| French Democrats surprizing the Royal Runaways. Published June 27, 1791. |
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
French Revolution Blog
The class will be broken into two groups. Each student will make 2 posts (not summaries) about the documents, each document must be discussed by the group only two posts are mandatory per student. The first group will look at the first three documents in the packet (What is the third estate? Cahier de dolences, and the Declaration of the Rights of Women) group two will look at the great fear, terror justified and the image below. Relate these documents to what you know about the French Revolution. All students must be familiar with all 6 documents for the test (including the image). See you Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chateau of Cuirieu
ReplyDeleteDuring the Great Fear, mob after mob would go from place to place to demand food & shelter. The mobs would use force to obtain what they wanted from the residents of the chateaus & fear was spread throughout France.
The image above shows how the less wealthy are upset with the nobility & monarch.
ReplyDeleteThe 3rd estate was having to bear the burden of heavy taxes, while the clergy and nobility were paying nothing. Yet, the 1st and 2nd estate held all the power. Due to the 3rd estate being the majority of the population, Sieyes is saying that it deserves more power because it IS France.
ReplyDeleteThe Terror Justified
ReplyDelete"It is necessary to stifle the domestic & foreign enemies of the Republic or perish with them. Now in these circumstances, the first maxim of our politics ought to be lead the people by means of reason & the enemies of the people by terror."
This excerpt shows how Robespierre believes that the enemies of the French Revolution will destroy everything & the only way to stop them is with terror. While the enemies are fought with terror, the people of the Republic must be led with reason to help them. He also believes that there are only two people within France & out of France: followers of the Revolution & enemies of the Revolution.
Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen: To gain social equality, the women must sacrifice some of their advantages over men. The French women are willing to be arrested and punished for crimes now and are willing to pay taxes. They do not want to be an exception to the law. The women also want to split property with men and be able to participate in government. They believe that giving up being an exception to laws and not having to pay taxes is worth being able to share land with men and be able to vote and participate in government.
ReplyDeleteBefore the French Revolution started, Louis XVI asked for the grievances of the Estates. The 3rd Estate, desired more power, specifically in the way in which the Estates General was operated. Instead of each Estate being given an equal representation to each other, the 3rd Estate wanted votes counted by head, giving them more power. Among other things , they also wanted no taxation without representation, similar to the cries of many people in the American Revolution.
ReplyDeleteIn Olympe de Gouges' Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen, she discusses why women must be treated equally under both the law and social norms. Her Article XVI demonstrates her strongest point, saying that no constitution (the main goal of the National Assembly at the time) can be put in place without the consent of women, the majority of the French population. Similar to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, she goes further in saying that women are born free and equal and are entitled to the same rights of liberty, property, security, etc. as men are, a concept very uncommon during this period. De Gouges makes many well thought out points, and rather than complaining about abuses towards women she simply focuses more on the fact that everyone should be treated equally under the laws. Women possessed much potential in size, power, and influence in society and the government, and de Gouges attempts to exemplify this power in her argument for equality.
ReplyDeleteFrench Democrats surprising the Royal Runaways
ReplyDeleteThis image depicts the outcome of King Louis XIV's attempted escape from France. He had disguised himself as a peasant in an effort to flee the chaos of the French Revolution as emigres had done earlier. Commoners caught the monarch and forced him to reside in his palace in Paris under house arrest. When the people of France discovered that the King himself was against the French Revolution, republican ideals greatly expanded and the revolution became even more radical.
The Third Estate makes up the majority of France and they are sick and tired of not having a say in politics. If they are gonna get taxed heavily they want to be able to represent themselves in government."What does it demand? To become something therein". Sieyes agrees with the third estate and stands up for them even though he is a member of the first estate.
ReplyDeleteBefore the French Revolution the peasants clearly put forth that they needed bread and that the king wasn't doing the things to fix the prices of bread and taxes of the food. But in the article of "The Cahiers: Discontents of the Third Estate" no where in the grievances does it say anything about bread? This is conflicted information. This shows that even though the peasants were apart of the Third Estate and fought for more bread they had no power in the say in the meeting of the Estates.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Caroline's: The members of the Legislative Assembly protected Louis when he tried to flee. They still needed him to be their Constitutional Monarch. Many of the members did not want a full republic. They wanted a government similar to England's where the monarch was in charge but he had limited power. The nobles were not ready for a true republic.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Ralph's post:
ReplyDeleteNot only did each Estate create a list of grievances for Louis, but they also were ignorant in their strategies. The 1st Estate thought that the 3rd Estate would vote with them, and the 3rd Estate believed the 1st Estate would vote for them. Their conflicting ideas led to disunity within the National Assembly once it was formed, with the Bourgeoisie siding against peasants and San Culottes and thus creating a more radical, less organized Revolution.
