More handpicked essays just for you.
Causes and effects of the french revolution
Negative effects of the French Revolution
Social effects of the french revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. …show more content…
Alexis de Tocqueville, felt that the Revolution’s objective was no longer liberty, which in his opinion is what it should have been. Tocqueville insisted that the failure of not making liberty a primary objective is what brought down the French Revolution and impacted revolutions for years to come. He was concerned that all future revolutions would fall short and face shortcomings if liberty was not the main objective to create a legacy of the revolution. His theories show strength based upon the fact that in the beginning, the Revolution had clear goals and objectives, however towards the end it lacked sufficient proof that liberty was the objective at the end of the
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
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.
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of
The ideas of change in the French Revolution came from Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau, from his book, Discourse on the Moral Effect of the Arts and Sciences, had the idea that civilization corrupted people and had once said “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. His ideas were the beginning of socialism. He believed in the common good. More extremely, there was Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) who fueled ideas for the Russian Revolution. He was the Father of Communism, a more radical form of socialism. Those who followed Rousseau’s and Marx’s ideas felt that the...
...s on who should have power. Rebellions broke out across France and turned the nation against itself. The major revolutionary revolt was The Storming of Bastille. The third estate demanded for a republic. King Louis was killed, along with his wife Marie Antoinette to pursue the ideas of changing society. Maximilien Robespierre ordered their deaths by the violent and horrific machine, the guillotine. He was also killed shortly after, but provided the Jacobins a leader in his efforts to overthrow the monarchy. Napoleon was the last to save the revolution as it came to a close. The French Revolution has changed history and the lives of everyone in France up to today. Many people sacrificed themselves to change the country for others today. This revolution was life changing and inspired many others around the world to stand up for their beliefs and fight for a democracy.
The citizens of France, inspired by the enlightenment, desired a government run by the people. Marquis de Lafayette wrote, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness” (de Lafayette 783). The French wanted to bring equality to all classes. The French revolution brought much more social change than the American revolution. Inspired by Lafayette’s declaration that, “no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefrom” (de Lafayette 783), the class system was destroyed. The revolutionaries were open to ending slavery, however women remained marginalized within the social structure of France. Similarly to the American revolution, the enlightenment ideas that drove the French revolution were not applied to society as a
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.
Throughout the course of the French Revolution the citizens of France have influenced political change often through violent means, as well as many rulers showed the strongest and weakest points that have provoked the changes. The ideas from the French Revolution had an effect on the political situation of the country as the monarchy was abolished. This then led to a shift of focus from social classes to social equality. Finally with the fall of the old government, the people of the nation were given more rights, as well as power. The French Revolution stirred the politics of France in the right direction through positive change.
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.
His goals were to make France a constitutional republic instead of a monarchy. The new government Robespierre established, executed thousands of those who were believed to be enemies of the revolution. He had churches closed, denied the people of legal counsel, and even started drafting people to war. His original goal was peace. He stated, “In order to lay the foundations of democracy among us and and to consolidate it, in order to arrive at peaceful reign of constitutional law, we must finish the war of liberty against tyranny and safely cross through the storms of the revolution: that is the goal of the revolutionary system which you have put in order” (Document G). The only ones safe were the republicans, everyone else was due to die. Robespierre caused this anguish and even fell back on his promises. He only made the government system worse for the of
The Real Cause of the French Revolution For hundreds of years historians have tried to find out the real cause
The French Revolution was a major transformation of the society and political system of France, lasting from 1789 to 1799. During the course of the Revolution, France was changed from an absolute monarchy, to a republic of supposedly equal and free citizens. The effects of the French Revolution were widespread, both inside and outside of France, and impacted all of Europe. At times the outcome of revolt led to social change and at times it just led to unnecessary bloodshed. Was this revolution inevitable? Was there something different that the government or people could have done to prevent the horrible atrocities of The Reign of Terror under Robespierre and his men? There are clear social, economic and political changes that could have been made too prevent this revolution from occurring when it did. However, although the government could have postponed this revolution, it was also somewhat inevitable, because of the great differences in the society of the peasants and the nobles divided the entire society. The government was also just trying to make too many things right at the wrong time and this is why they could possibly have not avoided the French Revolution.
New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. Print. The. Kreis, Steven. A. A. "Lecture 12: The French Revolution - Moderate Stage, 1789-1792.
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.
Nardo, Don. A. The French Revolution. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999. Print.