Explain The Political Changes That Occurred During The French Revolution
Draft 2
The political change that occurred during the French Revolution was based on the political philosophies of the 18th Century Age of Reason. The French Revolution hoped to use reason and natural law to reform the French government because of its inability to serve the needs of the nation. However, evident by the dramatic change in the revolution, the political philosophies used were not consistent throughout the period of 1776 to 1815. The beginning stages of the French Revolution were characterized by the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Paine; however, as the French Revolution continued the political theories changed to reflect Hobbes' theories of the Social Contract and ultimately fulfill the prophecy stated by Montesquieu about the needs for checks and balances. …show more content…
The discontent that incited the desire for reform was caused by the economic crisis in France.
Social classes in France were separated into three Estates: the First Estate consisted of the clergy, the Second Estate was the nobility, and the Third Estate was the rest of the population. The Third Estate was a cluster of “everyone else” so the wealthy bourgeoisie were in the same economic class as the poor peasants. Nobility status into the Second Estate was bought, and as the prices of office, rows it increased the tension between social classes. In addition, the aristocrats, consisting of the First and Second Estates, were used to living an extravagant and wasteful lifestyle, which was supported by taxation of the Third Estate because the other two were exempt from taxation. The artificial nature of the French social economic divisions created long-term tensions within and between social classes, in addition to not serving the needs and interests of the people. The worsening of the economic conditions due to drought, astronomical inflation, and food shortages, exacerbated the long-term tension of the economic separation and created hardship for the Third
Estate.
These economic problems were a reflection of the weak and ineffective administration system under Louis XVI, who wanted to reform the economic system, but was incapable of doing so. In 1789, he summoned the Estates General; however, even the meeting of the representative bodies of France did not serve the needs of the Third Estate. In the Estates General each of the Estates were given one vote. The aristocrats consistently teamed up against the Third Estate to out vote them 2 to 1, which meant the Third Estate had no political power. The severe economic hardships of the Third Estate and lack of political power were the conditions that incited the need for reform and ultimately the French Revolution.
The Third Estate presented the collection of Cahiers, the grievances of the Third Estate, to the Estates General with the intention of having these issues reformed. The major grievance reflected in the Cahiers, presented in Document #81, was the unequal representation of the Third Estate in the Estates General. The Third Estate wanted votes to be counted by head of representatives, not by class, which would mean the Third Estate would be on equal standing as the First and Second Estates combined. The expression of this grievance shows the application of the political theories of Montesquieu and Paine.
Document #78 are excerpts from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. From his perspective, England ensured the liberty of the people by separating the power of the absolute monarchy between the King and Parliament, which enabled the English government to have a system of checks and balances. This system is necessary because political liberties can only exist when there is no abuse of power. Montesquieu also expresses his opinion on the character and nature of human laws. He states that law arose from relationships to help the society to function better. People living together in a society have relationships between each other and between objects. These relationships are dynamic; changing between groups of people, situations, and over time. The responsibility of law is to remain flexible in order to help facilitate the harmony of these relationships in society as they change. The dialogue that took place between the Third Estate and the Estates General in the Cahiers illustrates the lack of political liberties of the Third Estate because the aristocratic Estates monopolized the power of France’s administrative system, and how the inflexibility of the law made it unable to suit the needs of the people because of the deteriorating economic state of France.
Paine’s political theory, stated in Document #86: excerpts from The Rights of Man reflect a similar idea as Montesquieu. The government is instituted to serve the needs of the people. When it can no longer do so, political reform and change are necessary in order for the government to remain effective. Paine compares, “…governing beyond the grave…,” to a tyranny because it keeps old laws in place that are no longer applicable, and are a hindrance to advancement. This political idea is evident in the dialogue presented in the Cahiers. The policies of the Estates General no longer served the needs of the people and were hurting the country because it was hindering economic reforms that were desperately needed.
