Hobbes & Locke

Hobbes

What was the Leviathan and what did it represent? 

• It is commonly known as a large sea-monster of creature. 

• Hobbes uses it as a metaphor for the monarch. King is the head and the subjects make up the body. 
• The body (subjects) would not be able to function if the head (king) did not tell it what to do and the head(king) would not have anything to operate if the body (subjects) was not together as one firm being. 
• Note that the subjects pay a role in the ruling of the monarchy, but they are completely giving up their rights. 

What's the purpose of the government/ why would people listen to the ruler?

• The government is there to keep the people in check. 
• Hobbes believed people were born evil. They would listen to the ruler because they are inherently bad and the only way for them to be good is to be controlled and listen to the king. 

(Hobbes to all of humanity) 

• By giving up their rights to a (hopefully) just government the people are being protected and they are all in it together.

Can they rebel?

• According to Hobbes, no they cannot. 

Locke

What's the deal with people?

• They are born with natural rights including the right to life, liberty, and property. 
• They weren't good or evil at birth, they become it based on experiences. 

What's the purpose of government? 

• It's there to protect the rights of people. 

Do they have the right to rebel?

• Heck yea!! If the government is corrupt the people must fix it. 

Goal of both 

SOCIAL ORDER AND A JUST GOVERNMENT!!

From Ollie to Charlie (title courtesy of concussed Erin Feith)

Yes she is alive, but unfortunately, Oliver Cromwell is not... 

So honestly, how the heck did we go from Cromwell to Charles II? Basically, Parliament was mad bc they had thought they would rule together under Cromwell, but haha jokes on them, Cromwell established a military dictatorship! AKA the parliament didn't have any power.

So, after dear ole Ollie passes away, Richard Cromwell takes over but he gets kicked out and CHARLES II takes over the crown. 

You ask why did the parliament restore the monarchy? Yeah you got me... it was most likely because they didn't really like oliver very much, so i guess a monarchy was better? idk who understands parliament anyway.

Why was the civil war even fought? like the goal was to get rid of the monarchy right?  These are the questions we must ask ourselves in these dire times.

One important before we into how bad charles was at being king, the cabal

cabal is like the present day secretaries of war, state, etc --> the cabinet!

they are ministers between the king and the commons. they are held responsible to the commons and have to listen to them, not just the king. Basically, they were the ones that had to answer to the commons about what the king was doing. 

This is the first time ministerial responsibility became a thing! yay!!

Charles II and James II --> why were they so terrible that the glorious revolution occurred??

well... ya see, charles ii was only in partying  

IS today my birthday?

He was pretty indifferent towards religious issues, probably the only thing he should have been interested in bc THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT WAS TEARING ENGLAND APART??!?!?!

ANYWAY, Charles makes a deal with parliament as we said, but parliament was annoying, and didn't keep their side of the deal, so Charles was FORCED (not actually but ya know, I pity him) to make a deal with Louis XIV for money.

IN return he only promised to make england catholic again, NBD

WELL, the Puritans freak out

ALSO v important --> Charles had no legitimate heirs (AKA he only had bastard children) so James II takes over.    

James II screws things up even more, aka by being CATHOLIC (no one likes us anymore :( 

also lol he's the leader of the church of england, but he's catholic? okay, lmk 

Two things happen to make glorious revolution occur:

1. proclamation of indulgence (admissible bc as I said he's the head of the church of england) which 

gives a pardon to all catholics (he even hired some in the government --> against test act of 1763 and very bad for the puritans) 

2. his wife has a non-bastard child (a son) and thus James had an heir and the catholic monarchy was presumed to be permanent 

HAHA JOKES BC JAMES GETS KICKED OUT AND DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!!!!

 guess who takes over??

"OOOOO, Mary, William, Mary AND william, William and Mary!" - Erin Feith ladies and gentleman. (yes i did just make gentlemen singular)

THIS IS KNOWN AS GLORIOUS REVOLUTION - BLOODLESS REVOLUTION

- do they invade england --> umm no bc william and mary were invited into england by puritans/protestants so yarn you haven't been lying to freshmen for years

yarn for past years when he thought he was lying to freshmen

-___________________________________________________________________

P.S. ERIN IS STILL CONCUSSED BUT SHE CONTRIBUTED TO MY BLOG
ALSO SORRY FOR BEING A TERRIBLE PERSON DURING CLASS. HOPE MY DONUTS MADE UP FOR IT.