In reply to Caleb's:
ReplyDeleteThis highlights the starts of class disparity, not in nobles and non nobles, but of the rich and the poor. The peasants and sans coullots, make up a majority of the 3rd estate yet they also have no representation in it, because the greviances they fought for were not addressed by the Cahiers. This foreshadows the later radicalism of the Revolution, as each group desired more and more power.
In reply to Misterka, I agree with his post because the Third Estate doesn't have a say even though it makes up 98% of the population of France. In relation to my post the peasants wanted bread and with in the first article nowhere does it talk about bread. This relates with what Misterka has said about how they are sick and tired of no having a say. This starts the begins of peasants revolting making the Great Fear.
ReplyDeleteThe picture shows the common people of France catching King Louis XVI when he tried to escape his imprisonment in the Tuilieries Palace. Louis wanted to return to France to revoke the concessions he had made and to throw his support behind foregin enemies of the Revolution. When the people of France realized that King Louis XVI had tried to escape, public sentiment was further turned against him, strengthening the support for a republic. The day after Louis tried to escape, the Cordeliers Club called for the establishment of a republic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with George Hart that women say if they are going to be equal in the law and taxes then they have to be able to be equal in leading positions in the government. They want representation for their rights, its very similar to the third estate. They both are a huge part of the society in France but they have no say and are sick of it. So they are both now pushing for it.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Ralph's on the Discontents of the Third Estate, they also had many grievances with the military. Art. 20 says "the military throughout the kingdom shall be subject to the general law and to the civil authorities, in the same manner as other citizens. In Art. 35 it says "the present militia system, which is burdensome, oppressive and humiliating to the people, shall be abolished; and the States General shall devise means for its reformation." Both of these articles show how they werent just wanting reform in taxation but also in other areas like military.
ReplyDeleteWith the Great Fear document, it tells a story of Sieur Domenjon who is threatened by a band to give up terriers. Instead of actively resisting against them he gives them the documents, only to find that later they lay waste to the Chatieau. This event differs from the French Revolution because The third estate in the French Revolution was forceful and had active resistance such as threatening the king and storming his palace and the famous "Storming of the Bastille". The document showed why the French Revolution was a success. It succeeded because the third estate showed resistance instead of complying to the king's demands.
ReplyDeleteThe Speech to the National Convention shows the sucess Robespierre in stirring the revolution. He was convincing in justifying his terror. He stirs the support of the third estate by promising them that the ones in power will be restrained and that the members of the third estate will achieve a world of freedom, a republic, run by public virtue and not by a tyrant king. His speech sparked the eyes of the third estate in support of the revolution. It also shows that Robespierre actually believes in the merits of the Revolution and that he'll go as far as terrorizing the people in power if thats what it takes for the revolution to continue
ReplyDeleteI agree with kil-hwan in that Robespierre was very persuasive in his justification of what he was doing even though much of the killings were if members of the third estate and not nobles
DeleteThe image seems to be similar with Marie Antoinette and Louis's predicament in the French Revolution, as they too were threatened and coerced by their subjects.
ReplyDeleteThe Cahiers relates to the French Revolution because prior to the French Revolution members of the third, second, and third estate brought the king a list of grievances. The grievances included taxes due to the King constantly trying to increase taxes and enforce loans, representation due to the third estate lacking a say in anything, Bourgeoisie having similar power to nobles due to being rich but having no says, and freedom of the press due to not being able to print or say anything that criticized the government. What is the Third Estate relates to the French Revolution because it was written by Abby Sieyes who was a member of the third estate who did not agree with the lack of representation the third estate has. He claims the third estate is everything because it is made up of a majority of the population and nothing due to its lack of representation. This is quite ironic that the largest portion of the population had no say in politics or equal representation in taxes. The Declaration of the Rights of Women and Citizen relates to the French Revolution because it was written by Gouge shortly after the National Assembly wrote the corresponding one for men. Women became a part of the Revolution because they wanted equal rights to the men who were arguing for rights during the Revolution.
ReplyDeleteChateau of Cuireiu and the Great Fear
ReplyDeleteThis document is a personal account of the riots and pillaging of the Great Fear. The Great Fear was the extension of the French Revolution to the peasants and working class. In this passage, the rioters forced the door of the Chateau open in order to take food and eventually laid waste to the building. This is similar to the Storming of Bastille which happened only several days earlier. In this instance, the peasants had stormed the prison to gather weapons. The addition of peasants in the revolution made the revolution more severe and radical, even to the point of instilling fear in the upper classes of neighboring countries.