The continuation of this dialogue was done by Abbe Sieyes' pamphlet “What is the Third Estate?”, Document #82. As a quick way of appeasing the Third Estate, Louis XVI doubled their number of representatives, from 300 to 600. However, this act was meaningless because the Estates General still voted by class. Sieyes wanted the Third Estate to have representation in the Estates General proportional to their size, because the Third Estate was, “Everything.” The Third Estate represented the whole of France as a nation on its own, because the First and Second Estates separated themselves from the laws and commons order applied to the rest of the nation. This made them a hindrance to the Third Estate and made them a separate entity from France.
Sieyes' expression is derived from the political philosophy of Rousseau in his explanation of The Social Contract (1762), Document #79. People are born free with no responsibilities to anybody else, but eventually agree to work together as a way of ensuring their own preservation and to further their own personal interests. This agreement is the Social Contract and is the foundation of government. People sacrifice all their rights to each other, not to a separate body, which creates a government where sovereignty lies in all of the members because each member relinquishes and receives equal amounts of power. The "General Will" of a society is the Will of the authority. When sovereignty rests in the collective whole of the people, this is also the Will of the people. As demonstrated here, the Old Regime held absolute authority, which meant the General Will expressed, was their own Will. The expression by Sieyes reflects the desire to create a government that reflects the General Will of France not just the General Will of the aristocratic.
Upon the rejection of the Estates General to reform the issues expressed in the Cahiers and, “What is the Third Estate?”, the Third Estate along with a few supporters from the First and Second Estate formed the National Assembly and took the Tennis Court Oath in 1789, Document #83. The Tennis Court Oath stated the National Assembly would meet on a regular basis until they created a new constitution for France. This constitution would represent the General Will of France because it was being written with the thorough involvement of the Third Estate. This act of establishing their own government because of the in adequacy of the one in place reflects the political theories of John Locke expressed in Document #73, Second Treaties on Government. Locke’s political theory states that people need government in order to provide stability in the society. However, in the relationship between people and the government both parties have power because the citizens sacrifice only some of their rights, not all of them, maintaining the rights of life, liberty, and property. The government’s responsibility to the people is then to protect the rights that are allotted to all men universally. If the government fails to do so, the citizens have the right to abolish it and instate a new government that can protect these three unalienable rights. The events of the Tennis Court Oath, illustrate this principle in action. Upon failure to serve the people, the Third Estate, which is France, formed a new government that better protected their rights and serve their needs.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), Document #84, was the culmination of all of these enlightened political philosophies in a written declaration that in bodied the revolutionary aspirations of the French Revolution. This declaration combines the enlightened ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and even Paine, to lay out the foundation for their constitution upon which all laws for the new France would be built upon. They meant to ensure people’s natural rights and political liberties by fixing the corruption of the absolute monarchy and providing a framework that would express the true General Will of France, not just the rulers.
The dynamics of the French Revolution changed after 1792. Internal discontent was still present because of the crumbling economic system and the ineffective leadership of the King. In addition, external pressures were applied because Austria and Prussia declared war on France in 1791 because of fear that the revolutionary ideas would spread across Europe. In September 1792, a new constitutional assembly was elected, called the Convention. The Convention created the Committee of Public Safety, which passed legislation with martial law, because they felt they needed to protect and save the French Revolution that was now being attacked. The goals of the Committee of Public Safety were to take control of the revolution and eliminate all enemies of the revolution, which they did with great brutality and bloodshed. The second stage of the French revolution occurred under these conditions.
The Marseillaise (1792), Document #87, and The Law of Suspects (1793), Document #88, reflect the changing dynamics of the French Revolution. The Marseillaise was the French anthem, with its rich patriotic theme, was a call to arms of all the French people to support France, the revolution, and liberty. Then in 1793, The Law of Suspects was passed by the Committee of Public Safety. The increased pressure and fear meant the revolution wanted to shore up their supporters and eliminate whom they thought were a threat to the revolution. The Convention wanted full-unquestioned support in an attempt to save and protect the revolution.
These two Documents reflect the adoption of the political ideas of Hobbes in the Leviathan, Document #70. In Hobbes’s theory, people sacrifice all of their rights to the government so it can provide stability to the society. By sacrificing all their rights, the relationship between the people and the government becomes a dictatorship. As the French Revolution is being attacked by outside forces, Austria and Prussia, the Convention suspended all individual rights and freedoms in order to protect the revolution, evident in The Law of Suspects and in the actions of the Committee of Public Safety. This shows the political theory of Hobbes, that the state is more important than the individual is; counter to the original political theories put in place at the start of the revolution by Locke and Rousseau that valued the individual rights over the state.
