Causes of the French Revolution - Essay Example

_____________ ID: _________ ID: _________ French Revolution: Causes The historical significance of French Revolution has lead many of the French as well as non French philosophers and historiographers to think in versatile dimensions rather than to conclude one way. As Doyle discusses Lefebvre belief about the revolution and says, "1789 was the moment when this class took power in France, after several centuries of growing numbers and wealth". (Doyle, 1999, p. 5) Doyle's 'this class' obviously points towards the emergence of bourgeois, particularly in the scenario when they were raised by the Kings of France. However others believe that it was mainly due to the inefficient feudal system of the then French politicians and government while others believe that this revolution was the outcome of the unnecessary rise of Bourgeois political system in which they supported class privileges in the context of political economy, which increased poverty and encouraged economical instability in the 18th century. Let us discuss those grounds that are mainly responsible for the happening of French Revolution. Political Causes Feudalism Under the shadow of this dilemmatic political concern, French feudal lords proved to be a focus of attention by limiting the power and freedom of a common man. Although, the Lords were a principal target of rural insurrection; they remained on centre stage in the National Assembly's dramatic renunciation of privilege of 1789 thereby forming a continual bone of contention between rural communities who found the early enactments of the legislators to be thoroughly inadequate along with legislators facing continuing rural turbulence; therefore they were an essential element in the revolutionaries' notions of the "feudal regime" being dismantled; they were the concrete subject matter addressed in the first legislation that tested the tensions inherent in the thorny constitutional issue of a royal veto (and they thereby contributed to the difficulty of embodying the Revolution in some monarchical form); they were invoked in the rhetoric with which those in high places addressed the growing international tension surrounding the revolutionary state, a rhetoric which imbued the revolutionaries with a self-righteous sense of a national mission to liberate the victims of feudalism outside of France, altering the character of European warfare. (Markoff, 1996, p. 3) The best example is the involvement of British and German governments in this concern of revolution. One of the main reasons for the revolution is the authority practiced by Lords which let arrears accumulate on periodic dues for years, then demand that peasants pay up, and accept a land-for-debt swap; under retrait, a lord had the optional right to substitute himself for the purchaser of peasant land; and lords might hold or fabricate a claim on a portion of common land. Many seigniorial rights could thus be put at the service of landholders oriented to a growing agricultural market, to such an extent that some historians have wondered whether peasant contestation might not be better described as a losing, rear-guard struggle against a growing capitalism than a vanguard battle against a dying feudalism in conjunction' with the victorious bourgeoisie. (Markoff, 1996, p. 77) Another factor that leads one to think as the cause of revolution was the corruption of the Lords and noble people, who were not liable to any of the (heavy or normal) taxation system implemented by the government, for being an authoritative privileged class. The dilemma lied within their perception according to which they were not answerable to any official in case of denial of any rule. Financial Downfall Right from Louis XIV to Louis XVI, all the noble personnel enjoyed undue privileges and advantages particularly in the financial matters. These include: 1. Lack of financial accountability in response to government questions, and they never use to bother about it. 2. They had access to government loans with the right to acquire large amount from Government debt. 3. They enjoyed nobility privileges due to which they never feel liable to pay taxes. 4. They possessed private properties without the concern of being legal or illegal. 5. Prior to French Revolution, the country was engaged in 'Seven Years War' and 'American Revolution', due to which it was financially in a feeble condition to indulge in any other war. Despite of conducting every possible effort to raise taxes in the monarchy, the main participants King Louis XIV and Louis XVI, united the three classes i.e., clergy, nobles and commons (first, second and third class) to help the economy through joint efforts, but it was against the esteem of the nobles to involve in any financial matters regarding taxes. Bourgeois were the only people who came out to help but it was too late to console the bankrupt economy. Bankruptcy The financial administration had been thoroughly overhauled, it still had the vices inherent in all despotic systems, and since the treasury accounts were never audited or published, some of the worst practices of the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV still prevailed. Moreover, the very efforts of the government to increase national prosperity, the relief's it distributed, constantly imposed new burdens on the budget with which incoming revenue did not keep pace. Thus Louis XVI was involved in financial difficulties even worse than those of his predecessors. Like them he persistently kept his creditors waiting, like them he borrowed money right and left, without publicity and without stint, and his creditors were never sure of being paid the interest due on loans; indeed, even their capital was always at the mercy of the monarch's good will. All these consequences of spending lead France towards bankruptcy. Socio-economic Causes and Consequences From causes till consequences, the French revolution of socioeconomics is explicable in the same terms as that of political issues. Bourgeois played a vital role in the dramatic seizure of socioeconomic power in this revolutionary situation by contributing towards the structural economic change in French society. The economical conditions of France at that time were too much shattered to determine everything that happened. In the first place, so far as the country regions were concerned, where the farmer-merchant had only too little to sell, the small quantities at his disposal prevented him from profiting from the rise in price. The price only served as temptation, moreover, when he brought his harvest to market in late September or November. Nor did the high prices of 1789 generally benefit him. His revenue declined. The price of meat was low, but urban consumption was reduced to such an extent that the income of the farmer declined. The grape harvest of 1788 was unquestionably mediocre but prices were very much higher. Profit from the harvest year 1788-1789 declined very little. But the winegrower was, however, a purchaser of bread and although he held his own, or very nearly, as a producer, he found his position as a consumer very much worsened in 1789 because of the drastic seasonal