Category: French Revolution

Western Civilization is “the very idea…opposing one form or branch of civilization from others as if they were distinct, even unrelated (Brooks).” Throughout Western Civilization, many events have occurred, such as The Protestant Reformation, the African Slave Trade, the Industrial Revolution, The Renaissance, The Rise Of Christianity, the Civil Rights Movement, and so much more that were significant to what has made us become the present day. These events, all had a force behind historical change throughout Western history from the beginning of the Early Modern period to the present, Either economically, politically, religiously, ideology, geography, individual leadership, and significantly more. Even though multiple of these forces contributed to the historical change of Western Civilization, From my standpoint, I believe the most important force behind historical change throughout Western History from the beginning of the Early Modern period to the present is Politics.

The French Revolution was a drastic constitutional reform in what had been one of the most conservative and strongest of the great European states. Although, it was also bloodshed; Many of our lives were killed through ours. France’s ruler, King Louis XVI spent millions of dollars on himself, including wars, causing debt in the nation and; therefore a rise in taxes and necessities, like food. The French Revolution was long, as it lasted 10 years, from 1789 to 1799. The French Revolution’s primary importance was that it stripped power from a few light rulers and established a political leadership reflecting French citizenship. The three main causes of the Revolution were the tax burden on the Third Estate, social inequality, and the rise of Richmond and women. The goals of the French Revolution war” were liberal Liberty,”, which was their motto. The aim of the French Revolution was the abolition of Imperial law, which spread across Europe. The French Revolution’s effect on the nation was that France went from a Catholic absolute monarchy to a revolutionary, Democratic Republic with equal male suffrage, a new calendar, a revolutionary system of weights and measures, and a goal of Conquering the rest of Europe. The revolution abolished the feudal system and brought a new way of living, Capitalism. The French Revolution was able to annihilate the feudal system by removing any trace of feudalism. The Revolution is reforming not only France but also other nations. The French Revolution brought many radical advancements and it helped shape the economic, political, and social structures of France. The French Revolution made a political historical change throughout Western history from the beginning of the Early Modern by providing more power and control for the Third Estate. The Third Estate was treated unequally, compared to the First and Second Estate. It is important that the Third Estate had equal power and control as the 1st and 2nd Estate in Early Modern because it helped with the votes in the nation, it made it equal. This political change is still as important in the present day because the Third Estate is being treated equally as the First and Second. They have the same rights and opportunities as people in different social classes. Therefore, the French Revolution was a political war that contributed to the historical change in Western Civilization through social classes.

In the 19th century, women were treated less than men; therefore, women started a movement to obtain equal rights as men. Women and men had different roles in society. Women’s roles were to clean, cook, and care for their children. However, Men were to go to work and provide for the family. Women didn’t have as many opportunities as men; “Women across Europe could not vote, could not initiate divorce…, could not control custody of children, could not pursue higher education, could not open bank accounts in their name, could not maintain ownership of the inherited property after marriage, could not initiate lawsuits or serve as legal witnesses, and could not maintain control of their wages if working and married (Brooks).” The first goals of first-wave feminism was woman suffrage- the right for women to vote because “suffrage itself was seen by feminists as only one component of what was needed to realize women’s equality (Brooks).” Women held peaceful protests, however, they turned militant when the government didn’t recognize their issue as mainstream. By this action, the Constitution finally made the 19th amendment to let women have the right to vote. Despite the importance of the suffrage movement, in the time before World War I, feminists won other legal rights before they had the freedom to vote. This political movement made a historical change throughout Western history from the beginning of the Early Modern because it changed the gender roles of women and how they were treated. Women were treated more equally to women, which gave women more opportunities in getting jobs. However, not only did it make changes to Early Modern, but this movement has changed what’s going on in the present. This movement has made many advancements in women’s rights. Today, women are much more privileged in society, we can vote, get a good education, work in whatever profession we wish to, initiate divorce, control our wages and property, and fight for the custody of children. Many women did not have this privilege in the 19th century, until the movement. Thus, politics through the Women’s Movement had a significant impact on historical change in Western Civilization.

The Youth Movement of the 20th century focused on social justice after the wars that occurred (WW1 & 2). The end of all discriminatory policies and the underlying prejudice in American culture, in general, has been advocated by several youth movement members. Furthermore, a movement developed for the first time promoting the concept that homosexuality was a valid sexual orientation and not an “irrational” social order danger. In May, the youth movement reached its most radical manifestation. The legacy of the youth movement was significant because Western society as a whole has become much more tolerant of personal freedoms, especially sexuality, and generally less fascistic and strict. This Movement made a historical change throughout Western history from the beginning of the Early Modern because it helped change the views people had on sexuality, as it was more open to sexuality, and our freedoms, and made the civilization less strict. This movement contributes to the present day because people can express their sexuality without getting shamed. Also, with the 1st Amendment, every human is born with the freedom of religion, speech, petition, and assembly. Thus, the Youth Movement brought immense political changes to both Early Modern History and Present Day.

