The 19th Century is the first major flashpoint of when the liberal ideas coming from the Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant came head to head with hundreds of years of established conservative perspective of both the Church and the intellectuals who maintained loyalty to the institution of monarchy. Two pieces that best illustrate this clash of ideas is the Political Confession of Faith, by Prince Klemens von Metternich and a speech in Paris after the Overthrow of the Orleanist monarchy in 1848. Consequently, von Metternich was a conservative because he was a Hapsburg prince. He had the belief that he has the “blue-blood” to become a king someday. However, von Metternich had to try to convince the general public that conservatism …show more content…
The quote “The blood of the people has flowed as in July; but this time this noble people shall not be deceived”, is almost a perfect rebuke to von Metternich’s assessment that the French Revolution was pointless as here. The people have held their rulers accountable for their actions and made sure to not give an opening for demagogues likes Robespierre. In addition, as if to add insult to injury to Metternich, the words “The provisional government wishes to establish a republic, --subject, however, to ratification, by the people, who shall be immediately.” is everything that Metternich disdained. The French people didn’t want to wait another century to gain the benefit of political power or when “people were wise enough”, they wanted their rights immediately. Therefore, the French people believed that establishing a Republic would be the best way to achieve that goal. In addition to a Republic style government being the culmination of everything Metternich disdained, a Republic has no absolute monarchy that can do as it likes and the government has to serve the people first instead of someone who lucked out on being born into the right family. Also, republics often tend to be secular, which would end the Catholic/Protestant Church’s political power, and essentially put the last nail in the coffin on divine right being the way
“Leslie Stephen described it (the eighteenth century) as ‘the century of cold common sense and growing toleration and of steady social and industrial improvement.’” Before the Enlightenment, the belief of the Divine Right of Kings was central to every nation. Kings were believed to be chosen by God and answerable to the divine alone, citizens could not question their King because in theory they would be questioning God. During the eighteenth century there was a shift in the public opinion of nobles and lords. Philosophes, or critics, began to openly object the way the government ran the people, even poking fun at the choices made. Kings were no longer feared. As people turned away from the restraints of government, a rise in individualism formed. ...
Prussia had been a relatively conservative nation for a while with the monarch as the central point of power and Fredrick William did not want to change that at all, he spent years passing constitutions and electing representative bodies to keep his control. When in 1848 when rebellion began in Berlin to avoid upsetting many he refused to send in troops hoping the rebellion would fissile out. He even made concessions in their liberal favor and allowed a re-election. When the rebellion didn’t diminish a few days after his announcement of concessions he sent in troops to clear out the square, which ending in killing a few people. When angry protestors surrounded the palace Fredrick William IV showed respect to those who had died in the clearing of the square the day before and made even more concessions allowing an assembly to form. However soon the assembly soon revealed it was full of strong liberal radicals and he soon dismissed the assembly and filled it with more conservatives, showing just how deeply conservative Fredrick William was and how unwilling he was to change.
Prince Clemons von Metternich was the Chief Minister of the Habsburg monarchy who was a conservative and against enlightenment. After the fall of Napoleon, Metternich worked to restore the European balance of power and to overturn revolutionary movements. After the revolutions, he used conservative ideals too rebuild Europe. Metternich, a leading advocate for conservatism says “ …passions are let loose, and league together to overthrow everything which society respects as the basis of its existence; religion, public morality, laws, customs, rights, and duties, are all attacked , confounded, overthrown or called into question”(Metternich, qtd. In Swanson, 25). Metternich is describing the uselessness and the mindset of the people involved in the revolution. These kinds of attitudes expressed by Metternich would result in more restrictive policies.
Clearly there never was just one French Revolution, but rather a series of revolutions. These occurred while the French struggled to create a new political and social system – one that would follow principles radically different to that of the ‘ancient’ regime. There were five regimes during the French Revolution between 1787 and 1800. However, despite this fragmented revolution, the same fundamental principles guided most of the revolutionaries involved. These principles included equality under law, centralisation of government, elimination of feudal rights, religious freedom and careers open to talent, not birth.
