The French Revolution - Assignment Example

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: THE FAILURE OF THE EXPERIMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY BETWEEN 1789-1792 Introduction One of the most investigated periods in world history is the French Revolution. Historians agree that it was the first “modern revolution”, resulting in momentous outcomes. The event changed the very meaning of the word revolution from a sense of restoration to denoting a political or social upheaval that marks a decisive break with the past and causes society to move forward in a progressive manner. The changes which occurred in the year 1789 mark the dividing line between early modern and late modern European history (Hanson, 2004: 1). For two hundred years before 1789, the Bourbon monarchy ruled France, and came to be referred to as the Old Regime. By late 1792, the rule of monarchy was overthrown and replaced by the first French Republic. The vision of an ideal society in which the government worked for the good of the nation and not for individual interests was the driving force behind the political ideas of the French revolutionaries (Hanson, 2004: 4). This paper proposes to account for the failure of the experiment in constitutional monarchy between 1789-1792 during the French Revolution. Further, the extent to which the attitude and behaviour of the king were damaging to the monarchy, and the significance of the development of a more radical strand of politics will be determined. Discussion Why did the experiment in constitutional monarchy fail? Until 1789, hereditary monarchy which is also known as absolute monarchy was the norm in France, as in other parts of Europe. Though there were no constitutional restraints, every ruler operated within certain constraints. However, several difficulties were commonly experienced by thr rulers such as poor communications, lack of information, absence of a trained civil service which made reforms difficult to implement, resistance to change by vested interests, etc (Simpson, 2000: 11). The representatives of the third estate who took the new title of National Assembly, demanded that France should have a constitution, a set of rules by which it would be governed, and which even the monarch would have to obey. A large part of the first National Assembly’s legislation became incorporated in the Constitution of 1791. It was agreed that the monarchy should remain, which was to be a new constitutional monarchy, stripped of former absolute control over government, legislation, army and justice. Actual power would lie in the hands of the National Assembly itself, with unlimited powers over taxation, authority in all legislative matters, limited only by the requirement to hold elections every two years. The new constitutional monarchy’s authority was further weakened by the reform of administration and local government (Rude, 1994: 61-62). In the Lefebvre (1988: 91) account of the Revolution, he suggested that Louis XVI’s government in July 1789 was determined to dissolve the increasingly disorderly Estates General, function with the support of the parlements, and resign itself to a condition of bankruptcy. Stone (2002: 62) observes that in order to uphold the integrity and financial viability of his state in the challenging circumstances, he was compelled to consider the sanctioning of domestic reforms that were against his own and his predecessors’ public philosophy. Disorder broke out in Paris. On July 14, 1789, a mob stormed the Bastille a famous prison and freed the prisoners. Throughout France, the people rose against their masters. Food riots broke out to bring down the high price of bread, other foodstuffs, wine and firewood, since the people’s most pressing problems concerned the scarcity of affordable food (Doyle, 1999: 175-176). The National Assembly announced its ideas of liberty and equality through the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The church and the nobles who made up the first and second estates had their property taken away from them, and lost their special rights. In October 1789, a mob of people from Paris marched to Versailles, the King Louis XVI’s palace just outside the city, from where the King, his queen, Marie Antoinette, and his son were taken back to Paris. The King at first proceeded along the path of constitutionalism, but appointed Breteuil to be his minister in exile, and charged him secretly to restore his authority in November 1790. It was not clear whether this was an attempt to restore the Old Regime or ancien regime, due to the more extreme turn of events, or it was merely to keep the forces of counter revolution from erupting. On the part of the king, there was increasing decisiveness or desperation (Simpson, 2000: 40). Between the storming of the Bastille on the 14th of July, 1789 and the taking of the Tuileries with the fall of the monarchy on 10th August, 1792, there were several factors that caused the failure of the constitutional monarchy (Simpson, 2000: 40). Although at first it appeared that France would settle down after these great changes, on June 20, 1791, the