In conclusion, throughout Western Civilization, politics was the most important historical change from Early Modern history to the present- day in my opinion. Events such as the French Revolution, the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and the Youth Movement all made immense changes in Early Modern History and the Present day. The French Revolution brought equality among the social classes, the Women’s Suffrage Movement gave women the right to vote, along with other rights, and the Youth Movement brought social justice. These events have made a great impact on how we live today.

Works Cited:

1. Brooks, Christopher. “Western Civilization: A Concise History”, Portland Community College, February 2020, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz0SnatD0t0EAZw-i_dS7q7lQ4W9qDBBCB5R2A5d50k/edit#. Accessed October 22, 2020.
2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz0SnatD0t0EAZw-i_dS7q7lQ4W9qDBBCB5R2A5d50k/edit#

The French revolution owes its occurrence, foremost, to the significant increase of the French population throughout the eighteenth century. This situation was then aggravated by stratification of society into the nobility, clergy and common people and the ascription of status and opportunity along class lines. The implication of this stratification was the lumping of a majority of the population into the peasantry.

Additionally, their lack of the privileges enjoyed by the higher classes meant that they were socially and economically grounded. Largely due to economic inequality, demands were made for voting in the Estates-General to be done on equality basis.

It is the social tensions between these classes that led to the first signs of social unrest. Peasants went on a rampage destroying manors and all other symbols of social inequality. As a result, the stratification of society was abolished within a year, and a new way of assigning and denying privileges was put up. After that, one’s income level, gender, race, religion, and profession was used as criteria for placement into either the ‘active’ or ‘passive’ class of citizens. ‘Active’ citizens could vote and hold office while ‘passive’ citizens could do neither.

Due to the disinclination of the National Assembly to grant workers equal economic and social participation, the revolution eventually took place. Social inequality, therefore, which leads to economic inequality, can be fully credited to the occurrence of the French revolution.

Legacies of the French Revolution

The most readily available legacy of the revolution is human rights. For this reason; liberty, equality, and fraternity, the offshoots of human rights can be said to be its indirect legacy. Due to the overturning of the seemingly inviolate class order that previously existed, it became possible for women too to demand equality. As such, the revolution also led to the start of the feminist movement.

The beginning of bourgeois capitalism in French history and changes in the social structure of France may be attributed to the Revolution. Its primary accomplishment was the dissolution of feudal society’s aristocratic ranks and seigneurial structure, which led to the development of national integration. In his book A Short History of French Revolution, Albert Soboul emphasizes how France was once a country with a strong disproportion among people, with aristocracy holding power of all the privileges. However, the role of breakthroughs, which spurred the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie with its intentions to change order within the country, led to the French Revolution, which restored justice.

Albert Soboul initially shows that the history of the French Revolution raises two distinct sets of issues. First, issues of a generic form pertaining to the rules of history regulating the shift from feudalism to contemporary capitalism (Soboul 1). The end of the 18th century saw a mostly royal framework in French society (Soboul 2). When property was the only source of wealth, it still displayed the imprint of its time and provided those who possessed its control over those who cultivated it. The bourgeoisie, a new group whose significance was acknowledged by its admittance to the Estates General in the 1400s, emerged as a result of the recovery of trade and the growth of artisan industry beginning in the 10th century (Soboul 2). The rise of capitalism, which was fueled by the breakthroughs of the 15th and 16th centuries, the reopening of former colonies, and the constant financial pressures of the king, caused this class to rise within the context of a feudal state (Soboul 2). Therefore, the changing world order contributed to capitalism permeating other countries, including France.

Second, the French Revolution had unique characteristics as opposed to previous bourgeois revolutions due to more complex issues resulting from the unique social system after the fall of the Old Regime. Since the price of cereals increased faster than the price of any other good, the living expenses for the poorer classes were significantly impacted by the increase in food costs (Soboul 31). Meanwhile, the wealthier strata of society were minimally impacted, while the majority of the population was crushed by growing costs (Soboul 32). The working poor found it more challenging to cope with the effects of rising costs due to the level of salaries (Soboul 33). Population growth exacerbated the consequences of rising prices, which is especially surprising given that it came after a period of economic stagnation that lasted until approximately 1740 (Soboul 38). The Third Estate’s dominant group, the bourgeoisie, suddenly gained control (Soboul 38). Therefore, the bourgeoisie was capable of abolishing aristocratic superiority and restoring legal and social justice in a society devoid of established entities and hierarchies.

