Due to yet another school closing, we will be having our roundtable discussion online.
Post a comment on this post which includes the following:
-Your name
-Your POV (assigned in class)
-Your response to the discussion question, "To what extent was the French Revolution a success?"Your response should be a minimum of 2, but no more than 5 paragraphs. You must include a reference to 1-2 primary sources. Make sure to cite the name, author, and date (if available) of your source. Remember, you are answering this from your assigned point of view, not you as an American in 2011.
-You must post your comment by Sunday night 1/23 (12:00 midnight)in order to receive full credit
-You must also comment on a classmate's post (not your partner) explaining why you agree or disagree with their assessment (1-2 paragraphs). This comment must be submitted by 12:00 midnight on Monday 1/24.
-You must also complete the French Revolution discussion chart (available on my BMHS website) and turn in on Tuesday 1/25.
-Email me at melia@norwalkps.org with any questions or problems posting
Conor McCann
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutionary Army
There were some detriments towards the army caused by the French Revolution, but overall the French Revolution was a success. These problems include the high death toll which took place both in France during the revolution, and in outside countries, like in the war between France and Austria. There was also a high death toll during the Terror, in which some soldiers were actually killed, who ironically supported the revolution at a point in time. Many soldiers may have supported the revolution in the beginning, but during the Second Revolution, in which Robespierre came to power, their views may have changed. Also, the reforms brought by the French Revolution had not lasted, as the Directory came into power, so in some ways, the fighting which took place was a lost cause. Despite these problems, the French Revolution was primarily beneficial to the soldiers in their own minds.
Despite the problems caused by the French Revolution, soldiers were proud to fight and die for the cause they supported. This can be seen in the Sherman book on page 117, in which Francois-Xavier Joliclerc, a soldier, writes a letter to his mother, in which he states that all of his suffering is for his country, and that he is fighting for a just cause. Soldiers also felt equality for a period of time during the revolution, because they were typically those who needed reform. Even after the revolution ended, and the directory came into power, the army received benefits. For example, the power of the army itself became essential to the French government. Soldiers had also gained the right to vote, and officers within the military had rose to political rank, like Napoleon Bonaparte, who became Emperor of France after the revolution.
In the end, there were sacrifices made in the revolution, and the government that the army wished to establish had gone away quickly, but the soldiers themselves did not feel very much harm due to their pride and their success with the establishment of the Directory.
Bryan Jimenez
ReplyDeleteFree People of Color in St. Domingue
The French Revolution was a success. It furnished the Mulattoes and slaves with an opportunity and an inspiration after having witnessed the successful insurrection in France against the government’s long-standing denial of equal representation of the Commons to that of the Nobility and Clergy. Free Mulattoes, had a very unimportant position in Haitian society. While they enjoyed a degree of freedom, they were repressed by the conservative White power structure that recognized them only as being people of color. Free Mulattoes were further disgraced by being outlawed from holding office and were totally excluded from Haitian society.
The First French Republic wished to grant full rights to freed people of color. However, the white elite in charge of the colony refused to grant these rights, violence was needed for the colored people of Saint Domingue to obtain full rights. This led to a revolt in August of 1791. Violence was something that the people of St. Domingue were familiar with, as there were radical slave revolts even before the French Revolution began. It was not necessary to for the people of St. Domingue to see how the French Revolution played out, as they were not concerned with the consequences of the revolution, they were simply interested in the ideas put forth by it. These ideas provided the necessary spark for the revolution in St. Domingue to occur. The success of the rebellion caused the Legislative Assembly in France to realize it was facing an ominous situation. Members of the Assembly were determined to stop the revolt. To protect France's economic interests, the Legislative Assembly granted civil and political rights to free men of color in the colonies in 1792. In short, the French Revolution inspired the Haitian Revolution. Violence was necessary, but violence wasn't unknown in St. Domingue. In the end, slavery was abolished and rights were granted to the citizens of St. Domingue.