What was also reflective of the Leviathan was how the sovereign power of the Convention was obtained. The Marseillaise illustrates the first method of obtaining the sovereign power; people submitting all their rights voluntarily. This was the intention of the patriotic themes in this anthem, which was a call to arms to support the Convention and the revolution. The Law of Suspects illustrates the second method, by force. When faced with enemies who will not willingly submit their rights, the fear of “… being able to destroy them if they refuse…” will encourage submission and succeed in gaining sovereign power. This method was implemented in The Reign of Terror, shown in the French Law of Suspects. Anyone who was seen as not a supporter of the revolution was threatened into support or simply killed.
The power of the Convention gained by using Hobbes’s political theories turns the French Revolution into a tyranny. The French Revolution needed to decide what would best serve the people, save the revolution, and ultimately progress liberty. This supports Hobbes idea that in order for there to be stability in a society, all the people need to give all of their rights so that the government has complete and full control to make decisions for the Commonwealth. Hobbes describes the Commonwealth as the decisions made by the sovereign power of the nation, in the interest of the people. This was what the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety believed they were doing. Even though their laws were radical and their rule was called The Reign of Terror, they believed they were supporting the Commonwealth of France, which was to protect the survival of the revolution.
This change in political theory not only reflects the pressures of the time but also fulfills the prophecy stated by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws. Explained above, Montesquieu believed in order to secure liberty, power needed to be checked in order to prevent abuse. This is so important because as Montesquieu points out, "... constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." This means an absolute government will eventually become a tyranny regardless of the original premises upon which it was made. This was the downfall of the Convention and what enabled the Reign of Terror, which began in 1792. With no other administrative bodies to check the power of the Committee of Public Safety, they carried their authority fully, oppressed the rights of the people, and created another tyranny in France.
The political change that occurred during the French Revolution was based on the political philosophies of the 18th Century Age of Reason. The French Revolution hoped to use reason and natural law to reform the French government because of its inability to serve the needs of the nation. However, evident by the dramatic change in the revolution, the political philosophies used were not consistent throughout the period of 1776 to 1815. The beginning stages of the French Revolution were characterized by the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Paine; however, as the French Revolution continued the political theories changed to reflect Hobbes' theories of the Social Contract and ultimately fulfill the prophecy stated by Montesquieu about the needs for checks and balances. …show more content…
The discontent that incited the desire for reform was caused by the economic crisis in France.
Social classes in France were separated into three Estates: the First Estate consisted of the clergy, the Second Estate was the nobility, and the Third Estate was the rest of the population. The Third Estate was a cluster of “everyone else” so the wealthy bourgeoisie were in the same economic class as the poor peasants. Nobility status into the Second Estate was bought, and as the prices of office, rows it increased the tension between social classes. In addition, the aristocrats, consisting of the First and Second Estates, were used to living an extravagant and wasteful lifestyle, which was supported by taxation of the Third Estate because the other two were exempt from taxation. The artificial nature of the French social economic divisions created long-term tensions within and between social classes, in addition to not serving the needs and interests of the people. The worsening of the economic conditions due to drought, astronomical inflation, and food shortages, exacerbated the long-term tension of the economic separation and created hardship for the Third
Estate.
These economic problems were a reflection of the weak and ineffective administration system under Louis XVI, who wanted to reform the economic system, but was incapable of doing so. In 1789, he summoned the Estates General; however, even the meeting of the representative bodies of France did not serve the needs of the Third Estate. In the Estates General each of the Estates were given one vote. The aristocrats consistently teamed up against the Third Estate to out vote them 2 to 1, which meant the Third Estate had no political power. The severe economic hardships of the Third Estate and lack of political power were the conditions that incited the need for reform and ultimately the French Revolution.