Hence, poverty played a part in the emergence of capitalism, and the bourgeoisie’s desire to alter the social order of the nation brought about the French Revolution, which restored justice. The history of the French Revolution raises two unique sets of difficulties, as Albert Soboul initially demonstrates. First, general questions about the historical principles governing the transition from feudalism to modern capitalism. Second, the French Revolution was different from other bourgeois revolutions due to more complicated challenges brought on by the distinct social order that emerged following the fall of the Old Regime.

Work Cited

Soboul, Albert. A Short History of the French Revolution. United Kingdom: University of California Press, 1977.

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is one of Dickens’ most tragic works. The novel is set in the time before and during the French Revolution. The story revolves around Lucie Manette, a young Frenchwoman living in London and her family and friends. Lucie is loved by a British lawyer Sydney Carton and French expatriate Charles Darney, whom she marries.

Darney is of a noble French family and gets in trouble with the French revolutionaries on a trip to France to rescue an old family servant. The novel paints a vivid picture of the French Revolution, the fervor and radicalism of the revolutionaries and the terror and bloodshed spread by the revolutionaries.

However A Tale of Two Cities is not a rabidly anti-revolutionary and pro-monarchy sort of work unlike, for example, The Scarlet Pimpernel. Dickens makes the causes of the revolution clear through his vivid portrayal of the corrupt and brutal aristocracy which dominated the monarchical government prior to the revolution.

Dickens portrays the corrupt nature of the old order primarily through the various acts of cruelty perpetrated by the Charles Darnay’s father and his uncle the Marquis St. Evrémonde. Due to them Dr. Alexandre Manette, Lucie’s father, is arrested and secretly kept in prison for eighteen years, where he loses his mind (Dickens 54).

It is revealed that the Marquis killed a peasant and kidnapped his wife, with whom he had become infatuated. He also killed the wife’s brother and of her family, only one little sister survived.

Dr. Manette was imprisoned in order to prevent him from exposing the crime (Dickens 383). The Marquis St. Evrémonde runs over a peasant’s child while driving in his carriage, killing him. The Marquis is not much bothered by what has just occurred a just tosses a gold coin at the child’s father as compensation (Dickens 123).

The corrupt state of the old regime can also be seen in the disgust with which Charles Darnay, one of the heroes of the novel, regards his inheritance (Dickens 141).

While Dickens seems to agree that the old French order was corrupt and that the ruling class deserved to be removed, he does not agree with the radicalism and extremism of the French revolutionaries. He portrays the revolution as starting from a justified anger; events like the murder of Marquis St. Evrémonde by Gaspard, the father of the child who the Marquis ran over in his carriage provide early signs of the coming violence against the upper class (Dickens 212).

However, once the revolution occurs, Dickens’ sympathies with the rebels ends and he portrays them as irrational fanatics out to kill any member of the aristocracy who they can get their hands on, regardless of whether that person has committed any injustice against the peasantry in the past or not.

A central character in the depiction of the madness of the revolution is Madame Defarge. The Defarges are old servants of Dr. Manette and seem, in the beginning to recognize their debt to him. They shelter him when he is released from prison.

However Madame Defarge’s hatred for the aristocracy is so intense that she has her old benefactor’s son-in-law condemned to be executed and wishes to have his daughter and little granddaughter killed as well, so that the bloodline is completely wiped out (Dickens 313).

Looking at the novel from a holistic perspective, it seems right to say that A Tale of Two Cities portrays the French Revolution in an evenhanded manner. The evil and corruption of the old regime is made clear and the fanaticism and extremism that characterize the new order are portrayed as well.

Works Cited

Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House Inc., 2005.

Liberty is a concept that every independent nation has to embrace. As countries transfer from the era of colonialism to freedom, both personal and public liberties are among the first things every constitution addresses.

However, many times these liberties remain a constitutional matter when they are supposed to become realities.

The important question, as far as this aspect is concerned, is whether there is a cause for celebration for a newly born nation that has just won its independence or should the citizens rejoice only when the independence becomes an apparent thing in their lives.

Burke in the work Reflections on the Revolution in France appears to be skeptical about the first celebration more specifically.

When writing a critique, norm dictates that the writer should avoid predispositions, which might affect the arguments as opposed to rational reasoning and evidence.

One of the most important characteristics of a critique is that the writer must not present personal ideas and feelings, but rather absolute truth.

Thus, in the work under analysis, Burke vigorously criticizes the French Revolution during which the fight for liberty has turned out into a tyranny and ferocity against humans.

Specifically, the author argues that the French Revolution defended abstracted notions of freedoms and rights instead of introducing practical application of these views.

Burke appears to be skeptic about congratulating France on its freedom. This comes out when he wonders whether he could really congratulate a nation because it has a government without enquiring what kind of a government it is.

He compares congratulating this achievement to congratulating a mad man who has escaped from the protecting and restraining wholesome darkness of his cell on his restoration to enjoy light and liberty (Burke 502).