Nina Raffio
ReplyDeletePOV: sans-culottes
According to the sans-culottes, the French Revolution was a massive failure. This group consisted of members of the working class who rejected the aristocracy’s lavishness and paraded through France without breeches. They emphasized the importance of equality and sought to limit the freedom of the aristocracy in order to attain it. The sans-culottes’ movement was significant in the scheme of the revolution because it was the first time that the commoners truly took a stand against the upper classes
The sans-culottes had many objectives. They wanted to tax the wealthy and take food from large landowners to give to the needy. They envisioned a nation where every citizen was granted a piece of land and there was no control of estates and big enterprises. The sans-culottes also strongly opposed monarchy and wanted the people to have as much say in governmental affairs as possible.
While their great disdain for the aristocracy drove them to have their voices heard, their harsh behavior quickly led to their downfall. The sans-culottes grew so vengeful that they executed people in masses and massacred cities. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France of 1790, Edmund Burke criticized their extreme measures. He said, “France, since her revolution, is under the sway of a sect, whose leaders have deliberately, at one stroke, demolished the whole body of that jurisprudence which France had pretty nearly in common with other civilized countries…” In the September Massacre of 1792, the sans-culottes murdered over 1,200 people. In a response to this, the Convention declared France a republic to appease and stop the bloodthirsty killers. The sans-culotte continued to terrorize and manipulate the Convention to get their way. For a while, the French Revolution was a great success in their eyes.
They were content during the Reign of Terror, but their efforts backfired when Robespierre started executing extremists in their party. Then in 1794, the Thermidorian Reaction put and end to the sans-culottes and they were removed from political life. To the sans-culottes, the most upsetting part about their ending was not being put to silence, but seeing aristocrats and members of the upper class triumph over them after such a long effort. When this occurred, the French Revolution became a great failure and stab to their pride.
In the beginning, the French Revolution was a success for the clergy as part of the First Estate, a very important position in France. They controlled about 15 percent of French landowners, making the Church the largest landowner in France. With Louis XIV’s Edict of Toleration declaring, “We will always favor with all our power the means of instruction and persuasion that will tend to link all our subjects by the common profession of our kingdom’s ancient faith, Catholicism,” (“Edict of Toleration”, Louis XIV, November 1787), the Catholic Church seemed to have deep-rooted control.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after the revolution progressed, the clergy’s power was slowly drained. The National Constituent Assembly published the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, demanding the election of priests, the confiscation of church lands, and the establishment of the Church as a secular part of state. From then on, the more radical de-Christianization of France began with the removal of statues from places of worship, and the institution of revolutionary cults (Cult of Supreme-Being). The taxing power of the Church was cancelled, and all priests and bishops were required to swear to an oath stating their devotion to the new policies of the Revolution. The majority of the clergy did not swear to the oath. The Radical Stage of the French Revolution greatly limited the power of the clergy and created a divide between the Church and state.
The French Revolution was somewhat successful in bringing the clergy under state control, but it only launched the Roman Catholic Church’s offensive against the revolution. Also, even with the Revolutionary’s enlightened hopes of religious toleration, the clergy still remained unenlightened in these regards. A deputy from the clergy in the Estates General argued that “any extension that a decree of the National Assembly would hasten to give to the civil existence of the Jews… could occasion great disasters” (“Opinion on the Admissibility of Jews to Full Civil and Political Rights”, Anne Louis Henri La Fare, Spring 1790).
It wasn’t until the Thermidorian Reaction that the Convention allowed Catholic services to be held again, and refractory priests returned to France. The Convention realized how radical the Revolution was, and sought to find a medium. While they still favored the Cult of Supreme being, they allowed society to revive Catholic worship. Instead of compromising with the Church during the Revolution, the state created yet another enemy. However, the changes and limits put on the Catholic Church during the Revolution didn’t continue after the Thermidorian Reaction.
I agree with Bryan's comment about the success of the French Revolution towards the "free people of color in St. Dominique". This group is not heavily touched upon in the textbook, yet it makes sense that they had benefitted from the revolution. The success of the revolution is questionable for almost every group living within France because of the establishment of the Directory, but the revolution in France influenced the Haitian Revolution, in which the free colored people of St. Dominique had gained freedoms, which were granted to them by the French Legislative Assembly. The fact that it was used as mere inspiration and that they were not relying on the French Revolution itself actually made it a success in almost every way, because none of the detriments caused by the French Revolution (the death toll during the Terror, the death toll during the war with Austria, the failure of the revolution, etc.) would have harmed those in Haiti.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Begos
ReplyDeletePOV: The Clergy
In 18th century France, ninety-five of the population were adherents to the Roman Catholic faith. The Church was the largest landowner in the country, possessed revenues from its tenants plus from taxing the public. It was present in everybody’s life, even if they didn’t adhere to that faith, because it was such a large institution and it was the only institution that provided primary and secondary education and hospitals. Revolutionaries began to see the church as counterrevolutionary in every way possible. The revolution was successful in holding the clergy completely under state control, but it was yet not able to suppress the religious intolerance preached by many religious officials.
