Why Did France Have a Revolution in 1789 - Essay Example

Why did France have a Revolution in 1789? Student Name: Student Number: Course Code: Instructor: 12th May, 2013 Revolutions are a means through which certain groups try to gain power through unconventional ways that may not often fit the description of democracy. A considerable number of times, they do succeed. In countries with poor constitutional frameworks, certain groups of people may have grievances which the constitution or their leadership may not address in time. In others, well, the leadership may just be overthrown due to internal power struggles within the political class, military or respective authorities tasked with the running of countries. Revolutions may take place through demonstrations, wars and many other forms of civil strife. Unlike the frequent belief that revolutions are always accompanied with blood-letting, some take place without much as the lifting of a sword against an opponent. The recent Arab Uprisings are examples of bloody revolutions as told by Chesshyre (2013) Digital History (2013) records a poor distribution of America’s wealth as having been among the reasons the American Revolution took place. In looking at such a reason, we find the simple causes as the lack of basic needs among mostly minority groups, which are the most sensitive lot in this respect, little or no democracy akin to despotic leadership and many other forms of skewed distribution of resources which encourage inequality. In countries where opposition leaders lead revolution, the cause of such revolution is more often than not lack of true leadership or excesses which the opposition may not have been able to check using developed frameworks entrenched in respective constitutions. In some instances, however, revolutions take place, not as a result of the ills that afflict the people of those particular countries or societies, but because the idea seems noble. The recent Arab uprisings may be an example here as alluded to by Gelvin (2012). Davis (2010) singles out Somali as one of the many examples of countries where chaotic leadership among other ills are not actually responsible for the revolutions therein. He further alludes to the fact that the reason behind this may be the inaccuracies in former revolts within those countries, which did not exactly yield the expected results, but instead led to the festering of more ills that came in more severe forms. Claphan (1985) corroborates the aforementioned fact by citing further that civilian apathy is responsible for this disorder. The revolution that took place in France in the year 1789 was, like many revolutions, caused by myriad factors. The biggest factor that caused the revolution in 1789 was actually political. This took various forms that will be explained at length. Apart from the usual political blunders, other reasons were like poor leadership, lack of basic needs, deteriorating economy, frequent squabbles between the haves and the have-nots and so on. In essence, the revolution arose from factors that may be divided into two – the social and the political. McPhee (2002) partially recognizes both factors as having played the biggest part in creating an unstoppable revolution that lasted a long while. He however goes on to reiterate the fact that the revolution of 1789 was actually an accumulation and breaking point of various struggles as seen in the many wars that took place before the revolution. There are various accounts of the periods within which the revolution may have lasted. Some short, others long. Historical records show different periods like 1789 – 1792, 1789 – 1799, 1789 – 1814/ 15. As a matter of fact, and when looked at keenly, the revolution came in phases. This forms the basis for most sources citing different periods. Therefore, the struggle to overcome different aspects of misrule happened in different phases and in different fashions within the time frame that lasted nearly three decades. For instance, it is actually correct to cite 1789 – 1815 as the period within which most phases of the revolution took place. For instance, 1792 – 1792 is cited as the period when the people rose against the political authority. Kreis (2004) notes military revolution also took shape in the same period. The second phase, which took place roughly within 1792 – 95, was a stage when the military-like revolution took place. Nationalism took centre-stage as the people formed military outfits to fight against an aristocratic phenomenon that was fast spreading across much of Europe. The aristocratic section of the populace wanted to take over and run the political leadership in much of Europe due to the benefits that came with it – many among them were not keen on following regulations like tax remission. Political causes of the revolution were quite broad. As a result, a few will be looked at. The political class in France adopted an aloof stance as concerns the masses’ plight. To make it worse, the