One of the things that Burke seems not to appreciate is the fact that freedom and liberty are not a one-time achievement. The step of France having a government, however autocratic it seemed, is the first and most important step towards achieving freedom.

One of the most important things that one has to appreciate when thinking about liberty is the process of attaining it. Burke in this argument represents his thinking about liberty as an instant gift in the laps of a person.

Burke perceives liberty as the ultimate result of the combination of the government with the public force, well-disciplined and obedient army, the collection and effective distribution of revenue, religion and morality, property rights, peace, order and good civil manners (Burke 502).

He further claims that the absence of any of these can be summed as lack of liberty in the nation in question. In this argument, Burke creates the mental picture of a perfect society, which in the real sense never exists.

Additionally, he expects a newly acquired freedom to give birth to a perfectly liberal state. In doing this, he fails to acknowledge the fact that societies evolve with time and through experience towards perfection. His ideology shows just how under-evaluated his thought was, leading to half-baked conclusions.

When considering posterity, Burke criticizes France for beginning anew. He describes the idea of noble liberty, which results from respecting the inherited values.

Moreover, he claims it is in line with conformity with nature. In his opinion, conformity is an important aspect in regulating the governance through philosophic analogy (Burke 503).

He offers a comparison between France and England, which applies this kind of philosophic analogy. One grave mistake that Burke makes is comparing two nations since they have completely contrasting histories.

First, England has never been a colony. In this sense, the country had much to demonstrate in its history as compared to France, which experienced the pain of autocracy in the times when liberty was what many nations enjoyed in the world.

Burke believes that posterity is an aspect that any nation would be take pride in it. A new beginning is best for countries that have nothing to be proud of and we should not blame them for that.

In this matter, France had a dark history before the revolution characterized by economic recession and moral decay. As much as posterity is an important aspect for a nation, France was justified in its conditions to begin a new and appreciated posterity from a brighter side rather than dark side-embracing change.

While deliberating on the main provisions fought during the French Revolution, Burke underscore’s false perspectives and ideas that have been defended.

In this respect, the author places an emphasis on the need to introduce practical representations of human rights to free medicine and food, for example.

Hence, while deliberating on the established values during those times, Burke states that the French Revolution is primarily founded on abstract values that have nothing in common with reality and human nature.

Hence, the author criticizes the revolution because the movement defended nothing but metaphysical abreactions that are more beneficial for political authorities striving to establish new regimes.

As a result, the French Revolution did overthrow the monarchy, but failed to elucidate the corrupted government. As a proof, Burke writes, “…I should, therefore, suspend my congratulation on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies,…with morality and religion” (502).

In this respect, the politician as if criticizes the freedoms and values protected by the Revolution because they do not refer to the original values they were to protect.

Regarding the above accusations, Burke is more concerned with practical application of the Revolution. He believes that human rights and freedoms should be confined to real existing needs and concerns.

In particular, protecting constitutional rights of humans, the author sees no power and institutions supporting freedom and objectivity of judgment.

In this respect, people involved into the Revolution are not guided by virtue, but by power principles and interest of governmental authorities.

In this respect, the work emphasizes that “virtue and wisdom may be the objects of their choice, but their choice confers neither the one nor the other on those upon whom they lay their ordaining hands” (Burke 506). In this respect, the Revolution manipulated human rights rather than fighting for their protection.

While reflecting on the abstract principles upheld by the French, Burke disagrees with the idea of protecting the revolution underpinnings because they do not only represent abstracted foundations, but also distort the overall notion of human liberty.

Specifically, he believes that the attention to the domestic laws is significantly distracted and, as a result, human rights are rigorously violated.

Hence, the French Revolution is nothing more but as fraudulent and false representation of freedom, initiated by the corrupted government.

Specifically, Burke writes, that the governmental authorities “look upon the legal hereditary success of their own crown as among their rights, not as among their wrongs…as a security for their liberty, not as a badge of servitude” (508).

In this respect, the French Revolution is disguised under the false mask of liberty and equality. In reality, it significantly thresholds the boundaries and violated the desired equality of human relations.

While shedding the light on the liberty, the author introduces the concept of humanity as the basic principles of governing the society.

Burkes mentions the main features of human natures and provides correlation with religious and moral values as the basis for protecting human liberties. At the same time, he refers to the liberty as a constitutional right that should be protected as well.

In conclusion, it can be stated that Burke has a more practical vision on the concept of liberty, but not the abstracted one, as it was represented during the French Revolution.

The members of the movement managed to overthrow the monarchy, but failed to revive human rights and liberties and represent a new “human” form of government.

Moreover, the author is more concerned with the abstracted and metaphysical fundamentals of the Revolution that fail to consider the true principles and norms of freedom.

Specifically, Burke refers to true human virtue and wisdom that should withdraw personal interests and highlight the essentials of human rights.