Under the revolution, things changed dramatically. Church lands were confiscated, statues and other icons were removed from houses of worship, people destroyed sacred church items, basically people no longer saw the church as a dangerous and intimidating institution. In 1789 the State cancelled the taxing power of the church and declared that any properties of the Catholic Church were to be nationalized. Then, the National Constituent Assembly published the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which basically forced the church to reside under the state’s rule. It made clergy employees of the state, reduced the number of bishoprics, and required all priests and bishops to swear an oath of fidelity to the new order or face dismissal, deportation or death. In 1792, the National Assembly legalized divorce, and the state took control of the birth, death, and marriage registers.
Brunet De Latuque (Pg. 84) was an example of someone who believed in religious toleration. Some people wanted to exclude protestants from Civil Officies, Latuque (a lawyer from an area where many Calvinists lived) argued that since the Revolution was about giving rights to all men, no matter what the religion. He thought it would be a shame to forbid very able men from taking certain positions simply because of a disagreement in religion.
La Fare (Pg. 97) on the other hand was a prime example of a religious official who still held deeply rooted opposition to the revolution in regards to religion. He says in his "Opinion on the Admissibility of Jews to Full Civil and Political Rights": “Any extension that a decree of the National Assembly would hasten to give to the civil existence of the Jews, before opinion has been prepared in advance and led by degrees to this change, could occasion great disasters.” He does say that it must be “led by degrees” and not altogether ignored, but he in the previous portion of the work he did nothing but criticize the Jews and proclaim the harm they would do to society. As much as the Revolution aimed to enlighten France on a full-scale, they did not succeed in changing the minds of those who had been convinced that religious toleration would be disastrous.
I agree with Nina’s statement about the sans-culottes being disappointed with the outcome of the revolution. Even though the revolution was an extremely radical part of France’s history, it is important to understand that the level of revolution achieved was so high only because many revolutionaries were shooting for a complete upheaval of everything France stood for. The sans-culottes in particular were not trying to reform France—they wanted to basically turn it into an entirely new country. They were the Robin Hoods of their time: they wanted to take from the give to the needy. To them, the way to do this was not through intellectual, diplomatic discussion, but through violence. Thus, they were only happy when the poor of society were rising up against the better-off. During the reign of terror they felt successful because they saw themselves as having the upper hand. Many might see their revolution as being successful, for all they achieved in forming the new republic. But the sans-culottes were looking for something more than just a switch in government, they were looking for a switch in the country as a whole. That’s why even though the revolution in itself may be seen as a successful transfer of power, the sans-culottes were unsuccessful because once people got tired of the Terror, they lost their hold on the revolution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily's point that the church and state's affairs were on and off. As the revolution progressed, their relationship evolved as well. In the beginning, the two worked cohesively to find a solution to the economic distress France was facing. As she stated before, the clergy was represented in the Estates General, along with the aristocrats and the commoners. However, as time went on and no solution was made, the state tried confiscating church lands and placing other restrictions on them to increase revenue. The church/state relationship worsened until the Thermidorian Reaction when the Convention allowed the clergy to reestablish themselves. The revolution was a journey for the clergy. At times it felt successful, at other times it felt like a failure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nina’s comment on the sans-culottes. In the beginning, they did have their own goals but throughout the Revolution they were trumped by the higher class political divisions, such as the Girondists and the Jacobins. The urban sans-culottes weren’t initially interested in the revolutionary leaders’ reforms, but whether or not they had enough food. When the Jacobins took over the state government, they enforced the idea of economic freedom and liberty. This reform came with a cost; the sans-culottes were cheated many times because of the economic liberty the aristocracy and nobles now had. They believed in social equality, but they were still out ruled by the Jacobins, and the Girondists. These leaders were more conservative and resisted giving too much power to the sans-culottes, the lower working class.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the 18th century, the sans-culottes of Paris had not reached their initial goal—to greatly improve their living conditions. Their discontent was shown throughout their numerous bread riots in the cities as bread costs continued to rise regardless of reform. I agree with Nina when she stated that their biggest disappointment was the fact that aristocrats had still managed to triumph, and failed to tend to the lower urban classes as the Revolution had intended to do.