King and the royal family tried to escape, and were caught at Varennes in eastern France, and had to return. This proof that they were not loyal to the new France fuelled the drive against the monarchy. The failure of the King’s bid to escape exasperated the British ambassador, and when combined with losses in war and the use of the veto, sealed the fate of the monarchy. Louis XVI’s intentions in fleeing were due to his anxiety to avoid civil war; though he eventually supported war against the Habsburg empire during which the Queen repeatedly betrayed military information to France’s enemies. The King may have felt compelled to flee due to several reasons including the assault on the Church which the National Assembly initiated (Simpson, 2000: 40). In 1792, war broke out with Austria and Prussia who were in support of King Louis XVI. A mob broke into the Tuileries, the King’s palace in Paris, and compelled him to wear the famous red cap worn by people who supported the Revolution, in order to show his allegiance to it. The royal family took refuge with the National Assembly but its members dethroned the King and imprisoned him and the royal family. Lewis (1993: 36) states that it is ironic that “it was the monarchy whose duplicity had helped to provoke this great crisis of the Revolution, was to become its first victim”. Profound changes occurred in many spheres. The terms peasants (paysans) and farmers (cultivateurs) replaced the old terms laboureurs or menagers. Between 1789 and 1792 rural life was transformed. The peasants refused to accept the commutation of seignurial rights over land, just as they refused to pay champarts or tithes. This collective refusal led to violent confrontations. Hence the Legislative Assembly resigned itself to the abolition of seigneurial rights without compensation (Vovelle, 1984: 167). Serious problems remained unresolved such as that of the common fields which the wealthy wanted to possess, while the others wanted to remain undivided. The most important change was that in November 1789, the National Assembly decided to nationalize the property of the Catholic Church, in an attempt to resolve the state’s financial crisis through “abolition of privileges”. The seized land would provide the capital to fund a new issue of bonds called assignats that would repay the state’s debts. Fervent Catholics considered this as an attack on religion itself. A complete reorganization of the Church was undertaken, in line with the reordering of the Civil Administration in mid-1790. This was one of the important turning points in French agrarian history (Andress, 2003: 3). In areas where the peasants found themselves deprived by the bourgeoisie of the land they had counted on acquiring, their hostility to the aristocracy of the ancient regime was shifted with increased intensity to the victorious bourgeoisie. A new and unstable society with a redistribution of roles took place. The urban outbreaks of revolutionary activity which multiplied at local levels in the summer of 1792 were triggered by socio-economic considerations, to which was added a political dimension. In the rural areas there was a panic movement known as the Grande Peur, which was a false alarm that spread throughout the kingdom (Vovelle, 1984: 177). The French army defeated the Austrians and also conquered Belgium in September and November 1792 respectively, which gave the supporters of the Revolution renewed enthusiasm. On September 20, 1792 the new assembly, now called the Convention, met for the first time after the general election, and the period known as the Reign of Terror began. Louis XVI and his Queen were sent to the guillotine. Hundreds of people were guillotined and threatened with death if they disagreed, by the men who had started as advocates of freedom, but turned into tyrants who ruled as they wished. Thus the constitutional monarchy was overthrown. How damaging were the attitude and behaviour of the King? Among the nobility in Paris, there were many who rejected all the principles on which the Revolution was based. They were led by the King’s youngest brother, the Comte d’Artois who had fled abroad soon after the fall of the Bastille. He led an increasingly large group of emigrants whose purpose was to undermine the Revolution, and restore noble privilege and Catholic supremacy. Both King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette were committed to these goals; the extent of the King’s hostility was disclosed on 21st June, 1791 when the royal family fled Paris for the eastern frontiers. They were caught and brought back to Paris amidst fears of civil unrest and invasion (Andress, 2003: 3). From the beginning of the Revolution Louis XVI’s indecision had increased the enormous difficulties he faced in accommodating himself to working as a constitutional monarch within institutions based on popular sovereignty. The critical military situation made his position impossible. On 10th August a force of sans-culottes from the newly democratised National Guard and federes who were volunteers from the provinces on their way to the front, assaulted and took the Tuileries