However, the French Revolution is more premised on corrupted principles that failed to introduce justice. In such a manner, Burke attempts to introduce original outlooks on liberty.

Works Cited

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the French Revolution. London: M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1790. Print.

World history is varied and it is possible to consider different regimes and policies applied in the societies. Having read the words by Ronald Reagan that, “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty”, I have remembered about French revolution, the event which can be considered as the beginning of the Age of Absolutism. It is impossible to disagree with Reagan as even the history proves this.

Absolutism is a regime in the history of many countries when the whole power was concentrated in the hands of one person. This person was not limited by the rules and laws and could act according to personal will and intentions. This person was actually the law.

Defining the notion ‘absolutism’, it is important to state that this regime covers many years and historians began to characterize it in such a way after the system has gone. It means that the contemporaries of Louis XIV did not use this term, but preferred to use the word-combination “absolute power of the crown” (Beik 3), which they understood as the “concentration of sovereign authority in the hands of the king” (Beik 3).

Coming out of this definition, it should be stated that human rights are not protected, a ruler can do whatever he/she wants. Liberty is based on the principle of freedom and the ability to according to personal intentions and desires. Considering French absolutism in practice it is important to refer to the reasons of French revolution.

The power was concentrated in hands of one person, Louis XIV and he “administrated control of his nation-state with an iron hand, keeping the nobility in check” (McNeese 27). Human dissatisfaction with the regime may be explained by the autocratic behavior from Louis XIV’s side.

Having the whole power in his hands and governing a state, Louis XIV understood that without strict rules, order cannot be implemented. However, people heed to have freedom, they should have an opportunity to choose what they want and how they want to do it. The absence of liberty, the absence of choice always results in rebellions. Referring to France, the rebellion became a revolution which destroyed absolute regime.

It should be noted that while the country prospered, people were satisfied with the autocratic and absolute regime, as the absence of liberty was covered by high level of life. However, when the country’s economy began to weaken, people began to notice that the whole power is concentrated in hands of their monarch and they do not have rights at all.

When people began to notice that leading poor lives they are also restricted in their actions, they began to express their dissatisfaction. King’s desire to suppress the rebellion awaked powerful counteraction which resulted in monarchy subversion in three years (McNeese 27).

Considering the absolutism as the power concentration in the hands of one person and referencing to French revolution, I have stated that the revolution was caused by the people’s dissatisfaction with autocratic regime. Besides, some historians believe that “The revolution that was to sweep away the political institutions of old France, and shake her society to its foundations, did not begin on July 14, 1789. By that time the old order was already in ruins, beyond reconstruction” (Schwab and Jeanneney 232).

Looking at the prerevolutionary situation in France, it is possible to confirm this statement in the meaning that the ancient regime of France was in ruins, however, kings’ ruling existed. It is possible to differentiate the principles of ancient French regime from the centralization provided by Louis XIV. Old regime is based on the principles of strict order, obedience, and law. The regime provided by Louis XIV was something different.

Besides the previously mentioned issues, people in that time were subjected to so-called lettres de cachet, the acts which meant imprisonment without trial (Schwab and Jeanneney 232). This is the exact definition of the absolutism in France and the main principles of power concentration in the hands of one person.

Returning to the quote mentioned in the beginning of this discussion “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty”, it is not only impossible to disagree with it, it is even impossible partially reject with it.

As for me, I absolutely agree with Reagan as when the whole power is concentrated in hands of one person, sooner or later, this person will implement his authority on all, even if it seems that people have some freedom. It is just the first impression and it means that people are satisfied with what they are offered and do not have a necessity to search for something.

Being offered what they want, people do not need to search for liberty, however, it does not mean that they have it. When people are lacking something, they want to have it, but their desire meet the king’s strong will and people begin to talk about absence of liberty. Thus, it should be concluded that absolutism is the rejection of liberty, even though people do not notice this.

Works Cited

Beik, William. Louis XIV and absolutism: a brief study with documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Print.

McNeese, Tim. History of Civilization – The Age of Absolutism, Lorenz Educational Press, 2000. Print.

Schwab, Gail M. and John R. Jeanneney. The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995. Print.

Introduction

The French revolution that took place in 1789-1799 was a period of political and social upheaval in France. However, the revolution did not only affect France alone but also the whole of Europe (Lefebvre 6). The revolution brought about the modern revolution- an idea of a plan that can transform the world. The revolution ushered in modernity after the collapse of the old regime that was characterized by legal inequality, feudal economy and absolutist politics.

The revolution began after a meeting of the Estates-Generals on 5 May 1989, which was attended by the Third Estates (merchants, peasants, professional men and artisans) representatives who felt uncomfortable with the old regime governance that exempted clergies and the rich from paying taxes. The meeting then changed its name to National Assembly after the nobles and clergies joined.