Mitchell McMahon
ReplyDeletePeasants
The peasants didn't really benefit from the French Revolution as much as they should have. At a glance you think that the revolution was for the peasants so they probably benefited, but after some deeper digging you realize that laws were put in place to exclude the peasants from the benefits of the revolution. Peasants were excluded from participating in government because they were considered to be dependent on those who employed them, therefore the employers get to make their decisions. Only citizens considered active compared to passive were able to participate in government and make decisions. On page 80 of The French Revolution and Human Rights, Abbe Sieyas says that the difference between active and passive citizens is passive citizens weren’t allowed to make decisions for themselves.
Peasants thought that they would gain from the revolution when hearing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen because they didn’t know about the fine print involved. Peasants figured they would benefit immensely from the revolution, but really the revolution was just more of a power grab than anything changing initially. The 3rd Estate wanted power and got it, but that power was deferred from the peasants to the landowners. Peasants didn’t pay a high enough level of tax to be eligible to vote.
The Girondist
ReplyDeleteThe French Revolution was a success. The fight for a French republic was attainted, even with the execution of Louis XVI by the Jacobins and the sans-culottes, which we didn’t support. Our sole purpose was to have a government based on the constitution. When our political leaders in the Legislative Assembly were executed in 1793 by these two radical groups, we were soon forced out of our political positions. We were either captured and sent to prison or escaped to the country side.
The Thermidor became a political reaction that saved us from political extinction. The sans-culottes and Jacobins were stripped of political power giving way to Constitution of Year III, and the Elder Council and the Lower Council of Five Hundred. Even though the radicals and the moderate supporters of the constitution didn’t agree with each phases political opinions there was one thing that was clear, “dynasties have never been anything else than rapacious tribes who lived on nothing, but human flesh. It is necessary completely to reassure the friends of liberty. We must destroy this talisman, whose magic power is still sufficient to stupefy many a man. I move accordingly that you sanction by a solemn law the abolition of royalty” (Opening of the Convention on September 21, 1792), they meet at common ground when it came to the abolition of the monarchy. The French Revolution was successful in the eyes of Girondist, we were able to have a stable position in a government that was based on a constitution that “was established on the foundations of liberty and equality” (Tallien September 1792), and all those from the middle and lower class would be represented in either bodies of legislation.
Jaylen Williams
Maya Carter
ReplyDeletePOV: Women
Although the efforts of the Frenchwomen during the revolution were nothing less than fervent, it was overall unsuccessful for them. In fact, they may have had somewhat less freedom after the revolution than before it started. Women were seen as being unable to really contribute to society, and their only use was in the home. They were to cook, clean, have kids, raise kids, and please their husband. The women of the French Revolution, however, forcefully challenged these social restrictions like never before. Unfortunately, their actions were in vain and no improvements or advancements were seen for women’s equality or education during this time.
One of the major contributors to the fight for women’s equality during the French Revolution was Olympe de Gouges, a butcher’s daughter from a town in southern France. In 1791 she wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Woman, which was pretty much a copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, only based on woman’s rights. For example, the first article stated “Woman is born free and equal to man in her rights. Social distinctions can be based only on the common utility.” She went on to describe the other rights that women should be allowed as well as to encourage them to join the fight (de Gouges, Declaration 1791). Not surprisingly, the document had little effect on the public’s opinion and de Gouges was eventually executed in 1793. Another failed attempt at equality was the legislation passed in 1792 that was supposed to make divorce more fair and reasonable for women which was repealed later on, during the Thermidorian Reaction.