In the "Speech to the National Convention," Robespierre is justifying the reign of terror that he was a main leader of. He wanted a government that represents everyone of France in a fair and just way, which would be to represent the virtue of the people, and he wanted to preserve this. He thought that he could represent this virtue through the ideas of a public government. He says, "Now what is the fundamental principle of democratic, or popular government-that is to say, the essential main string upon which it depends and which makes it function? It is virtue. I mean public virtue..that is nothing else but love of fatherland and its laws." However, he believes terror is the way to do this.When he says," It is necessary to stifle the domestic and foreign enemies of the republic or to perish with them," he means that if they(meaning the members of the Public Committee) do not take control or get rid of their enemies of the revolution both foreign and external, then they will not be able to reach their end goal of " a peaceful enjoyment if liberty and equality, the rule of the external justice." The best way to understand how to tie Robespierre's idea if virtue and terror is with the last paragraph he wrote in his speech, " if the basis of a popular government in time of peace is virtue, the basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue without which terror is murderous, terror without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice; it flows, then, from virtue."
ReplyDeleteIn the first three documents the overall theme was for the expansion for the right to vote. This outcry for voting rights was the result of Louis 16 being a much weaker king then his predecessors so he could not control those who wanted more say coupled with the fact that there had been multiple years of bad harvests and people were starving eventually would lead to the start of the French Revolution where Louis was overthrown and the assembly would go on to expand voting rights much further then before.
ReplyDeleteThe Note on What Occurred ... Great Fear...
ReplyDeleteThis document recounts the events of the Great Fear. Rioters burned and pillaged the chateaux in order to take food. This document mentions merchants hoarding food who were offering wheat at 10 sous per measure above the current price in the market. This reflects how during the French Revolution, the freeing of the grain trade had brought higher prices. Common people wanted to set grain prices but this would go against laissez faire and the free market ideas of the Revolution. So, the peasants decided to revolt and take food by force. During the Great Fear, peasants were fueled by the rumor of an aristocratic famine plot to starve the population. They attacked chateaux and even burned title deeds. This reflected their breaking of obligations owed to lords that were specified in the deeds.
Robespierre's "The Terror Justified"
ReplyDeleteIn this document, Maximillian Robespierre explains the necessary instability and "terror" that comes with reform, specifically implemented by his Committee of Public Safety. He says, " To found and to consolidate among us this democracy, to realize the peaceable rule of constitutional laws, it is necessary to conclude the war of liberty against tyranny and to pass successfully through the storms of revolution." He justifies the terror by stating that they are an inevitable effect of the "war" and the "storms". Coincidentally, today in Econ we watched a movie called "The Agony of Reform", which I thought was a fitting description of these effects as well. The movie is about the collapse of communism in the soviet union and several latin american countries. In the transition from communism to capitalism, many of these countries experienced high amounts of inflation and as prices went up, the people in these countries experienced a form of terror as well. In my opinion, the events of these revolutions all kind of relate to the saying "Things have to get worse before they can get better".
I agree with Caroline on how Robespierre thought terror and reform went hand in hand. I would like to add that some may have considered him a "bloodthirsty individual" who was responsible for the many deaths during the Reign of Terror, and others saw him as a sincere, effective evolutionary leader who wanted the best for the country. I think that in Robespierre's mind, he truly believed that he was benefiting France by executing countless "enemies of the Revolution." To others, he was seen as a ruthless killing machine.
DeleteThe image above depicts the attempted escape of Louis XIV and his wife Marie Antoinette from the radical National Assembly. While the National Assembly worked hard on their constitution, Louis tried to create a counter-revolution plot with other foreign powers. He was caught in the act and was tried for treason and being an enemy of the Revolution. The title of monarch was abolished. Around a month later, he was beheaded. This just shows how the Revolutionists took things very seriously and finally achieved their goal of getting rid of the King.
ReplyDeleteThe document about the great fear and the picture are similar in the fact that they both depict the peasants rebelling against their superiors (the monarchs in the picture and the nobles in the document). These actions show that the peasants were ready for a change and chose to get their way through violence. The great fear was a response from the peasants. They decided enough was enough and took matters into their own hands in order to make a change in France's government.
ReplyDeleteIn his speech, Robespierre tried to persuade the audience to agree with his views on the use of terror. He paints a picture of a happier France where everyone is equal, and the nation's highest priority is the people. He makes the point that the only way this can happen, is if France becomes a republic. In Robespierre's mind, the only way for France to be a republic is for him to kill all of the "enemies of the revolution". In this way he is able to justify his use of torture.