The main aim of this meeting was to give France a constitution that called for liberty, equality, and fraternity. After the King realized of the meeting he kicked them out of their usual meeting place (Lefebvre 8). On 20 June 1789, they changed their meeting venue to the Oath of Tennis Court.

The King further tried to remove them from the hall, which sparked out the revolution. On July 14, the revolution became radical after a mob stormed and captured the Bastille, the old royal prison in Paris. The radicals further spread from Paris to other districts in the country. In this paper, the focus is in support of John Locke’s statement that “if man’s rights are deprived the people affected have the right to overthrow the government and establish a new one.”

Causes of the French Revolution

Royal Absolutism: In 18^th century, France had an absolute monarch that was applicable in both theory and practice. In reality, France rather than having a parliament had Estate General that was composed of members from each of the three estates (Cobban 3). This Estate General was semi-representative and ineffective as it last convened in 1641. France experienced a bloated bureaucratic administration from the government officials.

The bureaucracy overgrew and by 1750, it was very large, inefficient and corrupt. The officials had acquired properties illegally, bought and sold government offices for their own benefits. In addition, there was no unified system of law in France as every region had its parliament that determined the law. The French revolution implemented a single and unified system of law.

Finances: Lack of legislature made the French monarchy to have an overall control of the finances. The king managed the countries fiscal year and by 1789, the government of France was so bankrupt that it could not settle its debts.

In addition, the level of debts had increased in the past years due to the involvement of France in many wars in the late 17^th century and early 18^th century (Cobban 1946). Further, the exemption of a number of social groups from payment of taxes led to the government’s failure to raise enough finances. The rich, the clergy and the church, universities and the cities were exempted from paying taxes.

Enlightenment: During the 18^th century, the French society started awareness of the happenings in their nations. The third class that was paying taxes while the first and second did not, became aware of the inequality and the effects it had on them (Cobban 6).

In addition, the need for women to take part in elections and decision-making in the country also brought about the rise of revolution. Further, the realization of the third class that all men were born to be equal in paying taxes, enjoying equal rights, owning properties, and being elected to representatives contributed to the rise of the revolution.

The American Revolution: In 1775-1783, America experienced a revolution and the government of France sent its troops and navy to help the rebelling colonists. Its troops had contacts with the Americans, which is believed to be a source of exchange of revolutionary ideas.

These troops further spread the ideas to the French citizens after returning to France (Cobban 5). In addition, the formation of democratic republic in 1780s attracted attention of various writers who wrote about the America and predicted the trend to follow in European countries. Those who read the books became enlightened and preached the information of steady and inevitable progress of man’s intellectual nature and morals, which caused more tensions in France.

Food Scarcity: Years before the revolution, France experienced a harsh climate conditions that led to poor harvests (Cobban 5). This consequently led to the rise of hunger and high prices of bread in France. In addition, the government was unable to deal with the situation due to poor means of transport that hindered the transportation of food from rural areas with plenty foods to the hunger stricken and populated areas. This led to destabilization of the French Citizens, which eventually led to the revolution.

Conclusion

The causes of the French revolution were due to inefficiency of the old regime of governance of the French Monarchy. This made the monarchy to violate human rights and needs. To look for an alternative means for a government that would cater and have the concerns of the French society as the priority, the society had to kick out the old regime and form a new modern regime.

This gives support and concurs with John Locke statement “if man’s rights are deprived they have the right to overthrow the government and establish a new one.”

Works Cited

Cobban, Alfred. Historians and the Causes of French Revolution. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1946. Print

Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From its Origin to 1793. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962. Print.

The 19^th Century definition of liberalism in adopts the realms and principles of capitalism.The first core assumption of liberal theory in political aspects is that the fundamental actors in politics are members of domestic society, understood as individuals and privately constituted groups seeking to promote their independent interests.

In philosophical aspects, special conditions, limited competition, individual autonomy, and individual behavior are intertwined together to create a defined social order that seek for the promotion of individual welfare.

The most basic tenet of liberal theory is that politics is mixed into the social context, which acts as an effective measure to curtail the powers of the government. In economic aspects, liberalism is a composition of individual who possesses different interests and identities that push them to form economic ties to further their social, political, and economic goals. While this theory is individualistic, its 19^th century view is pluralist.

The contributions of the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton to notions about natural law began with the theories of Copernicus to the modern scientific world-view. The theories of the these scientists changed the worldview from medieval explanation to proven scientific views.

Copernicus in his Ptolemaic system explained gave an analysis of reason behind an appearance of reverse motions adopted by planets. The impact of the work of Copernicus on man’s conception of the universe and rational thought in scientific disciplines is firmly entrenched in notions about natural law. The development of the first Heliocentric theory of the universe and the Pythagorean system had profound revolutionary implications on man’s conception of the universe and natural law.