masses that lived below the poverty line made for a large part of the population. In this regard, the detachment between the political class led by King Louis and his band of rich minders never actually knew what befell their subjects in their day-to-day life. This was so rampant that when the scarcity of bread persisted, it is on record that one of the princesses may have been baffled by the people’s frequent need for bread that she posed, “If the people cannot afford bread, why don’t they have cake instead?” This is one of the best examples of statements that to date marks the extent of apathy that the monarchy and aristocrats had towards the have-nots. Heller (2009) lists it as among the factors that tilted the scale in favour of a violent uprising. McPhee (2012) also points out to the bourgeois as a lot that wanted to be treated differently. He contends that that in addition to not wanting to pay taxes like the ordinary citizens, they also wanted to be treated like royalty, complete with influence that was hitherto only accorded to the political class. Mignet (2004) further isolates the bourgeois as having been a little too eccentric in posing situations that only served to pin the poor down than help them. The ever rising population of Frenchmen who had flooded the cities of Paris and Lyon in search of jobs were vexed by such actions. To add insult to injury, the King asked for a rise in the amounts levied to the population so he could fund his luxurious lifestyles. This fast-tracked the need for a revolt and the people took to the streets in protest. On top of an already rising national debt, the king wanted the people to part with more tax so that he could live more comfortably. Alison (1841) appreciated the fact that the divides might have been agitating for the betterment of their lives while in essence, they were both in disregard of the established rule of law. While the rich wanted to avoid paying tax, the poor resorted to using unorthodox means in agitating for their rights. History has it that much of the violent resistance to change was fostered by France’s lending of a hand to America when the latter needed to fight off the Britons to gain their own independence. As a matter of fact, stories of success in America’s endeavours served to increase the French people’s hope in better governance. Miller (2011) places the speeches from American leaders as points of revolutionary imagination within Frenchmen. These speeches heightened political ambitions among the military leaders, who thought that if America had succeeded through the sword, then they might as well do so. In the period preceding 1789, the military had much indifference towards civilian strife within the French borders. However, Schwab (1995) singles out political influence as being responsible for this. During the initial stages of the people’s demonstrations in the cities, the military paid them no mind. Later on, this would change substantially as the political class thought that the military stood a better chance at calming the now too persistent and swarming crowds. However, just as they were deployed to hold Paris under siege from its periphery, the civilians thought to turn against them which brought about a period of blood-letting. While several key figures who led the revolution were beheaded, the King’s minders thought the siege wasn’t fruitful as it only led to more acts of desperation from the crowds. In effect, the military posted outside of Paris were withdrawn. Crowdy (2012) opines that this military turned out to hold the best infantry that could outdo most outfits in the larger Europe. Then onwards, Abbott (1859) describes the situation as moving from bad to worse. The country became so ungovernable that the forces that were seen as revolutionary could not stand the tide of expectations from the masses. A perpetual dethroning of each one of them happened until a hitherto unknown officer in the name of Napoleon arose among the ranks of the army. His word was his bond and as is wont with such revolutionary leaders, he managed to wipe the street of protestors. Heidrich (1989) decries Napoleon’s use of brute force through fire power, but he did the unimaginable work of stopping the violent demonstrations. Szajkowski (1970) brings out a sectarian approach to the revolution when he mentions that Jews may also have been victims in various struggles in the French wars and revolutions. Such claims have always received lukewarm responses from many quarters, but he insists that the Jews too bore the brunt of the French people who thought that they were a little too aggressive for their liking. This aside, Blanc (1848) tries to relate the French struggle for independence as a result of a general paradigm shift in the way not only France, but the whole of Europe was governed. In as much as the French may have been ahead of their peers at that time, the signs of time point to the eighteenth century as a period when most of the then civilised