Unlike previous centuries, the eighteenth century was the dawn of a new age in Western Europe where intellectuals thrived, science was honored, and curiosity was encouraged; and the framework of how civil society was changed as a whole. From the dawn of the Enlightenment, Western European culture was changing due to the revolutionary new ideas that were changing. With the social change going on, political change was as evident as time went on. With these changes rooted in social change, the effects of the Enlightenment can be seen over 18th century Western Europe and beyond. Towards the late 1780s the late German Philosopher Immanuel Kant described the Enlightenment as, “Man leaving his self caused immaturity” ( Spiel Vogel 503).
The Declaration’s proclamations of the “unalienable and sacred rights of man,” point towards religious undertones; however, Revolutionary France discontinued a state religion (National Assembly). Therefore, although the language of the document indicates a religion influence, it shies away from a religious focus. Thus, the Deistic thought which stemmed from the Enlightenment, although somewhat muted, clearly inspired the course of the French documents in a similar manner to that of the United States, in spite of the evolving viewpoints of the time. In addition to a religious disposition, statements regarding the “natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man,” indicate humanistic and morally inclined focuses from the Enlightenment (National
Before the French Revolution that occurred during the late 18th century, France was considered one of the most advanced and opulent countries in Europe. It was in the center of the Enlightenment era, a period of time from the 1600s to the 1800s that is considered today as one of the most significant intellectual movements in history by encouraging a new view of life. The age sparked hundreds of important thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Adam Smith. The Enlightenment was the fuel that sparked a worldwide desire to reshape and reconsider the ways that countries were governed. Limited monarchies, direct democracies, limited democracies, and absolute monarchies, among others, were many forms of government that were disputed by these thinkers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one the many significant Enlightenment thinkers, believed in a direct democracy, a system in which a country is governed by many, and where no one person has a considerable amount of power. This idea that citizens should receive independence and a voice would later stimulate the French and result in what is now k...
After the Reformation the notion of democracy began to seep into European society, bringing with it the liberation of individual religious conscience and property. It was at this point in history, institutions realized they could no longer attempt to unify belief. Immanuel Kant, an enlightenment philosopher, argued in his essay entitled “What Is Enlightenment?” that prior oppression of thought was the direct result of laziness and cowardice in European society. Hence, as Europe transitioned into an era of enlightenment it was almost as if European society was shaking off their “self-caused immaturity” and “incapacity to use one’s intelligence.” The enlightenment in many ways represented a departure from common practice and the arrival of creativity and
...pave the way for democracy, but the bloodshed could have been more limited. Many people during the Revolution believed that France needed a change in many ways. They had achieved that by 1793. Many new reforms had been implemented in the country and it was much better off than it had been four years prior. I do agree with Kropotkin that the abolishing of serfdom and absolutism was a great achievement for France and that it did lead to a democratic system. Though this is true, the violence and bloodshed during the Revolution could have been minimized through committees and discussions. Schama is also right in that some men were too radical and their new found power went to their head. All said and done, the French Revolution was a bloody time in history, but it paved the way for a new democratic system not only for France but for many other countries as well.
In the Nineteenth Century the natural order of conservatism was challenged by new ideology such as Marxism and Liberalism. Conservatism was the norm and dominated Europe at the time so of course people were going to challenge monarchs because of their disagreement with the way they ruled. So I am here to show why conservatism is better for countries than liberalistic ideas. Also I will give sufficient reasoning why the conservative limits on voting should not change and why the limits are best for a country.
Proving to be the paramount of the conflict between faith and reason, the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century challenged each of the traditional values of that age. Europeans were changing, but Europe’s institutions were not keeping pace with that change.1 Throughout that time period, the most influential and conservative institution of Europe, the Roman Catholic Church, was forced into direct confrontation with these changing ideals. The Church continued to insist that it was the only source of truth and that all who lived beyond its bounds were damned; it was painfully apparent to any reasonably educated person, however, that the majority of the world’s population were not Christians.2 In the wake of witch hunts, imperial conquest, and an intellectual revolution, the Roman Catholic Church found itself threatened by change on all fronts.3 The significant role that the Church played during the Enlightenment was ultimately challenged by the populace’s refusal to abide by religious intolerance, the power of the aristocracy and Absolutism, and the rising popularity of champions of reform and print culture, the philosophes, who shared a general opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
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.
... voted into the new republic. “France was a republic, but one now in the hands of an assembly dominated by conservatives, many of whom were monarchists”7.
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)