Elizabeth, Louis, and English Civil War

ELIZABETH V. LOUIS 

What is the significant difference between them in terms of how they ruled? 

• Louis actively sought war but Elizabeth only fought when it was necessary, and to protect things that were already present, like England's wool trade 
• She also tolerated other religions a little, especially Protestant and helped the Dutch revolt against Philip, something that Louis definitely wouldn't do 
• So basically because of his questionably amazing dance moves, Louis had to prove his masculinity by going to war all the time 

(yes i finally found it, enjoy) 

ELIZABETH 

Was Elizabeth an absolutist leader? 

• YES
• Just because she was a different ruler than Louis who is an absolutist, doesn't mean that she isn't one 
• She manipulated parliament to her will and exerted complete control over her people largely because of the fact that she was extremely cunning in terms of getting people, especially guys, to bend to her will 
• She also always had a political motive, even when she didn't state it 
• Elizabeth refused to marry, and she stated that she was the Virgin Queen, but ok lets face it she's a total liar because as Maeve said she had "Misters" 
• so basically Elizabeth had everyone played for a fool and she was amazing at it 

The biggest proof of the fact that she was an absolutist leader is the fact that absolutism itself started to decline after her death 

JAMES 

aka the guy who ruined England 

• he didn't have any skills in politics and lacked the "common touch" 
• he shattered the allusion that the house of commons even had any power, because he completely took this "power" away 
• even though Elizabeth kind of left a messy England for James, he lacked the strength as a ruler to handle it 
• so it looks like James was pretty hated on 

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 

• Religious issues- James and Charles were both sympathetic towards Catholics, something that the Church of England was strongly against 
• people started to freak out because they thought that the country was going to go back to Catholicism 
• At the time, there were three streams of religious thought: Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan 
• The Catholics were critical with the Anglican Church because they changed from Catholicism 
• The Puritans were critical with the Anglican Church because they thought that the Anglicans didn't do enough and needed to take a bigger step in terms of reform 
• The sides of the war were: Royalists (loyal to the King) and Parliament (loyal to the country) 
• Why did he dissolve Parliament? 
• he took away power so he could have the power for himself to collect custom duties on wine and wool
• began in 1640 when he had to call on Parliament so he could pass a tax that would help to put down the revolt in Scotland
• Why did it sit for so long?
• the king died and there was no one left in charge but Parliament.. Sorry Charles

All Pain, Little Gain

A) Louis XIV's Wars

Louis XIV vs Everyone

• WHY???

• Absolute ruler (Louis XIV) wants to expand French land and culture so he (the state) looks cool

• WORTH IT??
• YES... French language and CULTURE SPREAD to other nations
• NO... Monarchy in DEBT (leads to RUIN)

• WAR of SPANISH SUCCESSION (1701-1713) 



Louis XIV after reading Charles II's Will

• Who: Grand Alliance (English, Dutch, Austrians, & Prussians) vs. French & Spanish

• Why:
• 1698 - Europe agrees to divide SPANISH territories between France and Holy Roman emperor.
• PROBLEM:
• CHARLES II (SPANISH KING) - will leaves entire Spanish empire to Louis XIV's grandson (Philip) but forbids union between Spain and France.
• ALL LAND going to one guy would upset BALANCE of POWER
• "Pyrenees no longer exist" Means Spanish and French could be united (never happens though thanks to war)



France to all of Europe After War

• The END: PEACE of UTRECHT
• NO CLEAR WINNER (but France lost the most)
• Completes balance of power by dividing lands
• Ended Spanish Empire & expanded England
• Introduced international cooperation
• France ends expansionism and gives up foreign lands

• CRITICAL THINKING: Would Spanish Succession Wars have started if Spain had no overseas territory?
• New World territories gave Spain prestige since land was power.
• People still would have cared since Spain had the history of being a strong empire. Without America, part of that monarchy would be missing and people might not have gone to the same lengths (like a full war), but actions still would have been taken since Spain is still a large country on its own and the balance of power is still upset.