palace. After Louis took refuge in the nearby Assembly, it decided to suspend him pending the election of a National Convention (Dwyer & McPhee, 2002: 69-70). The indictment read to Louis in the National Convention on the 11th December effectively held him responsible for all the vicissitudes of the Revolution. From the outset of the trial the deputies of the Convention agreed on Louis’ guilt but were divided over the appropriate punishment for him. Louis himself was dignified and consistent during his trial. While repeatedly his accusers went over the list of crises faced by the Revolution since 1789, Louis simply denied his personal responsibility. The president of the National Convention read out the accusations against the King, by the French people: a multitude of crimes during his rule of tyranny, and destruction of the freedom of the citizens. On 20th June, 1789, the king violated the sovereignty of the people by suspending the assemblies of its representatives, and by violently driving them out of the meetings. The proof of this is in the report drawn up at the Versailles tennis court, by the members of the Constituent Assembly. On 23rd June, the King tried to dictate laws to the nation, surrounded its representatives with troops, presented two royal declarations to them, and ordered them to disperse (Dwyer & McPhee, 2002: 71). A letter written by the King in 1790 to Lafayette proved that a criminal coalition existed between him and Lafayette, with which Maribeau was complicit. Corruption was used by the King who paid for lampoons, pamphlets and newspapers which were destined to pervert public opinion, to discredit assignats and to support the cause of those who had emigrated. These strategies effectively killed freedom. Further, the King did not attempt to curtail the beginnings of counter revolution until the Dusaillant conspiracy broke. Specific aspects of the Constitution of 1791 supported the legalistic position that abdication was the proper punishment for the monarch’s treason (Dwyer & McPhee, 2002: 71-72). Thus it is observed that the attitude and behaviour of the King who opposed the Revolution, resulted in people concluding that the King was not interested in France’s progress. War in 1792 resulted in disorganization and defeat, all of which was blamed by radicals on the King, his ministers and noble generals. With defeat looming in front of them republican feelings were running high, and on 10th August the monarchy was overthrown by an attack on the royal palace of Tuileries (Andress, 2003: 3). Thus it is observed that the attitude and behaviour of the King caused extensive damage to the constitutional monarchy which had ruled between 1789-1792. How significant was the development of a more radical strand of politics? According to Scurr (2004: 251), the conditions of acute political conflict after the failure of the experiment in constitutional monarchy, raised the problem of how to construct a modern republic. The republic form of government seemed to meet the urgent political and constitutional need to have an accountable and effective government. Pierre-Louis Roederer, former member of the Jacobin Club and a senior politcal figure, attemted to integrate political and economic implications to form a theory of social equality appropriate for a modern republic. Thomas Paine believed that the various political changes affecting eighteenth century France as well as the rest of Europe and in America as a result of revolution, was for the ultimate good of the people. The great cause would establish a new era, remove despotism from the earth, and the republic would be built on the lasting principles of peace and citizenship (Kates, 1989: 569). In September 1792, with news of the approaching Prussian army, massacres of suspected counter-revolutionaries by Parisian radicals were carried out, killing large numbers of priests, nobles and common criminals. Not only was there a deep division between the revolutionaries and their enemies, but deep rifts were visible within the revolutionaries themselves. On the 22nd of September, 1792 France was declared a Republic, with a new National Convention to give it a Constitution. The leadership of the republic was divided; those who had called for war the year before, known as Girondins were fearful of the social consequences of extremism. The Girondins were propertied and respectable, while the newer activists were either of low repute in the eyes of the Gerondins, or were driven mainly by a hatred of the prosperous (Andress, 2003: 3). The Mountain People or Montagnards were against the Girondins, and supported the sans-culottes as the urban ultra-radicals were known. The Girondins considered the Montagnards to be behind the attempts to eliminate the Girondins’ own leadership in the September massacres. These conflicts continued through the trial and execution of the King in the winter of 1792-1793. The Girondins were unwilling to see him killed without a national referendum, which approach was considered as a bid to save the king, by the sans-culottes and the Montagnards, and hence as “counter-revolutionary”. On 2nd June, 