Kepler focused on the application of platonic solids to provide explanation on orbit spacing in planets.In his work, Kepler placed the sun at the center of the universe and provided a groundbreaking foundation through which future works in astrology were to draw inferences. This was the premise behind Kepler’s Law’s that had immense impact of natural laws and formed the basis of Newton’s law of gravity.

The impact of Galileo’s work on the universe and natural laws was majorly on mechanics. His outstanding contribution in the classification of acceleration, velocity, and instantaneous motion widely influenced natural laws of science. Isaac Newton on the other built on the concepts of instantaneous motion but Galileo and others. However, his work on dispersion, nature of color, wave nature of lights greatly influenced the view of humankind on nature and significantly contributed to notions about natural law.

Building upon the work of Kepler on the position of the sun at the center of the solar system, Newton developed the law of gravitational pull. His discoveries on the movement of the speed in relation to that of the sun and the Inverse Square Law showed common basis and remained defining discoveries on natural laws.

The importance of Newton’s work for eighteenth century philosophy revolves around their impacts on worldview. Newton’s laws of motion managed to achieve a shift from medieval explanations to proven scientific laws with common basis.

The origin of the natural rights philosophy draws its origin form liberal political philosophy of John Locke. Constitutions of most democracies of the world draw their existence from this philosophy. Natural rights philosophy proposes that men are free, equal, and independent. The government has the moral duty to respect the rights of individuals.

The “natural rights” played a key role in the development of American Constitution and form the key principle in which the constitution is based. The fall and disintegration of the French monarchy and its replacement with principles of equality, citizenship, nationalism, and inalienable rights draw roots from the philosophy of natural rights.

The French revolution was more radical because of the existence of radical elements that exploited government’s problems and weaknesses to seize power and changed system of governance.

In French revolution, the radical elements were the Girondins. Furthermore, the fear of neighboring countries about the prospects of the revolution spreading added fuel to the already turbulent situation in France. This created more internal turmoil and gave the radical movements more resolve to seize power as observed in Jacobin’s case in France.

The difference in characters of George Washington and Napoleon in their contribution to the different ends of the American and French Revolutions revolve around the fact that whereas Napoleon spread the revolutionary ideals of liberalism and nationalism across Europe, he failed to live the spirit of liberalism and natural rights for all in France.

George Washington on the other solved domestic challenges in America and ensured entrenchment of natural rights, thereby appealing to the American majority at the time.

The legacy of the French revolution and the Napoleonic Empire had profound impact in the entire Europe. The ideas of revolution remain embedded in Europe’s law codes and spread to Europe’s colonies across the globe. The non-Europeans were later to use the revolution ideas of French revolution and the Napoleonic Empire to overthrow European’s colonial powers in the rest of the globe. In summary, the French revolution remains a powerful force in modern history.

The French Revolution lasted for a period of about one decade ranging from1789 to 1799. The period was characterised by radical socio-economic and political transformations and it also marked the collapse of absolute monarchy (Kates 56). There were three major social groups in France prior to the French revolution.

These were the first, second and third estates. The First Estate consisted of the clergy; the second one was nobility while the third estate was known as the commoners. The major goal of the commoners was to attain more power and independence from the nobility and the clergy. On the other hand, both the nobility and the clergy groups had the aim of attaining political power.

The First Estate lost power due to the changes that were implemented by the National Assembly. Firstly, The French Jews and Protestants were given religious autonomy. Therefore, they were not under direct control of the religious monarchs. Secondly, property of the church was nationalised and there was abolition of the monasteries. This weakened the economic power of the church (Kates 57).

The nationalised land acted as the collateral for the government loans which was later sold to the commoners. Another blow to the clergy was the establishment of the National Church which had priests elected and had to take oath of loyalty to the government. The nobility which composed of the Second Estate also had the same interest as that of the clergy. The nobility of the sword was evidently the most privileged among the three types. This was followed by the nobility of the court.

Some of the privileges which they had such as tax exemption and manorial rights was short lived since the poor nobility could not afford most of their basic needs and therefore decided to be like commoners due to rising inflation. They later joined the commoners in trying to voice their public opinion. However, nobles quite often exercised their rights in order to earn a living as it was the case with the poor nobles since they had never imagined being equal to the commoners.

Furthermore, there was intense complain by the bourgeoisie who were at the top of the third Estate, on why the nobility enjoyed tax exemptions and unnecessary privileges with regards to juridical matters.

The demand was that bourgeoisie was to be accepted as close friends of the nobility and that they qualified to serve the state in all positions. They pushed for the scraping of the armorial rights and demanded an end to the education of poor nobles’ children. They wanted equality in the civil and penal laws to be applied to both the nobles and commoners.

This led to the establishment of Estates General in May 1789 which was composed of three groups namely, the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. As the press censorship was lifted; the more open minded nobles and clergy saw the need to give more attention to the commoners. By mid of 1789, the commoners organized a meeting dubbed the National Assembly. They discussed national matters without the other two estates.

