Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Politics of england and france in the 17th century
France today political idelogy
17th century political thought
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Politics of england and france in the 17th century
The subject of discussion that the primary source document, “Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century”, focuses on relates to the inalienable political rights and responsibilities of French society under the proto-absolutist monarchy of sixteenth century France. The topic that the treatises focus on, that being French society’s relationship with the increasingly absolutist French crown, is one of immense significance to historians since it helps provide context concerning later historical developments, particularly the French Revolution two centuries later. By stressing the struggles of the French people, this document helps to illuminate the period in which the authors lived; a time when the French king engaged in oppressive …show more content…
Throughout the document, the authors frequently allude to France’s historical political traditions, often invoking instances where the French people deposed their leaders whenever they acted arbitrarily and without the consent of the governed. However, it is important to note that the Estates only exercised these rights when France enjoyed a preponderance of power in Europe and was not threatened by enemies more powerful than itself, as was the case when the Estates-General transferred the crown to the Capetian dynasty . The sixteenth century saw France’s very existence endangered due to internal religious violence, and foreign enemies seeking to exploit France’s misfortunes for their benefit . These conditions paved the way for the rise of an absolute monarchy that could not be challenged by those who were unable to exercise their traditional liberties because of unobstructed threats . Understanding the conditions of French society in the sixteenth century, and the ideals perpetuated in “Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century” are essential since they allow for a contextualized comprehension of later historical progresses, particularly the French
Although Henry refused to serve on the Constitutional Convention, Madison needed Henry's persuasive ways. Henry had a way to make people agree with his ideas. Even though Henry didn't serve on the Constitutional Convention, he was still present to put in his word. As soon as the meetings opened, Henry began to argue against the Constitution. This argument went on for three weeks. Henry was aware that the new government had to be strong, but felt that the Constitution made the central government too powerful. He thought that the power should lay in the hands of the states. "What right had they [the group that wrote the Constitution] to say 'We the people,' instead We, the States?" he demanded.
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
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.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
King Louis nation had a massive reaction focused on the King’s plight and return. The Reaction was not only seen in Paris alone but also on the other provinces, where a widespread phobia caused by foreign invasion led to the utter news of the King’s escape. Nevertheless, Tackett identifies the royal family plight to flee France as one of the most critical moments in the history of the French revolution. The king’s flight opens a window to the whole of the French society during the revolution. The purpose of the Kings flight was to offer freedom of action in terms of power and this was in regards to the King’s power and rule. The royal couple together with their advisers had unclear political agenda for their nation. Similarly, it is in the vent of these unclear goals factored by the Kind’s technical knowhow of not making decisive decisions that led to the stoppage of the royal family at Varennes and thereafter their return to Paris. The consequence of their return to Paris was the onset of the constant possibility of the end of the Monarch reign. On the same case, it is as a result of the royal family escape attempt and failure necessitated the integrity of the King as a constitutional monarch. On a much more political notion, The King’s hope of survival is mitigated
At the beginning of the 17th century, France was a place of internal strife and bickering bureaucrats. The king, Louis XIII, had come to the throne in 1610 at the age of nine, leaving the running of the kingdom to his mother, Marie de Medici. One of her court favorites, Armand de Plessis de Richelieu, rose through the ranks, eventually gaining the title of Cardinal and becoming one of Louis’ key advisors and minister. His political manifesto, Political Testament, was a treatise for King Louis XIII that offered him advice mainly concerned with the management and subtle subjugation of the nobles and the behavior of a prince. Beneath all of the obeisant rhetoric, Richelieu was essentially writing a handbook for Louis XIII on how to survive as a king in a political landscape increasingly dominated by the aristocracy. Richelieu’s ideology shows a pragmatic attitude reminiscent of The Prince, a political work by 15th century Florentine politician Niccoló Machiavelli.
Ed. John Hardman. French Revolution Documents 1792–95, vol. 2. “Père Duchesne, no. 313”. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1973.
The aim of absolute monarchy was to provide ‘stability, prosperity, and order’ for our territories (458). The way Louis XIV set forth to accomplish this was to claim complete sovereignty, to make laws, sanction justice, declare wars, and implement taxes on its subjects. This was all done without the approval of any government or Parliament, as monarchs were to govern ‘by divine right, just as fathers ruled their households’ (458). In Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, he described that absolution was one of the four characteristics imperative to royal authority, “Without this absolute authority, he can do neither good nor suppress evil; his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him” (460). This was epitomized when Louis XIV sought to control the legal system as well as the funding of the financial resources through a centralized bureaucracy for the monarchy.
The English Bill of Rights (1689) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) are roughly around the same period, in that it is possible to think the both documents share similar ideologies. To the thought’s dismay, it is not. Even if both documents start from the same question of taxation, the outputs vary enormously in that each has different aims: the English Bill of Rights (shortened as the English Bill from now on) only changes the crown and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (shortened as the French Declaration) changes the whole society. However, they are similar in that both strived for the representation of the masses.
Kreis, S. (2006, October 30). Lecture 11: The Origins of the French Revolution. Lecture 11: The Origins of the French Revolution. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture11a.html
New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. Print. The. Kreis, Steven. A. A. "Lecture 12: The French Revolution - Moderate Stage, 1789-1792.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most 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 is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and 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.
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
Nardo, Don. A. The French Revolution. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999. Print.