B) SPAIN'S PAINS

Spain Realizing They Have No More Money

• Why is Spain in a BAD PLACE??
• Bad Leadership - Decadence (overspending) of Habsburg (Monarch)
• Paying taxes was frowned upon by wealthy - NO MIDDLE CLASS (expelled with Jews and Morse) left ALL TAXES on POOR
• Effect: Spain is BROKE, clings to OLD GLORIES
• Don Quixote - satire about the Spanish to IDEALIZE THE PAST and live in this alternate reality like FOOLS.

C) Intro to Constitutionalism (it's not Democracy) 

Constitutionalism - Limiting government through the use of laws.

Me prepping for Constitutionalism

• 2 types:
• Monarchy - KING possess authority but obeys laws 
• Ex) England
• Republic - ELECTORATE has power, more stable
• Not democracy because common people cannot vote.

The King of France, Not Paris

Baroque: is often thought of as a period of artistic style that used exaggerated motion and clear, easily interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur in sculpture, painting, architecture, literature, dance, theatre, and music



King Louis can also be added to this definition. He embodied the state, therefore he would do anything to make himself --> thus his state, better. 

He was not the king of Paris, but the king of France. 



Ran France in absolute monarchy. 
           He used the nobles. Louis made them feel important so that they could not rebel against him. Given duties like lighting the candle in his royal chamber were only for the "elite", even though the job itself was pretty degrading. 

The nobles if they knew what about Louis using them

Why would the nobles rebel if they were allowed to live in Versailles and given all of these amazing "advantages"? 

ALSO KNOWN AS: fake friending:) Louis was basically Regina George. 







Many people may ask why Louis didn't just rule with fear, like the Russian tzars. 
             In my personal opinion (honestly could be wrong), Louis just wasn't confident enough. 
           

A huge part of the King Louis' life was the Fronde, where a rebellion was held against Louis's father in Paris. People came into the young prince's bedroom and "scared him" -led to a constant paranoia and eventual breakdown. 


Another big topic that was spoken of was How Things Were Changed or If They Stayed The Same

Colbert: 
He wanted to change the way things were run. 
The government controlled the economy for a while, and spoke of using gold to back up the currency. 
He invested heavily in Mercantilism. 
Mercantilism: where a country exports more than it imports. 
            The country thus gets more money, but it cannot rely on other countries

France

            This made France extremely self-sufficient. 
                 They produced everything in their own country and made money by exporting. 
Yet the state is also always looking for a balanced trade
             But balance does not mean equal:) 
Trade is a zero sum game. 
      While France is making money, another country is losing money. Anti-trade supporters usually believe in this. 


The Edict of Nantes: Revoked

The Huguenots were extremely upset, yet by the revocation of the Edict, they were once again reminded that it was only a temporary submission. 

To sum it up: One King, One Law, One Faith. Louis would not tolerate the Huguenots because he was a Catholic, and because of absolutism, all of France therefore was Catholic. 
       The different religions were disuniting France, and that could not happen. 

Because the Huguenots were in fortified towns and cities, they were a power within themselves.
        This could be a threat to the King of France.



Class Wrap-Up: 

Absolutism in the French Monarchy: Louis XIV, Sully, & Richelieu 

Paris is worth a mass. 

Henry IV converted to Catholicism but we already knew that.

1.) WHO WAS A LARGER THREAT TO POPE'S POWER --> HUGUENOTS OR KING LOUIS XIV? (2 main threats to absolutism - nobility and church)

• Well, they each possessed different types of power
• King --> power of the state
• Huguenots --> power of the nobles/masses/could cause reformation 
• King and Pope had a balance of power because:
• if Pope agreed to the Divine Right/Absolute Power of the King then he would not question the King's authority--> NOT THAT BIG OF A THREAT
• not one was overpowering the other - rather they were kind of working together 
• While Huguenots could try to over throw the Cath Religion through reformations/violence
• SO IN CONCLUSION: Erin as my witness --> Huguenots are a larger threat

(Low-key us trynna agree on who was a bigger threat)

2.) What was the foundation of French absolutism built upon?