Another effort that seemed certain to succeed was the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, which was formed in 1791 by Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe. Initially, the group was accepted, but as time passed they became more radical – this being the reason for their eventual demise. Just months after it’s creation, the group and all other women’s clubs and societies were shut down by the Jacobins. The Jacobins feared the disorder caused by these groups, and cited Rousseau’s theory on the separate spheres of men and women in society. “There is no parity between the two sexes…The strictness of the relative duties of the two sexes is not and cannot be the same. When woman complains on this score about unjust man-made inequality, she is wrong,” said Rousseau (Rousseau, Emile 1762).
Pat McGowan
ReplyDeleteAristocracy
The French Revolution was a success. The leaders of the revolution as well as those that promoted its success achieved what they wanted to. In the simplest of terms, France went from being a monarchy to a republic, which was the initial goal. the calling of the estates general and the declaration of the rights of man limited our significance and cemented our position as a part of France's political past, but not a part of its future. Though those of us that did not lose our lives maintained ownership of our titles and sometimes our property, our role in government was done. Our king abandoned us and was eventually killed, and as soon as the third estate realized their ability to effect change in France, nothing could stop the revolution.
The abolition of our power was swift and direct. Our largest source of income, the taxation of the lands that we controlled, was taken away from us as the newly proclaimed economic liberty took its toll. We were taxed at the same rate as all other citizens of France and even lost our exclusive privileges to the hunt. One of the largest damages that the Revolution took on us was the abolition of hereditary titles. For hundreds of years our families had passed our titles down, but now based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, our titles would not live on past us. We were the victims of a weak, self-interested king who could not keep his country under control.
I also agree with Bryan's comment about the success of the revolution regarding the Free People of Color in St. Domingue. These were people that did not have a profound effect on the revolution due to geographical limitations but experienced most of its benefits. They did not have to worry about the bloody aftermath of the revolution(though they did have to worry about their own), but as an extension of France, they were now party to the same rights as French citizens. They essentially had to do almost none of the work, but got all the benefits, a truly ideal situation.
ReplyDeleteConnor Murphy
ReplyDeleteNobility
What began as tension between us and the king over the taxing methods, soon escalated when the outspoken French people were given an opportunity to speak. The Third Estate took matters too far and the Revolution became increasingly radical, beyond even the control of the people who once advocated it. The Revolution destabilized the countries economic and social structures for the sake of a couple overly idealistic causes. Unregulated economies free from the oversight of privileged hereditary aristocrats like myself does France more harm than good. The commoners do not know how to manage a country, which is apparent by their political blunders.
A prime example of the National Constituent Assembly's blunder would be the issuance of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy by the NCA. This new ecclesiastical framework drew the French order into the arms of the government. Priests and bishops became salaried employees of the state as the church became a "branch of the secular state". This alienated most of the French population who wished to worship as they had and not in a church controlled by a radical revolutionary government.
The Second Estate of Nobility was hesitant in making the decision as to whether or not to join the Third Estate in their radically evolved path to reform. Many among us feared the power of the Third Estate which had doubled its political power in the Estates General by arguing the size of the constituency it represented. So in the end, and against my advice, many nobles voted to join the National Assembly.
The goals of the French Revolution were the goals of the common man. The constituency represented by the Third Estate was not pleased with the economic state of France and they were especially displeased at attempts by the Monarchy to squeeze money from the Aristocracy because the people under the nobles would feel the harsh effects. When evaluating the success of the Revolution we must consider the plight of the peasants who were continually mistreated and did not receive much support even from their revolutionary government. The Revolution's leaders were too busy killing off the Aristocracy and they soon became paranoid. Robespierre's paranoia led to his death at the hands of his own revolution. He feared his competition so he had them killed only to find himself without a base of supporters.
At the same time I was pleased with the state of France without a Monarchy in the end. The poor decision-making and mismanagement of kings bring about too many problems for their presence to be justified. If the people of France want to be happy, they must be allowed to govern themselves.
Bourgeoisie: Jacobins
ReplyDeletePavlina S.