1793, the Convention eliminated some twenty-nine Gerondin leaders, as compelled by the armed sans-culottes. This elimination was seen as “counter-revolutionary” and as an anarchist attack on national figures, in several major areas of France including the three largest provincial cities of Lyons, Marseilles and Bordeaux. The extensive problems that the Republic already faced were increased by a new civil war which raged between these Federalist centres and national forces (Andress, 2003: 4). France had declared war on all the major powers of western and central Europe by March 1793, as well as on the nation’s minor neighbours, seeing them all as allies of the emigrants or emigres. To fight the extensive war new forms of compulsory enrolment into the Army were introduced. In north-western France, this triggered off civil war in the region known as Vendee, where the rural population had opposed the Revolution ever since the first actions against the Church in 1790. The Vendean Revolt used up large numbers of men and a great amount of resources, with increasing brutalization of the conflict which was further exacerbated with the addition of the Federalist struggle (Andress, 2003: 4). In September 1793, the Convention and its sans-culottes allies resorted to a formal declaration of the Terror against the Republic’s enemies, which lasted for over ten months. The Terror was basically a mobilization for war, acquiring manpower and materials for the creation of a million-strong Army, though it was poorly equipped and with inadequate supplies. Force and threat were used to recruit the rural population. Civil wars continued to rage, large-scale massacres and epidemic diseases resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The Terror, was to a great extent believed to be rooted in treachery and betrayal with continued insecurity and fear that the war was not going as it should be. Extensive killings continued, with the execution of the Girondins, execution of factions surrounding important sans-culottes leaders and batches of prisoners accused of conspiracy (Andress, 2003: 4). Black (2003: 358) states in his review article that besides the cruelties and injustices of the Terror that Sutherland has described in his book, the phenomenon of dechristianization that was carried out was the face of the Terror for ordinary people, and it was the most difficult to avoid. To end the Terror, and for their own survival, the majority of the public ensured that the leader Robespierre was executed along with his supporters, on charges of dictatorial ambition on 27th July, 1794. Politics in France became more liberal, and by 1795 the Convention completed a new Constitution for a stable, liberal system. The monarch was replaced by an executive Directory of five men, and a two-chamber legislature prevented the dicatorship of a faction. However, there was continued bitter fighting between the unrepentant radicals with counter-revolutionaries and royalists. The government was reduced to a series of coups to prevent a relapse into civil war. At the end of 1799, General Napoleon Bonaparte who was installed as the first Consul by yet another coup, was considered as the only way out of the conflict and carnage (Andress, 2003: 5). Thus it is seen that the development of a more radical form of politics after the failure of the constitutional monarchy, resulted in the unleashing of a situation of Terror for several years, which ultimately came to an end with the appointment of Bonaparte. References Andress, D. 2003. The French Revolution, 1789-1795. University of Portsmouth. Available at: http://www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter1/interviews/filetodownload,18259,en.pdf Black, J. 2003. The French Revolution and empire: the quest for a civic order. Review article of Sutherland, D.M.G. 2003. France 1789-1815. Revolution and Counterrevolution. Oxford: Blackwell. In Journal of European Studies, 33 (3-4): 358-360. Doyle, W. 1999. Origins of the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dwyer, P.G. & McPhee, P. 2002. The French Revolution and Napoleon: a source book. London: Routledge. Hanson, P.R. 2004. Historical dictionary of the French Revolution. United Kingdom: Scarecrow Press. Kates, G. 1989. From liberalism to radicalism: Tom Paine’s Rights of Man. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1989: 569-587. Lefebvre, G. 1988. Coming of the French Revolution. The United States of America: Princeton University Press. Lewis, G. 1993. The French Revolution: rethinking the debate. London: Routledge. Rude, G. 1994. The French Revolution: its causes, its history and its legacy after 200 years. Great Britain: Grove Press. Scurr, R. 2004. Pierre-Louis Roederer and the debate on forms of government in revolutionary France. Political Studies, 52: 251-268. Simpson, W. 2000. Europe, 1783-1914. Glasgow: Routledge. Stone, B. 2002. Re-interpreting the French Revolution: a global historical perspective. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Vovelle, M. 1984. The fall of the French monarchy, 1787-1792. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Read More