Who can we blame for all this?

Who caused the French Revolution? Is there anyone solely responsible for the Reign of Terror? These are some serious questions- stay tuned to find out.

Louis XVI was the king of France leading up to the Revolution, so does that mean it was his fault? Not entirely. The people, especially the laboring poor, had been overly taxed and mistreated by the monarchy for centuries. So their resentment towards the monarchy had been building up for a long time. But Louis is definitely not blameless here. This can be evidenced with the way he handled the nobles' request to call the Estates General. They requested to call the General to weigh in on whether the king should be able to pass a tax on properties and assemblies or not. Instead of acquiescing, however, Louis tried to establish the tax by decree, causing protests and public dissent. The story ended when Louis, kicking and screaming, eventually called the General.
This story represents the gradual collapse of the absolute monarchy. Louis wasn't humble enough to initially take the nobles' request into consideration but he wasn't strong enough to hold his ground against the people. In Louis' mind, he had the divine right to rule. It is the Lord's will for him to rule, so it would be going against the word of God to give it up.
Would the same thing have happened if Bonaparte had been the monarch? Bonaparte was stronger than Louis, but he was not humble. He, like Louis, would never have approved the nobles demands to call the Estates General. He would have forced the taxes on the people and not given in. But this would have caused even more resentment towards the monarchy.
One of the main reasons Napoleon was able to get away with his dictatorship was because of his prior reputation as a valiant general for the French army. If he had been a king, he would have carried the ruthless reputation of all of the monarchs before him and the people would never have respected him and revered him. They would have been fed up with him the minute he tried re-organizing the government.

Traditional theories and revisionist historians have their own reasons for why the war happened. They blame it on the economy of the old regime (who had little money to spend on actual France), and the debts from war and extravagance of the court.


Now, would the Reign of Terror have happened without Robespierre? Robespierre saw absolutists everywhere he turned. While he did not cause the revolutionaries to fear the rise of anti-revolutionaries, he definitely fueled their fire. The Reign of Terror most likely would not have been as severe if he was not at the head.
An example of the National Convention's radical actions under Robespierre is the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. This was a loyalty oath to the revolutionary government, which was trying to dilute the long-held power of the Catholic Church. They believed that the church supported the ancient regime ideas of the 3rd estate. This caused the clergy to split, with one side agreeing and the other fleeing from the revolutionary government, cussing them as they left. This also raised resentment against the government and helped lead to its demise.

Thank you for tuning in, the end.

Everybody Gets Guillotined!!!!

The French Revolution implies that there was a period of time with a unified ideals and actions. In reality, it is a group of phases that were all loosely fighting for the idea of liberty and equality. However, we do know that at one point these phases took a turn for the radical; they derailed the train of thought and aimed straight for the brick wall. 

The question is at what point did the Revolution fall into the river. The Revolution began to fail at the beginning of the radical stage. The National Assembly was leaning towards more extreme courses of actions and ideas. What was considered harsh and unneeded during the beginning of the Revolution was common practice. All of this was setting the stage for the Reign of Terror. When the National Convention established the Committee of Public Safety, they created a platform for Robespierre to implement terror. From that point onward, execution by guillotine became common for enemies of the state and Robespierre. 

In my opinion, the train of the revolution came derailed before the Reign of Terror because that period of time set up the government and political field for this terror. 

The Reign of Terror is a very important period of the Revolution. As Kaitlyn explained in class with her very deep and complete thought, the important revolutionaries' thoughts caused the terror to be a needed action. The National Convention, more specifically the Committee of Public Safety, believed that they were going to have issues with the ex-king's supporters. They were  worried that the republic would be in danger which lead them to force Republican ideas on everyone and have radical reforms. This in turn caused the people to question their government and revolt. Completing the circle, the revolutionaries had their fear realized. This lead to the execution of hundreds of people in the Reign of Terror. 

Radical Actions in a Moderate Era

The first stage of the French Revolution is described as a moderate era. However, this did not mean radical actions did not occur during this time. One example of this is the women's march on Versailles. Due to the many émigrés (nobles who were leaving France because of peasant uprisings) many working families had no market to sell to .Futhermore there was a rumor the king was fleeing. This caused around seven thousand women on October 5 to march from Paris to Versailles where the king was and demand bread. The women stormed the royal apartments forced the royal family to move to Paris in a carriage following the heads of two aristocrats stuck on pikes. 

"We want bread!!!"

The first stage of the Revolution was also marked by actions of the National Assembly. They changed the calendar and got rid of church holidays so France's connection to the church would be lessened. Furthermore, from the church property they confiscated, the National Assembly created assagnats, a new paper currency. They also established the metric system, wanted people to use "thou", abolished the feudal system, and created 83 departments in order to weaken feudal nobility. Under the National Assembly, the king could really only come up with ideas because law making was left up to the assembly. 