Overall the French Revolution was a success for the Bourgeoisie led by the Jacobin party. The Jacobins and Girondins originally belonged to the same party. But whereas the latter recoiled at stirring up the "lower depths" of society, the Jacobins saw that this was the only alternative if the revolution was to be secured. In June 1793, factional disputes with the Convention resulted in the replacement of the Girondins with the Jacobins, a far more radical group. The Jacobins and Girondins were both liberal and bourgeois, but the Jacobins desired a centralized government (in which they would hold key positions), Paris as the national capital, and temporary government control of the economy. The Jacobin platform managed to win the support of the sans-culottes. The Jacobins were tightly organized, well disciplined and convinced that they alone were responsible for saving and "managing" the Revolution from this point forward. Maximilien Robespierre, the leader of the Jacobins, attacked the "false patriots…who want to set up the Republic only for themselves, who need to govern only for the advantage of the rich."
The political center of gravity shifted within the Assembly with the growth of the Jacobin left at the expense of the Girondin centre. More importantly, the axis of power passed from the debating chamber to the street, from the National Assembly to the revolutionary organs of local power and the clubs, which inspired them and armed them with ideas and slogans. The Jacobins, the radical wing of the petit-bourgeois democracy, succeeded because they, unlike the Girondins, were prepared to lean upon the masses to deal with reaction. They did not hold up their hands in horror at the "September massacres" when the Paris sans culottes broke into the prisons to stage a plebeian settling of accounts with aristocratic counter-revolution.
In June 1793, 80,000-armed sans-culottes surrounded the meeting halls of the National Convention and demanded the immediate arrest of the Girondin faction. The Convention yielded to the mob and 29 Girondin members of the Convention were arrested. The Jacobins now had firm control not only of the Convention, but the French nation as well. They were the government. And they now had even more pressing problems: civil war was everywhere, economic distress had not been lifted, they had to keep the sans-culottes satisfied, they suffered continued threats of foreign invasion and the nation’s ports had all been blockaded. They lived, dreading the possibility that if they failed, so too would the Revolution. Only strong leadership could save the Revolution. The Committee of Public Safety assumed leadership, in April 1793. As a branch of the National Convention itself, the Committee of Public Safety had broad powers, which included the organization of the nation’s defenses, all foreign policy, and the supervision of ministers. The Committee also ordered arrests and trials of counter-revolutionaries and imposed government authority across the nation. The biggest downfall for the Jacobins was when their most powerful, influential leader, Robespierre, was executed.
Janae Spinato
ReplyDeleteSoldier
Though they did suffer as many did, the soldiers of the French Revolutionary army viewed the Revolution as an overall success. In the Sherman book, a letter from one Francois-Xavier Joliclerc, a soldier, to his mother, reveals the genuine pride he felt fighting for his country and for the revolution. For their efforts, soldiers were given the right to vote, officers were able to gain political rank, and they were even considered a vital assent to France once she went to war with the rest of Europe. Since the soldiers were made up of those who demanded change and reform, it is no wonder that upon the destruction of the monarchy which they detested and the creation of a new government that they were content.
However, this did not come without a grain or two of salt. During the Terror, many soldiers who supported the revolution were unable to escape the madness enveloping the French people. It was a very risky job, and very difficult to abandon, as told by Joliclerc. Once one became a soldier, it was likely one stayed that way. Perhaps the biggest setback for the soldiers was that even after both revolutions, under the Directory there were still food shortages that sparked some of the original tensions of these wars. Even after all of the hard work by these soldiers, France had a very unstable government for almost 100 years after the end of the revolution.
Still, overall, the soldiers had fought for equality and that is what their new attempt at a government focused on incorporating into its system. The peasantry was given a chance to rise up, the aristocracy was taken down from its undeserved pedestal, and the soldiers were able to live in their still flawed country knowing that at least some reform had taken place because of them. The soldiers fought for change, and brought it.
Jesse Tiffen
ReplyDeletePOV: Peasants
The French pleasantry, exploited by an esoteric and outdated feudal system, were primarily concerned with freeing themselves of the oppressive taxation that caused their quality of life to decrease at dangerous speeds in very little time. The peasants being the largest group within the Third Estate were resentful of the unjustified and impractical robust taxes, tithes to the church, and payments to their landlords that they were held under.After the National Assembly behind closed doors began crafting a constitution, the French peasantries anticipated to be assuaged of taxes and other unjust fees that they were forced to pay. However, little change occurred and still faced they same issues of unemployment and inflation. After the peasants pillaged Paris and destroyed tax records, Louis was forced to call the National Assembly. Through their gathering they introduced reforms that ended serfdom in France. The National Assembly espoused the Declaration of the Rights of Man. However, peasants still remained inactive and excluded from French politics, which only determines the revolution as a not true success for peasantries.