rise in prices. The crisis thus struck all the important sectors of agricultural production, the farmer-merchant, as well as the operators of farming enterprises that had rather extended themselves in order to have at their disposal a saleable surplus. Both of these were relatively worse off in spite of high prices after having deducted the necessary amounts to feed their families, to pay their dues in kind, and in the case of the grain grower, the amount needed for seed. The situation of the vast peasant proletariat was even worse. The seller of his labor appears to have been even more unfavorably situated than the seller of wheat, meat, or wine. Periodic unemployment increased while production decreased. There was less wheat to be harvested and, above all, less wheat to be threshed, as well as fewer grapes to be gathered for wine. (Ralph, 1958, p. 68) And apart from the harvesting and sowing, French economy was going through a high inflation rate unsuitable for the lower class survival and existence. On the other end of the increased economic disaster, the prices of grain did not stop rising. Goods rural market also went closed. There was also a bad impact upon manufacturing and building sector. Deprived of its agricultural clientele, textiles weakened. The manufacturer knew only too well by the second half of 1788 the fate, which the prevailing conditions had in store for him. The manufacturer was aware of these situations (Ralph, 1958, p. 68), which became an ultimate challenge for him, but obviously he had no choice other than to sustain in such circumstances. The rise in the price of bread affected the artisan and the wageworker of the towns no less than the producer and day laborer of the country, and like the rural clientele and for the same reasons urban consumers were lacking. Profits fell abruptly along with the worsening of Industrial unemployment at large scale. In the last quarter of 1788 the gravity of the situation surpassed all expectations. The national production of cloth collapsed. In 1789 it amounted to no more than half of the figure for 1787. Unemployment became a catastrophe, employment falling like production at least 50%. Wage rates themselves fell, being more flexible in industry than in agriculture. Building, for its part, languished as a result of both the agricultural and industrial crisis, which had reduced the available funds of the landed proprietors as well as causing the insolvency of other buyers whether they were employers or wage earners. (Ralph, 1958, p. 68) The sale of church properties was no more successful financially in Spain than in France. The income from the disentail went down the maelstrom of the war against Britain, subsidies for Napoleon, and the relief of natural disasters: famine, earthquakes, and floods. Disentail of church properties made enemies of a goodly share of the clergy, who denounced his luxurious living style as the cause of the fiscal crisis, however fantastic such an accusation might be. (Richard et al) One can think of those grounds which involved being enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer limitations in the objects of choice. But whatever kings might have been here or elsewhere a thousand years ago, or in whatever manner the ruling dynasties of England or France may have begun, the king of Great Britain was fixed by a rule of succession according to the laws of his country; and whilst the legal conditions of the compact of sovereignty performed by him. Such rules were not followed at the revolutionary era due to which the entire state suffered individually or collectively. Britain considerations into French revolution took her into an electoral college, when they felt that things were not going to ripe and give effect to their according to their advice on several matters regarding economical and political infrastructure. His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in his time and order, came to the crown with the same contempt of their choice with which his Majesty succeeded to that he used to wear. Whatever may be the success of evasion in explaining away the gross error of fact, which supposes that his Majesty (though he holds it in concurrence with the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing evaded their full explicit declaration concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose; which right is directly maintained and tenaciously adhered to. (Burke, 1993, p. 17) The people distributed into classes and races were unable to cope up with the hunger and poverty along with the limitation of freedom. Historians have their own reasons for blaming France in this context. Most of them believe that the development of the royal entourage also went beyond the control of the government and one of the most serious charges against the then Kings were that despite providing them with the financial reports, fiscal policies and the predictions of initiating the fiscal collapse of the monarchy by creating paper notes, they were unable to react to the fiscal policies and ignored such concerns. Although they were relaxed and discounted by the officials during that war, these vales reales, as they were called, soon recovered their credit and were quoted at or above par until Spain entered the war against France in 1793. The expenses of that war forced the crown to issue more vales reales, and they were again traded at a discount. Confidence in them fell even more after Spain switched sides and declared war on Great Britain in 1796. The British navy all but sealed off trade with Spain's colonial empire, and the vales reales fell to as low as one-quarter of their face value against hard currency. (Schwab & Jeanneney, 1995, p. 223) To meet this threat to the monarchy the king's counselors were well aware that a fiscal collapse had brought on the French troubles, but Carlos IV decreed the disentail (the sale) of large portions of ecclesiastical property the endowments for religious funds and charitable institutions and services and the use of the proceeds to pay off the vales reales. (Schwab & Jeanneney, 1995, p. 223) The impacts of the French Resolution were severe and harsh with respect to the social and political concerns for the nineteenth century, which brought a political gap in terms of freedom and liberty for the future generations to swallow the fact and accept. Works Cited & Bibliography Burke Edmund, (1993) "Reflections on the Revolution in France": Oxford University Press. Place of Publication: Oxford, England. Doyle William, (1999) "Origins of the French Revolution": Oxford University Press: Oxford. Markoff John, (1996) "The Abolition of Feudalism: Peasants, Lords, and Legislators in the French Revolution": Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA. Ralph W, Greenlaw (1958) "The Economic Origins of the French Revolution: Poverty or Prosperity" D. C. Heath: Boston. Richard Herr & Harold T. Parker (1965) "Good, Evil, and Spain's Rising against Napoleon" in Ideas in History, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press. Schwab M, Gail & Jeanneney R, John, (1995) "The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact": Greenwood Press: Westport, CT. Read More