On topic the National Assembly covered was women's rights. They created laws that broadened women's rights such as the right to a divorce or inherit property but the assembly still believed women's primary job was to raise children. Therefore, women still could not vote or hold office.  This was also supported by the idea that women would corrupt the government. However, these discriminations against women did not stop all women from making significant contributions to the revolution. One of the major supporters of the revolution was an english women, Mary Wollstonecraft. Unlike Edmound Burke who believed the French were throwing the baby out with the bath water, Wollstonecraft argued that to guarantee rights, certain steps had to be taken. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft also tried to eliminate the the sexual inequality women faced and wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

The National Assembly and the Moderate Era ended when it disbanded and no current members were allowed to rejoin. This lead to an entirely new group of men joining what would be called the Legislative Assembly. These men were still upper-class like the previous ones but were younger and less cautious than their predecessors. Furthermore, most of them were Jacobins. Eventually, the Jacobins would divide between the Mountain and the Girondists. 

Though the Mountain and the Girondists had their differences both wanted to continue "the war against tyranny." The French invaded many countries and sought to abolish feudalism in each one. Other countries opinions on the French Revolution had at first supported it because that meant France would be weak. However, as France began to invade others, a fear that France might infect other countries began to spread. 

The Early Stages

The French Revolution is broken into four stages:

The first stage, the moderate phase of the National Assembly, consists of major events that set the tone for the Revolution. 

The Oath of the Tennis Court - The National Assembly, at this point composed of the third estate joined by some parish priests, was coincidentally locked out of its meeting spot. The Assembly moved to a large indoor tennis court and held their meeting where they pledged not to disband until they had composed a new constitution.

Storming of the Bastille - Poor harvest led to economic depression that crushed the poor and the oppressed (which, at this point, comprised a great amount of the nation's population). Essentially "the straw that broke the camel's back," this crisis pushed the ordinary people into full on revolt against their government. 

In response to rumors that King Louis XVI was planning to disassemble and eliminate the National Assembly, the commoners of Paris invaded the Bastille (a prison) to seize arms and gunpowder. The prison surrendered to the mob and the crowd killed the prison governor and the mayor of Paris, parading their freshly detached heads on spikes.

From this point forward, peasants began to rise up all over France. The revolts of the poor and oppressed were violent, disorganized, spontaneous, and chaotic. However, this insurrection proved effective, especially against the feudal system.

The Great Fear - Due to economic crisis and unemployment rates, and increased number of vagabonds roamed the streets of French towns. Rumors (hey - Vanishing Children) arose that the aristocracy had strategically sent these vagabonds to attack the peasantry and their land. This Fear of vagabonds stoked the fire of the revolution, leading to more violent peasant uprisings against the aristocracy and feudal system.

Decree Abolishing the Feudal System - The first essential triumph of the peasantry during the French Revolution. All the old exactions imposed on the peasants, including serfdom, hunting rights, and village monopolies, were made null and void, and the feudal system was abolished throughout France. This victory boosted morale and motivated further revolt.

 Declaration of the Rights of Man - Issued by the National Assembly on August 27, 1789, the Declaration states mankind's natural rights, and based on those rights, guidelines for proper government and execution of law. Largely influenced by the US Constitution and by Rousseau, the Declaration states that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights." The document further elaborates on these rights, stating that man is naturally entitled to liberty, property, security, and resistant to oppression. It further describes that law is an expression of the general will, and calls for a representative government for a sovereign people, however still calls for a king (which is supposed to benefit the public).

This Declaration sets the tone for the rest of the Revolution, stating the rights that the revolutionaries desire and the ideals for government in which they believe. The rights expressed here are used as a basis for the majority of action taken throughout the Revolution. The battle cry of the French Revolution becomes "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," meaning "liberty, equality, and brotherhood."

Indolent Fools

In his book, What is the Third Estate?, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes offers a logic to explain who comprises the Third Estate. Within the novel, he uses the definition of the Third Estate to provide an argument for greater rights for the third estate.

Tree of the Estates

So, what is the Third Estate? It is everything, but not everyone. The nation is comprised of the Third Estate, who are the people working productively for the nation. The nation, therefore, does not include the indolent aka  the parasitic privileged people who are not doing anything for the nation, but are reaping all the privileges. This included unproductive nobles and clergy who had privileges, such as exemption from tax, but did not contribute to society. It exempted clergy, such as a lowly priest who offered charity, or the king, who ruled over the nation. (This is probably why the French kept the king during the revolution). As the National Assembly proves, people can cross over into the Third Estate. As Sieyes states, “What is the Third Estate? It is the whole.” Because of the idle people, those who are productive and contribute to society (those who are society) carry much of the burdens, which is logically stupid. Basically, the idle privileged people were free loaders and did not deserve what they have. All they wanted was power and they caused trouble in the nation. 

The indolent people not only fail to contribute to society, but they sparked the fire that started the flames of the French Revolution. Louis XIV was in debt because he borrowed so much money to support the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). Louis XIV wanted to raise the taxes to pay off the debt, but the Parlement in Paris (a court not a legislative body), which consists of nobles, revolted because they wanted to have a say over the taxes; they wanted power. They demanded the King to open the Estates General, an advisory board, or else they would not pay the taxes.

However, there was an issue with the Estates General. In order to pass a law, two out of three of the estates needed to vote for it. However, each estate had a say, so the Third Estate was consistently being out voted by the indolent fools. The Third Estate argued for a vote by head not by house or double the third estate’s vote (which would end up in a bunch of ties as Becky pointed out) since they made up 97% of the population or, according to Sieyes, the whole nation. 