Peasants were still seen as dependent upon those that employed them, regardless of the eradication of serfdom. Their decisions were still seen as heavily reliant upon their employer. In the new system, only citizens regarded as active were enabled to participate in politics and implement changes, therefore peasants remained excluded. This is seen on page 80 in The French Revolution and Human Rights book. Abbe Sieyas, an advocate against aristocratic privileges, states clear distinctions between active and passive citizens. Passive citizens were not enabled to make decisions for themselves and therefore could not make decisions in government. Only the truly autonomous individuals were allowed to run for office or vote.
The revolution to the peasant was really only an aesthetic change and a transition of power. Yes they were released from the oppression of serfdom, but at the same time their status as the lowest level of society remained.
Jackie
ReplyDeletePOV: The Bourgeoisie- Jacobin
The Jacobins emerged as a prominent social group during what was known as the "Second Revolution" when France started going to war with foreign powers. They were a faction of the Third Estate in the National Constituent Assembly who were radical in their belief that France should have a representative government with an unregulated economy. Their goals were fulfilled but the group itself came out on the negative end of the Revolution.
During the beginning of the second revolution (which later became the Reign of Terror), the Jacobins were one of the most powerful groups and exemplified this when Maximilian Robespierre (a Jacobin leader) came to power on the Committee of Public Safety. Although they had their leader come to power and destroyed any groups which stood in their way, they compromised the ideals which they originally stood for. They terminated any groups which opposed them, therefore destroying the idea of a representative government. The Jacobins did believe during the Reign of Terror that the French Revolution was a success. Robespierre described why the Reign of Terror was necessary in establishing civic virtue. “If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.”(Justification on the Use of Terror, Maximilian Robespierre, February 5th 1794) Later on, the “White Terror” happened which took them out of power and many leaders of this club were executed as the final stage of the revolution was happening, known as the Thermidorian period.
The basic ideals of the Jacobins did prove successful though. By the end of the French Revolution, the wealthy middle class (also known as the bourgeoisie) were in power under the Constitution of Year III. The Constitution of Year III put the power in two legislative bodies the Council of Elders and the Council of Five Hundred. These councils also put the executive branch, or the Directory, in power, which consisted of five men. The Thermidorians also followed the economic policy of the Jacobins, which was to have an unregulated economy. They therefore repealed the ceiling on prices; but this did result in food shortages and, later, riots.
In summation, the Jacobins would view the French Revolution as an embodiment of their ideals without being in power.
Jaylen Williams
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Jackie, once you go past the Jacobin's radical collaboration with the sans-culottes to form the "mountain", you see a working class group fighting for a control of a ever changing government. During the moderate phase of the Second Revolution,the middle class was in power and there wasn't a monarch in power, but instead the Constitution of Year III and the Council of Elders and Lower Council of Five Hundred.
I agree with Bryan's POV about the success of the revolution from the eyes of the Free People of Color in St. Domingue. Because of their geographical limitations, they experienced much of the positive effects of the revolution without having to bare the brunt of the negative aspects. They were not subject to the same violence as those actually living in France did but as French citizens they were still entitled to the same rights as those living in the country. Like Bryan points out, the Free People of Color did not do hardly any of the work necessary to set the revolution in motion, but yet still reaped all of the benefits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Nina said about the sans-culottes. They did want a lot to come out of the French Revolution but their high hopes turn a turn for the worst. It was very important for them to want to tax the wealthy and provide more for those suffering from poverty. Although their efforts are still being clearly shown, the sans-culottes did not succeed and the French Revolution was not a success for them. However, the sans-culottes did succeed in proving that the commoners could take control over what they rightfully owned. It was one of the first times commoners could exhibit such freedom and control.
ReplyDeleteThomas Patino
ReplyDeletePoint of view: Sans-Culottes
The French Revolution failed to provide solutions to the needs of the Sans-Culottes, therefore the French Revolution was a failure to their point of view. Sans-Culottes wanted to established a republic where all citizens would be equal to the eyes of the law and no one had special privileges or more influence than other citizens. The French Revolution was a success in the perspective of a Sans-Culottes in the sense that they were able to overthrow the monarchy and the aristocracy, executing Louis XIV.
