian visionary that attempted to offer this idea of a civil state. The first chapter of Rousseau's Social Contract claims that people were born free but were enslaved by the chains of society. If this claim of equal right was factual, the king had no right to rule, as he was just another person. According to Rousseau, a person has authority if they are able to command others to do things. But authority is only legitimate if the person possesses the right to command others. Rousseau, a republican believed that the authority the state has over the people must come from the people themselves, thus the people should be sovereign.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels see the French revolution as a great achievement in human history. However they also discuss serious criticisms of it. Marx and Engels discussed the struggle between two distinct social groups during the French Revolution which are the city poor and the privileged classes and what happens when power fell into the hands of the revolutionary “petty bourgeoisie” and the paris workers creating a class struggle and it impact on political issues . This essay will explain how Marx and Engels view the French revolution and their analysis of the revolution’s achievements and shortcomings.This essay will also apply their analysis of the French
There are many cumulative events that have influenced Western Civilization reflective in today’s modern world, but the most impactful was the French Revolution. Western Civilization has many historic milestones building to the world as we know it, but none set such broad themes that are felt in our everyday life. Many of these themes have become so ingrained into the way we live that we can’t understand a world without them. For this reason, the effects of the French Revolution molded the westernized world more so than any other event. I consider the French Revolution the catalyst to how our world is shaped today. It’s ideas and events continue to echo through our lives century after century.
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
During the late 1700's, two great revolutions occurred, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. These two historical events happened at the same time, but had a great number of differences and very little similarity. When French Revolution occurred, it turned into a very violent and bloody event, while the American Revolution was almost nonviolent, aside from the war. In 1774, King Louis XVI made a decision that could have prevented the French Revolution by breathing new life into the French economy: he appointed Physiocrat Robert Turgot as Controller General of Finance.
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution was the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The first and main reason for the French Revolution was the terrible leadership of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
France was about to collapse due to imbalance, bankruptcy, and a new way of thinking. In France, feudalism was still practiced where the nobles and clergy had exceptional benefits over the commoners and lower class. For example, the nobles and clergy did not have to pay taxes; they owned most of the land, and they had the most political power in France. However, the ...
Feudalist France was a rich, powerful, and respected nation for hundreds of years- until it appeared to collapse like house of cards in the breeze. The catalyst for this change could be attributed to several causes, but ultimately it was the actions of one group that furthered the revolution most. Maturity enabled the bourgeoisie to dispute their position in society, seeing their lack of political voice as an irrefutable issue. Furthermore, they put their goals of change into effect by shifting France’s sovereignty. In short, the bourgeoisie were most influential in furthering the French Revolution because of their drive for political participation.
The thesis of this study is how society was during the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799. The French Revolution during this time went through significant changes from the beginning when society was run by the wealthy class and being undemocratic and changed to being a democratic state. From 1789 to 1799, the French Revolution was a “cataclysmic political and social upheaval.” French society was going through a hard period in France.
Sparknotes editors. “Sparknote on The French Revolution (1789-1999)”. Sparknotes.com. Sparknotes LLC. 2005. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.