nations as having had the knack to change their leadership. In that period, most European nations sought to shift from monarchies and patriarchal societies to more defined leadership. LLC books (2010) shows a clear pattern where most European countries were clamouring for better leadership. On the other hand, Mancell & Lee (2008) cite Industrial Revolution as having been the reason behind such a frenzy of revolutions. Jowett & Arnold (1890) seem to agree with this factor. The leadership that graced the political class in most of these countries did not seem ready for Industrial Revolutions as they had not placed the Agrarian Revolution as important. Be as it may, this made them the least prepared lot for political revolutions. Thompson (1999) exclaims at the irresponsibility displayed by those tasked with leading their countries to the Agrarian and Industrial revolutions, which were the only solutions to the rising problems that were being experienced then. These revolutions – Agrarian and Industrial – would be responsible for a better France. But how would this be when capitalism had taken root in the form of sectarian interests of the bourgeois? Brandel (1982) considers the rise of aristocracy in both the French and English leadership as responsible for agitation for rights. This cannot be gainsaid as a possible factor that was responsible for a huge part of the civilian struggle. Klaits et al (2002) are apprehensive when looking at the French Revolution as a pioneer of worldwide revolutions. Halliday (1999), however, is of the opinion that most of the other continents got an idea of how to go about revolutions the French style. In this regard, Napoleon is recognized worldwide as among the greatest leaders of revolutions. In conclusion, revolutions result from poor leadership that is unresponsive to the plight of the people. US Naval History Division (1972) places the military as one of the likely quarters where bloody revolutions arise from. This has happened in most countries. The biggest factors that lead to revolutions are social and political factors. The case of the French Revolution of 1789 is typical of a pre-civilization period in most countries. Most of the leaders of the French revolution are still held in high esteem despite their unorthodox means to gain power from their opponents. References Alison, A 1841, History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789 to the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, New World Press: New York. Blanc, L 1848, History of the French Revolution of 1879, Vol. 1, Lea and Blanchard. Brandel, F 1982, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th – 18th Century, University of California Press. Chesshyre, T 2013, A Tourist in the Arab Spring, Bradt Abbott, JSC 1859, The French Revolution of 1789, As seen in the Light of…, Berkeley. Travel Guides. Claphan, C 1985, Third World Politics: An Introduction, Wisconsin. Crowdy, T 2012, French Revolutionary Infantry, 1789 – 1802, Osprey Publishing. Davis, E 2010, Why do Revolutions Occur?, Southwestern, Georgetown, Texas, viewed 13th May, 2013, Digital History 2013, Why did the American Revolution take Place?, viewed 13th May, 2013, Gelvin, JL 2012, The Arab Uprisings: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press. Halliday, T 1999, Facing the Public: Portraiture in the Aftermath of the French Revolution. Cambridge University Press. Heidrich, J 1989, The French Revolution of 1789: Its Impact on Latin America, Asia, and Africa, University of Wisconsin – Madison. Heller, H 2009, The Bourgeois Revolution in France: 1789 – 1815, Berghahn Books. Jowett, B & Arnold, T 1890, Lectures on the Industrial Revolutions of the 18th Century in England: Popular Addresses, Notes and Other Fragments, Longmans, Green and Company, Inc. Klaits, J, Mike, HH & Michael, H, 2002, Global Ramifications of the French Revolutions, Cambridge University Press. LLC Books 2010, Revolutions by Time Period 18th Century Revolutions, 19th Century Revolutions, 20th Century Revolutions, French Revolution, Paris Commune, General LLC Books. Mancell, PC & Lee, JG, 2008, Industrial Revolutions: People and Perspectives, ABC CLIO. McPhee, P 2002, The French Revolution, 1789 – 1799, Oxford University. McPhee, P 2012, A Companion to the French Revolution, Wiley Publishers. Mignet, AF 2004, “History of the French Revolution from 1789 – 1814”, Vol. 1, Hunt and Clarke: London. Miller, MA 2011, A Natural History of Revolution: Violence and Nature in the French Revolution Imagination, 1789 – 1794, Cornell University Press. Schwab, GM & John, RJ 1995, The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact, Greenwood Publishing Group. Szajkowski, Z 1970, Jews and the French Revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848, KTAV Publishing House, Inc. Thompson, P 1999, Rum Punch Revolution, University of Pennsylvania Press. US Naval History Division 1972, The American Revolution, 1775 – 1783, Supt. Of Docs., US Govt. Read More