The National Assembly was making inroads on national matters and this forced the king to order their meeting hall to be closed. This act led to the tennis Court oath where some members of the Third estate vowed to remain united (Kates 58).

The Third estate then reorganized itself and came up with the national assembly whose members were mostly drawn from among the bourgeoisies and had the duty of writing the constitution. This was achieved in the declaration of Human Rights and finally the French Republic was declared in September 1792. The new constitution granted equal rights to women and the rest of the population.

Works Cited

Kates, Gary. The French Revolution: recent debates and new controversies. London: Routledge, 1998. Print.

The French Revolution had profound implications for people living in France, other European countries, and the United States. In particular, this political and social upheaval made the concept of nation state more realistic. Moreover, it emphasized the importance of citizen rights and the role of government as a protector of these rights. This paper will discuss the role of the French Revolution in shaping the concept of nation, freedom, and citizenship.

First, it should be noted that before 1789 French society was extremely rigid and hierarchical. It was divided in the so-called three estates: 1) clergy; 2) aristocracy; and 3) those people who were not included in the first two groups, for instance, peasants, craftsmen, or other wage-laborers.

This division was criticized by Abbé Sieyes in his pamphlet called What is the Third Estate? This author argued that people of the Third Estate constituted the bulk of the French nation and that they had to have more political power (Sieyes, unpaged). The Revolution that erupted in 1789 made these people more aware of their ability to influence the life of their country.

French people began to regard nation as it was defined by Abbé Sieyes who said that it was “a body of associates, living under a common law, and represented by the same legislature, etc” (Sieyes, unpaged). Therefore, it is possible to say that the concept of nation became more inclusionary because it was extended toward people of various social classes and ethnic origins.

Additionally, this notion began to be viewed as a group of people who adhered to certain principles such as equality and liberty. Most importantly, these people had the right to affect politics of their country (Neely, 247).

Certainly, one cannot argue that the distinctions between classes were totally erased by the French Revolution; they existed and were even reflected in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Nevertheless, this experience of showed to people of various social classes that they could act together in the pursuit of their economic or political objectives. This cooperation became the basis of the French nation. This is one of the key changes that were brought by the French Revolution.

Another issue that one has to discuss is the impact of the French Revolution on the concept of civic rights and liberties. During the Age of Absolutism, the very idea of civic rights was familiar only to the representatives of the first and second estates, in other words, aristocracy and clergy. Yet, the power of the monarch remained virtually unchallenged. This person had the authority to control and influence virtually every sphere of public life.

Certainly, the French Revolution did not create a perfect civic society, but it identified the privileges that had to be possessed by every member of the society. In this case, one can speak about such an important document as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen signed by the National Constituent Assembly. This degree legitimized people’s struggle against oppression, presumption of innocence, freedom of communication, the rights to property, and equality of rights (National Constituent Assembly, unpaged).

This declaration still remains important because it highlights the essential components of people’s citizenship. Certainly, it is by no means ideal, because it primarily focused on the rights of male population. Nothing was said about women, their role in the society and their rights.

Moreover, a person had to meet several requirements in order to qualify as a citizen, in particular, he had to be of a certain age and earn a certain amount of money (Sax, 91). Hence, one cannot argue that this declaration was entirely neutral in its treatment of people who lived in France. These are the limitation that one cannot overlook. Yet, prior to the Revolution, French people could regard themselves only as subjects of the king, but not as citizens who could influence political life of the country.

Admittedly, the French Revolution also brought bloodshed, terror, wars, and intense struggle within the French society. It also produced a counter-revolution that was aimed at reversing the radical changes that took place in the country. Nonetheless, the ideas introduced during this revolution remained prominent in the life of French people.

The counter-revolution did not eliminate people’s aspiration for the equality of civic rights. The changes brought by the French Revolution demonstrated that absolute monarchy could not survive as a form of government. Hence, the importance of this political event can hardly be underestimated.

Overall, the revolution that took place in France demonstrated that French people could act as a collective power that could shape that the internal policies of the state or its international relations.

This experience laid the foundations of French nation as a united group of people who could join their efforts to pursue common goals. Secondly, the French revolution stressed the importance of citizenship and possession of certain political, legal, and economic rights that could not be infringed by the state. These are probably the main legacies of the French Revolution.

Works Cited

National Constituent Assembly. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Human Constitutional Documents, 2008. Web. <http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html>

Neely, Sylvia. A Concise History Of The French Revolution. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.

Sax, Benjamin. Western Civilization: From the scientific revolution to the present. Greenhaven Press, 2001. Print.

Sieyès, Emmanuel. What is the Third Estate? Fordham University,1997. Web. <https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/sieyes.asp>.