How Did King Louis Xvi Influence The Age Of Revolution
New ideas emerged from the Enlightenment that would heavily influence the Age of Revolution, including natural rights and a social contract. Because of these new thoughts, people revolted in response to suppressive governments and established new or altered political systems, such as in the Haitian and French Revolution.
In his address to the Estates General, King Louis XVI shows no sympathy for the Third Estate’s rebellious actions. Angry because they have a disproportionately low representation in government — a violation of their natural rights — the Bourgeois and peasants had begun to make plans for rebellion. In an attempt to maintain his absolute power, he delivers the speech to suppress the growing opposition’s desire for liberty, equality, and fraternity, ideas originating from the Enlightenment. His speech is an example of the extensisteps governments were willing to take to bury revolutions and hold on to power. These plans failed, and commoners overthrew monarchies and established their desired form of government. In France’s case, this was (after a series of temporary governments), a constitutional monarchy whereas before it was a divine-right monarchy. King Louis XVI’s actions are very similar to the Ottoman Empire’s response to industrialization. Just like his downfall was failure to adapt to the times — as governments were clearly becoming less autonomous — so too was it the Ottomans. They failed to embrace industrialization, instead instituting a series of muddled-down reforms that were not nearly enough to prevent their fall.
Emmanuel Sieyes demonstrates his belief that commoners are perfectly capable of running a government, claiming that neither the First nor Second Estate are necessary for a functioning society (Doc. 6). This was the general idea of revolutionaries during the time; they argued that regular people could run government themselves, an idea coming from the Enlightenment.
In Saint-Domingue, conditions for slaves were extremely
horrible due to the Le Code Noir, which established, for instance, that slaves may be “chain[ed] and … beaten with rods or straps.” These actions were in clear violation of John Locke’s idea of natural rights and, more specifically, to the right to liberty —
In his address to the Estates General, King Louis XVI shows no sympathy for the Third Estate’s rebellious actions. Angry because they have a disproportionately low representation in government — a violation of their natural rights — the Bourgeois and peasants had begun to make plans for rebellion. In an attempt to maintain his absolute power, he delivers the speech to suppress the growing opposition’s desire for liberty, equality, and fraternity, ideas originating from the Enlightenment. His speech is an example of the extensisteps governments were willing to take to bury revolutions and hold on to power. These plans failed, and commoners overthrew monarchies and established their desired form of government. In France’s case, this was (after a series of temporary governments), a constitutional monarchy whereas before it was a divine-right monarchy. King Louis XVI’s actions are very similar to the Ottoman Empire’s response to industrialization. Just like his downfall was failure to adapt to the times — as governments were clearly becoming less autonomous — so too was it the Ottomans. They failed to embrace industrialization, instead instituting a series of muddled-down reforms that were not nearly enough to prevent their fall.
Emmanuel Sieyes demonstrates his belief that commoners are perfectly capable of running a government, claiming that neither the First nor Second Estate are necessary for a functioning society (Doc. 6). This was the general idea of revolutionaries during the time; they argued that regular people could run government themselves, an idea coming from the Enlightenment.
In Saint-Domingue, conditions for slaves were extremely
horrible due to the Le Code Noir, which established, for instance, that slaves may be “chain[ed] and … beaten with rods or straps.” These actions were in clear violation of John Locke’s idea of natural rights and, more specifically, to the right to liberty —