ReplyDeleteLibby hits it right on the nail. Robespierre believed he was doing what was best for France. He said that France was corrupted: morality tossed aside for ego (but to be fair Louis' ego can only be housed in a place like Versailles), duties for etiquette (nepotism rather then personal merit), etc. Robespierre wanted to do away with corruption so what better way to enforce virtue into people then though terror. Robespierre even started that he believes that terror and virtue are yin and yang without the other is ineffective. It's kinda Machiavellian "it's best to be both feared and loved".
DeleteAlso Machiavelli would tell Robespierre he was doing it waaaaaaay wrong because he went overboard with the fear part and forgot to remember that he shouldn't make most of the French not hate him. Killing would have been fine here and there but he didn't bring France stability in fact he did the opposite. So the French got sick of
DeleteThe peasants of La Tour-du-Pin were riled up because of the food storage which was by a ton of freak incidents of nature such as a drought the previous year, a volcanic eruption in Iceland, storms, floods, frost, etc. The peasants then believed the conspiracy theory called "the famine plot" thinking that nobles were trying to starve the population. (Then the country would go even faster into bankruptcy because the nobles aren't going to pay taxes.) Logically the peasants took up arms and ring the church bells for signs of danger. Also it's good to note that La Tour-du-Pin is far south of Paris; the latter is almost near the top will the former is near the bottom and near the Swiss alps. La Tour-du-Pin is a rural region as well showing how far spread the great fear was. The nobles believed that the peasant uprising was a bread riot so they attempted to placate the angry mob by claiming that the merchants were stiffing them. They were mistaken. The peasants wanted social change. They literally burnt their feudal dues to their lords and pillaged for all its worth. As a result of this peasant riot the national assembly did away with feudual regime to prevent any further damage by peasants. The bourgeoisie also benefited from the abolishment of the feudal regime because it weaken the power of the nobles.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about some discontents of the troubled third estate, I cannot help but feel for king Louis. I believe this man deserves at least a bit of credit. Without him, who knows how much later the French Revolution would take place. While it's safe to set the blame on Louis for the discontent and financial problems of the time, the man did take it upon himself to summon the Estates General to at least try and figure a solution to the problems. Not to mention, Louis XVI's generosity carried further as he offered the estates a chance to exemplify their grievances. Clearly this king cares something for his people. He wants to appease them somewhat, so he goes to the trouble of attempting to solve issues. He simply could have ruled just as he had in hopes the financial problems would dissipate and the filthy peasants would forget about so called rights. But no, he made an effort agreeing to discuss fixing the issues. It's something.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm sure he saw a compete revolution growing in the horizon... But then again being influenced by the ever clueless Marie Antoinette he may have only foreseen cake in the near future
.
ReplyDeleteMichael is right when he analyzes the fury of the third estate. They are starving, poor and want a say in government. They pay taxes and make up the majority of France. The king needs to give them a chance or they will give him something worse- death. And the priest is a good man for wanting to stand up for their rights.
"Speech to the national Convention"
ReplyDeleteDifferent historians have different views on Robespierre. Some believe that he was nothing but a blood thirsty individual with the major responsibility for the executions during the reign of terror," and other think he was a "sincere, idealistic, effective revolutionary leader called to the fire by events of the time." Personally, after reading "The Speech to the National Convention," which is a justification of this Reign of terror that he heads, I believe that he was just a guy who wanted a government that both captures the virtue of the people with a public government, and a republic that represents the people and the state. Which is explained when he says he wants a place," where the citizen is subject to magistrate, the magistrate to the people, the people to justice; where the nation safeguards the welfare of each individual, and each individual proudly enjoys the prosperity and glory of his fatherland...."
I do not believe that Robespierre was just a bloody thirsty individual but rather he was an individual that completely believed in the Revolution itself, and everything it stood for but had thoughts about how to make this revolution continue and carry it out.
He believed that the way that France , mainly the Committee of public safety, would reach its end goal of the revolution was by getting rid of everyone that they even thought was against it. All in all, Robespierre's actions were not because he enjoyed completely killing everyone, but instead his actions were his response to his radical belief in the Revolution.
In document five Robespierre is addressing the national convention to defend his reasoning for the terror sweeping through France, because of the Committee of Public Safety. This shows his true support of a republic and even defends how he is a radical.
ReplyDeleteDocument four describes the chaos that was all throughout France during the Reign of Terror. Thousands of lower class citizens were condemned to death by execution, even without a trial. The entirety of this time period was filled with various contrasting radical views and the depiction of the attack on Châtea of Curieu demonstrates the violent mindset of radical thinkers of the revolution.