How Successful Was The Third Estate In France In 1789
In 1789, France was not a unified country. Instead, it was divided into three estates. The first estate was the clergy, who claimed to be ordained by God, which gave them authority over the second and third estates. The second estate was the nobility, a wealthy group of individuals who were almost all land owners. Buying into nobility was an option, but you had to be very wealthy to afford it. Between 1700 and 1789, around 50,000 commoners were able to afford a noble title. The third estate was the common people, essentially everyone else. But the third estate wasn’t just peasants, it was literally everyone who wasn’t a noble or part of the clergy. This meant wealthy lawyers, doctors, and businessmen were all still part of the third estate.
…show more content…
The first and second estates had the system set up so that they had all the power. They gave the third estate the right to vote, but since each of the three estates had equal voting power, they were always out voted two to one. The clergy and the nobility only made up about three percent of the population in France at the time but they still had all the voting power. A radical clergyman by the name of Abbé Emmanuel Sieyés wrote in favor of change. He argued that the third estate was everything but they were treated like nothing. He explains that all the third estate really wanted is to have their vote doubled so that they’d have an equal share in making decisions and creating legislature.
Sieyés finishes his writing with a sobering conclusion, “I have only one observation to make. Obviously there are abuses in France; these abuses are profitable to someone; they’re scarcely advantageous to the third estate-indeed, they are injurious to it in particular. Now I ask if, in this state of affairs, it is possible to destroy any abuse so long as those who profit therefrom control the veto? All justice would be powerless; it would be necessary to rely entirely on the sheer generosity of the privileged classes. Would that be your idea of what constitutes social order?” (pg. 281, Perspective from the
The first and second estates had the system set up so that they had all the power. They gave the third estate the right to vote, but since each of the three estates had equal voting power, they were always out voted two to one. The clergy and the nobility only made up about three percent of the population in France at the time but they still had all the voting power. A radical clergyman by the name of Abbé Emmanuel Sieyés wrote in favor of change. He argued that the third estate was everything but they were treated like nothing. He explains that all the third estate really wanted is to have their vote doubled so that they’d have an equal share in making decisions and creating legislature.
Sieyés finishes his writing with a sobering conclusion, “I have only one observation to make. Obviously there are abuses in France; these abuses are profitable to someone; they’re scarcely advantageous to the third estate-indeed, they are injurious to it in particular. Now I ask if, in this state of affairs, it is possible to destroy any abuse so long as those who profit therefrom control the veto? All justice would be powerless; it would be necessary to rely entirely on the sheer generosity of the privileged classes. Would that be your idea of what constitutes social order?” (pg. 281, Perspective from the