1. Built upon sand. 
1. Things are unstable economically 
2. it is the finances that make French absolutism built upon shifting sands! 
1. Through lowering taxes = peasants are happy 
2. keeping Nobles in check by keeping them preoccupied with essentially trivial jobs
3. keeping ministers happy by giving them power in the state
2. By King gaining love of his people --> he had the ability to develop the characteristics of an absolute ruler 

(King Louis XIV for being "AWESOME") 

3.) Economics/Finances with Sully & Richelieu

• Henry IV lowered taxes on the overburdened peasants --> in compensation for lost revenue - he introduced paulette - an annual fee paid by royal offices to guarantee heredity in their offices
• Sully --> combined indirect taxes on salt, sales, and transit and leased their collection to FINANCERS
• revenue increased because of this revival in trade
• he subsidized the Company for Trade w/ the Indies
• started country-wide highway system
• SULLY = ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

• WHILE RICHI OVER HERE IS TRYNNA SUBORDINATE EVERYONE LIKE EW STOP 

• Richelieu set in place the cornerstone of French absolutism
• Richelieu's policy was the total subordination of all groups and institutions TO THE FRENCH MONARCHY
•  how did Richelieu and Sully's intentions differ?? 
•  Richelieu = subordination under french monarchy for political POWER 
• Sully = intentions centralize around France's economic prosperity as a country
• French foreign policy under Richelieu was aimed at the destruction of the fence of Habsburg territories that surrounded France
• he signed a treaty in 1631 w/ Gustavus Adolphus promising French support against the CATHOLIC HABSBURGS in 30Years' War. :)  
• BUT DID RICHELIEU MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIX ECONOMIC ISSUES OF THE TIME???

 (@ Richelieu on solving economic issues)
I mean he did do some stuff like: 

• temporarily solved financial problems by securing the cooperation of local elites
• the central government shared the proceeds of tax revenue with the local powers - however this backfired because it limited French Absolutism LOL 

Friday Oct. 21 Class

What is absolutism?

The belief that the king has absolute power to rule because God gave it to him (called "divine right")

The 3 documents about absolutism:

Richelieu, Political Testament, 1638

• not intended for general public-- just for Louis XIII
• author was the king's favorite ministers (politically) and was a churchman (religously) 
• played an important role in developing absolutism in 17th century France
• in favor of absolutism because he wanted to give King Louis XIII power who would then give him power
• absolutism would restore the power of the King and the entirety of France after the civil war-----get rid of Huguenots
• saving the state will save the church-- no separation (note that the state comes before the church)

Saint-Simon, Memoirs, 1691-1701 

• intended for public to read
• author came from lower nobility under Louis XIV
• St. Simon gave the impression that absolutism could work, but it was not under Louis XIV
• "God had given him all that was necessary for him to be a good King, perhaps also to be a fairly great one. All his faults were produced by his surroundings."--- translation--he could have been a great king, but fell short of it
• St. Simon believed the King was too focused on minor, petty details (like what the army wears and who shows up to dinner) and was too easily swayed by compliments ( the nobles at court knew this so they complimented him to gain power) 
• the king also set himself up for an overthrow because the entire county was too focused on riches and lavish and was close to having no money ---- "This folly, sustained by pride and ostentation, has already produced widespread confusion; it threatens to end in nothing short of ruin and a general overthrow."

(the court to King Louis XIV)

Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Politics Taken From the Very Words of Holy Scripture, 1679 (first translated into English, 1707) 

• intended for the public 
• author was a bishop under Louis XIV
• Kings are given the authority to rule by God --- they are the earthy representation of God 
• the people must not disrespect the King because God put the King on the throne--- if one disrespects the King, they are disrespecting God and will have to deal with Him (God)
• with this being said, the king must respect the people he is ruling and do good for them-- kings must rule with "fear and self-restaint"

Absolutism made kings super powerful, even more than they were in the Middle Ages. They feared that the church or the nobles would damper their power.  Bureaucracies, composed of career officials appointed and solely accountable to the king, were made as a safeguard against the church and nobles. French bureaucracies were usually made up of members of the middle class and recognized that they served the state, and did not hold private positions.