The French Revolution however was a major failure to the Sans-Culottes. When the Directory took over the nation, they wanted an unrestricted economy, with no regulation that allowed the individual to pursuit their own economical interest. This unrestricted economy was against one of the fundamental ideas Sans-Culottes believed, they wanted ceiling on prices, they wanted the price of bread to be control and the government to establish a maximum price so the Sans-Culottes would be able to afford it. The unrestricted economy left the Sans-Culottes at the hands of the uncontrolled market with no protection for the government. This laissez faire economy did not relief the food shortages and the price was increasing while the money was inflating.
The Directory resister further social, political and economical change, the Sans-Culottes were in support for a more representative government, the Sans-Culottes were removed from political life, because at the end of the revolution they were seen as too radical and the Directory wanted to maintain the peace and not let the revolution get out of hands. The removal from political life disallowed the Sans-Culottes to make any further changes and were under control of the Directory.
According to the Constitution of the Year III “No assembly of citizens may call itself a popular society.”meaning that the Sans-Culottes could not legaly represent the people of France, that no other representative body can govern for the nation. The constitution also ordered “No one may wear distinctive symbols indicative of duties formerly performed or services rendered.”which means that the Sans-Culottes could not wear their distinctive full-length trousers that recognized them as a special group.
I agree with the points made by Maya because women had less freedom than they enjoyed from the revolution, they were still banned from voting and were thought as unable to contribute to politics or think of their own. Women also failed to pass a law that would made divorces more fair, women were still second class citizens.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, as Maya said, women challenged the social restrictions and traditional roles of the women in France, they pushed for the rights to be politically involved and that the gender does not matter because women were created equal as men and the laws that were inspired by the revolution should apply to women too.
I agree with Maya that the French Revolution was considered unsuccessful for women. The women of the french revolution put a lot of work into gaining better rights for themselves, but they didn't get any new rights and remained to be considered second hand citizens, similar to poor men. Women got nothing for all the marches that they had in the hopes that they would to considered equal to men. The declaration of the rights of man and citizen purposely put an emphasis on rights for man only, the leaders of the revolution didn't want to lose any of their power to women. Try as they did, the women of paris didn't receive any benefits to their hard work for equal rights. One positive was the issue of equal rights for women and men was raised here and the people took notice, even though these women didn't receive equal rights they provided inspiration for women in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pat’s statement that the Revolution was a success. In that what it boils down to is that they were able to achieve their initial objectives of reforming and transitioning their government from a monarchy to a republic. Once the king was discarded and they were able to obtain the necessary power to implement their desired changes, the revolution took its full swing. Although not all lasted through the Revolution, the individuals that did were able to achieve or maintain their positions of ownership and involvement within government. The hefty land taxes that invoked much of the civil unrest within the Third Estate and that supported the aristocracy were eradicated. The aristocracy lost clear privileges they had in the past for centuries. The stark social differences that were created by these privileges in French society no longer existed after the aristocracies were forced to adhere to the new ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maya's assesment of the Revolution as a failure in the eyes of women. Even after all of their efforts during the actual ordeal, Rousseau's view of two separate spheres for the genders prevailed, as did the notion that women were not made for running society as much as for domestic life. To intertwine these two worlds would have been another radical change that the people at the time were not ready for. Even after the attempts by Olympe de Gouges, Pauline Léon,and Claire Lacombe to bring women the same equality promised to the men, their efforts were shot down by councils and people who thought they were too obtrusive or just speaking nonsense. After so much struggle, the women still came out of the war just as poorly as they had started off.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nina’s statement about the sans-culottes during the French Revolution. They were perhaps the most radical group of the time period, but this unfortunately led to their demise. The things they fought for were positive – equality, the people’s say in government – but the super radical group members eventually ruined it for them. The fact that they were commoners should have led to their success because they were giving the real point of view of the public, but this didn’t work out. Their fight against the aristocracy would have been very important and effective in changing French society, but their harsh and unnecessary actions ruined their public image. The sans-culottes definitely had the potential to be an effective revolutionary group, however, they took things a little too far.
ReplyDelete