The Third Estate presented the collection of Cahiers, the grievances of the Third Estate, to the Estates General with the intention of having these issues reformed. The major grievance reflected in the Cahiers, presented in Document #81, was the unequal representation of the Third Estate in the Estates General. The Third Estate wanted votes to be counted by head of representatives, not by class, which would mean the Third Estate would be on equal standing as the First and Second Estates combined. The expression of this grievance shows the application of the political theories of Montesquieu and Paine.
Document #78 are excerpts from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. From his perspective, England ensured the liberty of the people by separating the power of the absolute monarchy between the King and Parliament, which enabled the English government to have a system of checks and balances. This system is necessary because political liberties can only exist when there is no abuse of power. Montesquieu also expresses his opinion on the character and nature of human laws. He states that law arose from relationships to help the society to function better. People living together in a society have relationships between each other and between objects. These relationships are dynamic; changing between groups of people, situations, and over time. The responsibility of law is to remain flexible in order to help facilitate the harmony of these relationships in society as they change. The dialogue that took place between the Third Estate and the Estates General in the Cahiers illustrates the lack of political liberties of the Third Estate because the aristocratic Estates monopolized the power of France’s administrative system, and how the inflexibility of the law made it unable to suit the needs of the people because of the deteriorating economic state of France.
Paine’s political theory, stated in Document #86: excerpts from The Rights of Man reflect a similar idea as Montesquieu. The government is instituted to serve the needs of the people. When it can no longer do so, political reform and change are necessary in order for the government to remain effective. Paine compares, “…governing beyond the grave…,” to a tyranny because it keeps old laws in place that are no longer applicable, and are a hindrance to advancement. This political idea is evident in the dialogue presented in the Cahiers. The policies of the Estates General no longer served the needs of the people and were hurting the country because it was hindering economic reforms that were desperately needed.
The continuation of this dialogue was done by Abbe Sieyes' pamphlet “What is the Third Estate?”, Document #82. As a quick way of appeasing the Third Estate, Louis XVI doubled their number of representatives, from 300 to 600. However, this act was meaningless because the Estates General still voted by class. Sieyes wanted the Third Estate to have representation in the Estates General proportional to their size, because the Third Estate was, “Everything.” The Third Estate represented the whole of France as a nation on its own, because the First and Second Estates separated themselves from the laws and commons order applied to the rest of the nation. This made them a hindrance to the Third Estate and made them a separate entity from France.
Sieyes' expression is derived from the political philosophy of Rousseau in his explanation of The Social Contract (1762), Document #79. People are born free with no responsibilities to anybody else, but eventually agree to work together as a way of ensuring their own preservation and to further their own personal interests. This agreement is the Social Contract and is the foundation of government. People sacrifice all their rights to each other, not to a separate body, which creates a government where sovereignty lies in all of the members because each member relinquishes and receives equal amounts of power. The "General Will" of a society is the Will of the authority. When sovereignty rests in the collective whole of the people, this is also the Will of the people. As demonstrated here, the Old Regime held absolute authority, which meant the General Will expressed, was their own Will. The expression by Sieyes reflects the desire to create a government that reflects the General Will of France not just the General Will of the aristocratic.
Upon the rejection of the Estates General to reform the issues expressed in the Cahiers and, “What is the Third Estate?”, the Third Estate along with a few supporters from the First and Second Estate formed the National Assembly and took the Tennis Court Oath in 1789, Document #83. The Tennis Court Oath stated the National Assembly would meet on a regular basis until they created a new constitution for France. This constitution would represent the General Will of France because it was being written with the thorough involvement of the Third Estate. This act of establishing their own government because of the in adequacy of the one in place reflects the political theories of John Locke expressed in Document #73, Second Treaties on Government. Locke’s political theory states that people need government in order to provide stability in the society. However, in the relationship between people and the government both parties have power because the citizens sacrifice only some of their rights, not all of them, maintaining the rights of life, liberty, and property. The government’s responsibility to the people is then to protect the rights that are allotted to all men universally. If the government fails to do so, the citizens have the right to abolish it and instate a new government that can protect these three unalienable rights. The events of the Tennis Court Oath, illustrate this principle in action. Upon failure to serve the people, the Third Estate, which is France, formed a new government that better protected their rights and serve their needs.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), Document #84, was the culmination of all of these enlightened political philosophies in a written declaration that in bodied the revolutionary aspirations of the French Revolution. This declaration combines the enlightened ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and even Paine, to lay out the foundation for their constitution upon which all laws for the new France would be built upon. They meant to ensure people’s natural rights and political liberties by fixing the corruption of the absolute monarchy and providing a framework that would express the true General Will of France, not just the rulers.