When the Revolution began, it is unclear whether division among the population is between the third estate and the insolent fools or between those who are the top of their estate and those at the bottom of each estate. However, it is important to note that in both situations division is created between the haves and have nots. 

Just in case anyone wanted the link to the French Revolution song. http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

Did Rousseau cause the French Revolution?

Did Jacques Rousseau cause the French Revolution? To answer this question, we must first analyze the themes of the Revolution and compare them to the themes of Rousseau's writing in The Social Contract. The themes of the Revolution, otherwise known as the call to arms, are liberty, equality, and brotherhood. The people revolted for the sake of establishing these 3 principals in French society and government.

The first, and most obvious, is liberty. The call for liberty was a call for individual human rights, no matter a person's social standing. This was a very radical idea in French society, where people's rights were determined by their social standing. The most liberal revolutionists pushed for sovereignty, where the people alone have the authority to make laws limiting an individual's freedom of action. In this system, legislators would represent the people in all of their decision making.
This type of theoretical justification of liberal self government partly evolved from ideas presented in The Social Contract. Rousseau saw the system of an absolutist monarch ruling over a wide array of people as comparable to the relationship of a master to his slave. "The moment a master exists, there is no longer a Sovereign, and from that moment, the body politic has ceased to exist." The French people would be able to take these words and easily adapt them to their cause of revolting against the king in order to receive a greater say in government.

The people's next call was for equality, especially among social classes. The 3rd estate, which constituted about 97% of the French population, was made up of people of varying economic conditions who were all given the same legal status. No matter how much a middle class merchant made, he would always share the same status as a peasant. And while the 1st (clergy) and 2nd estates (nobles) enjoyed special privileges and limited taxation, the 3rd estate paid the overwhelming majority of the taxes to the state. The majority of the state's budget was spent on debt service from foreign wars, which had no way of benefitting the 3rd estate.
Rousseau relates to this concern when he writes, "It will be said that the despot assures his civil tranquility, granted. But what do they gain if the wars his ambition brings down upon them... press harder on them than their own dissension would have done?" In relation to the French Revolution, what does the 3rd estate have to gain from supporting a monarch who demands taxes for wars that only benefit the 1st and 2nd estates?

Lastly, the French Revolution placed an emphasis on brotherhood. With the estates constantly at each other's necks, they would never be able to band together against the king. To fix this problem, the Parliament of Paris declared that the Estates General must be called to approve all taxes. While this did start off much debate and did not settle all of the country's problems, it certainly was a start.
"Whenever sovereignty seems to be divided, there is an illusion: the rights which are being taken as being part of Sovereignty are really all subordinate." So in other words, Rousseau is saying that as ling as the people are divided, like they are in the three estates, they will never truly have their fair share of power. But by joining together in the Estates General, the people were able to become more equal in power to the king.

Even if Rousseau was not the definitive stimulus for the French Revolution, his writing definitely played a substantial role. The only part of the revolution Rousseau wouldn't have supported was the reestablishment of the monarch. Perhaps the people were so used to having a king that they couldn't imagine a new form or government, or maybe it was because they believed the king gave them sovereignty by carrying out what they really wanted. Either way, Rousseau would not have approved. Because while the majority of philosophes supported a constitutional monarchy, he did not. Way to be different, Rousseau, too bad no one agreed with you.

Enlightened Ideas + The French = Revolutio

During revolutions, ideas play a very important role in what will take place. This was no different for the French Revolution. The Enlightenment played a huge role in the French Revolution taking place and the ideas that were being fought for. Three enlightened thinkers played important roles in the revolution. 

1. The first phase of the French Revolution was led by Montesquieu. His thoughts on having a liberal constitutional monarchy with a divided sovereignty guided the revolution in its infant stage. The main difference between Montesquieu's thought and the revolutionaries was where the power would be divided. Montesquieu believed in the nobility and the monarchy sharing power yet the French revolutionaries thought that the non-nobility or the Third Estate should have a share in the power. 
2.  After the king fled to Varennes, the people realized that a divided sovereignty was unobtainable. Their ideas shifted to Rousseau and Republicanism. The people were attracted to the new idea of Rousseau's freedom. In his ideas, freedom was ruling oneself. This would mean that the nation would rule itself. Rousseau became like a god to the people. His idea of freedom took over French thought and would never truly disappear.  
3. The final phase of French thought during the Revolution was Voltaire. After Napoleon took over the government, French republicanism declined. Napoleon adopted Voltaire's idea of enlightened absolutism. The sovereignty of the state would be undivided and in the hands of the monarch. He also believed in suppressing the Church and institutions controlled by the nobility, since it would result in a strong central government. 

These three thinkers played a very important role in the Revolution. They were the guiding lights to what the people wanted to achieve. In my mind, Rousseau played the most important role in the Revolution. His idea of freedom was the dominant belief during this time. Without Rosseau's idea of Republicanism, the Revolution would have been less extreme. Rousseau offered the French a path to a new government.