The dynamics of the French Revolution changed after 1792. Internal discontent was still present because of the crumbling economic system and the ineffective leadership of the King. In addition, external pressures were applied because Austria and Prussia declared war on France in 1791 because of fear that the revolutionary ideas would spread across Europe. In September 1792, a new constitutional assembly was elected, called the Convention. The Convention created the Committee of Public Safety, which passed legislation with martial law, because they felt they needed to protect and save the French Revolution that was now being attacked. The goals of the Committee of Public Safety were to take control of the revolution and eliminate all enemies of the revolution, which they did with great brutality and bloodshed. The second stage of the French revolution occurred under these conditions.
The Marseillaise (1792), Document #87, and The Law of Suspects (1793), Document #88, reflect the changing dynamics of the French Revolution. The Marseillaise was the French anthem, with its rich patriotic theme, was a call to arms of all the French people to support France, the revolution, and liberty. Then in 1793, The Law of Suspects was passed by the Committee of Public Safety. The increased pressure and fear meant the revolution wanted to shore up their supporters and eliminate whom they thought were a threat to the revolution. The Convention wanted full-unquestioned support in an attempt to save and protect the revolution.
These two Documents reflect the adoption of the political ideas of Hobbes in the Leviathan, Document #70. In Hobbes’s theory, people sacrifice all of their rights to the government so it can provide stability to the society. By sacrificing all their rights, the relationship between the people and the government becomes a dictatorship. As the French Revolution is being attacked by outside forces, Austria and Prussia, the Convention suspended all individual rights and freedoms in order to protect the revolution, evident in The Law of Suspects and in the actions of the Committee of Public Safety. This shows the political theory of Hobbes, that the state is more important than the individual is; counter to the original political theories put in place at the start of the revolution by Locke and Rousseau that valued the individual rights over the state.
What was also reflective of the Leviathan was how the sovereign power of the Convention was obtained. The Marseillaise illustrates the first method of obtaining the sovereign power; people submitting all their rights voluntarily. This was the intention of the patriotic themes in this anthem, which was a call to arms to support the Convention and the revolution. The Law of Suspects illustrates the second method, by force. When faced with enemies who will not willingly submit their rights, the fear of “… being able to destroy them if they refuse…” will encourage submission and succeed in gaining sovereign power. This method was implemented in The Reign of Terror, shown in the French Law of Suspects. Anyone who was seen as not a supporter of the revolution was threatened into support or simply killed.
The power of the Convention gained by using Hobbes’s political theories turns the French Revolution into a tyranny. The French Revolution needed to decide what would best serve the people, save the revolution, and ultimately progress liberty. This supports Hobbes idea that in order for there to be stability in a society, all the people need to give all of their rights so that the government has complete and full control to make decisions for the Commonwealth. Hobbes describes the Commonwealth as the decisions made by the sovereign power of the nation, in the interest of the people. This was what the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety believed they were doing. Even though their laws were radical and their rule was called The Reign of Terror, they believed they were supporting the Commonwealth of France, which was to protect the survival of the revolution.
This change in political theory not only reflects the pressures of the time but also fulfills the prophecy stated by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws. Explained above, Montesquieu believed in order to secure liberty, power needed to be checked in order to prevent abuse. This is so important because as Montesquieu points out, "... constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." This means an absolute government will eventually become a tyranny regardless of the original premises upon which it was made. This was the downfall of the Convention and what enabled the Reign of Terror, which began in 1792. With no other administrative bodies to check the power of the Committee of Public Safety, they carried their authority fully, oppressed the rights of the people, and created another tyranny in France.