The best way to study the course of the French Revolution is to consider each revolutionary government as an entity. A wholesale coverage of the ten-year period, apart from confusing, might leave out some very important aspects of the period. Candidates are expected to undertake an in-depth study of each revolutionary government, analyzing the achievements and indeed the failures of each revolutionary government. The four revolutionary governments include the National Assembly (1789 – 1791), the Legislative Assembly (1791 – 1792), the National Convention (1792 – 1794) and finally the Directory (1795 – 1799).
Events leading to the formation of the National Assembly:
The economic crisis caused by the poor harvests of 1788 – 1789 led to the May riots in the provinces. Although there had been little bloodshed in the May riots of 1788, the situation in the provinces had clearly got out of hand. The king sent troops under General De Vaux to bring order to the provinces. General De Vaux found that public opinion was unanimous on two demands:- the abolition of the Letres de catchet, and the calling of the Estate General to solve the financial problems and other issues. Louis XVI gave way to pressure. He recalled the popular Necker as controller – general of finance, and ruled that the Estates – General should meet at Versailles in May 1789.
Two issues became central in this meeting of the Estates General, which had last met in 1614. These were:- the preparation of the lists of grievances (cahiers) by the three estates for discussion when the Estate General met, and the issue of voting procedure.
The cahiers were a good indication of the grievances and proposals of the various estates in 1789. On the one hand there was a surprising amount of unanimity between the three estates. All were in favour of retaining a hereditary monarchy, disapproved of royal and ministerial despotism, and desired a constitution which would guarantee the rights of the individual. This would mean a constitutional monarchy, in which the king would act as an executive officer. The cahiers requested that the constitution and new legislation be in the hands of the Estate – General, which should meet periodically. On the other hand, the cahiers of the clergy and the nobility showed that the privileged classes were only prepared to relinquish their tax privileges under certain conditions, and that they had not yet agreed to accept social and political equality with the third estate. The third estate, however insisted on equality. Although they all demanded legal reform, it was the third estate which went the furthest: they wanted ready access to the courts for everyone, simplification of court procedure, abolition of the sale of judicial posts, appointment of judges for life, the replacement of fees by salaries and the abolition of manorial courts. The third estate also demanded religious freedom, a decrease in the tithes, and even the state control of the church. There were also large differences in approach to the agrarian system. Where the nobility and church wanted to see all feudal privileges retained, the third estate demanded the abolition of all these irritating measures. In summary, it can be said that the Revolution was, above all, a struggle for equal rights.
The parliament of Paris, at the registration of the edict summoning the Estates – General, had set the condition that the assembly was to take place like the previous one in 1614, namely that the estates were to deliberate separately and vote according to estate. This would ensure the continued majority of the two privileged estates, rendering any drastic reforms impossible. In this, the parliament failed to appreciate the social and economic development which the bourgeoisie and even the masses had undergone in the previous 150 years. Thus the decision to summon the Estates General precipitated heated discussion about the manner in which the three estates should be represented. The higher clergy, and the majority of the nobility, maintaining the social privileges of the ancien regime, welcomed the proposal that the representatives of the different estates should meet and vote separately as in 1614. The bourgeoisie, also called the “patriots” or “nationals” and led by people like Lafayette, Mirabeau, Talleyrand, Condocet, and Abbe Sieyes, demanded double representation for the third estate. In other words, as many representatives as the other two estates put together, joint sessions and voting by head instead of by estate.
Altogether, 1201 members were elected to the Estates – General: 308 Clergy, 285 members of the nobility and 621 of the third estate. These were the circumstances under which the final opening of the Estates – General took place on 5 May 1789. Without any firm guidance from the government, the assembly was immediately embroiled in the issue of procedure. Necker – after a long speech, proposed that voting according to estate should provisionally be retained. The third estate insisted on voting by head, jointly. This would be advantageous to them because their members were more numerous than the other two estates put together. Voting by estate, separately would advantage the first and second estates, who would always win by 2 votes to 1, given the fact that the two estates always voted for the same thing against the third estate. The nobility and the clergy, however, went away to meet on their own, and therefore enchanted a policy of no compromise.
When all efforts to persuade the privileged estates to accept their point of view had failed, the representatives of the third estate (i.e the bourgeoisie) decided to assume full powers. After some parish priests had joined them, they decided on the 12th June, 1789, by 489 votes against 89 to call themselves the National Assembly. This was the first time that the monarchy’s order had been defied so directly. This event effectively signaled the beginning of the revolution in France.
Disconcerted by the events, Louis XVI approved Necker’s proposal that a royal session be held on the 23rd of June to reach a compromise. The assembly hall of the National Assembly had to be spruced up for the occasion. With the characteristic lack of consideration shown on numerous occasions to the third estate, no formal notice was given of the closing of the hall. When the members of the National Assembly arrived on the 20th of June, they found the hall locked. Their immediate fear was that Louis was planning to dissolve the National Assembly. Acting on the proposal of Dr Guillotin, they adjourned to a nearby building which was used as a tennis court, and there took a solemn oath never to dissolve until they had provided France with a constitution. This was a show of solidarity on the part of the National Assembly.
Louis XVI – failed to appreciate that the situation in France was irreversible. His insistence on voting separately, as estates is clear evidence of a man who did not want to part with tradition. His failure to read the situation correctly was likely to prove fatal in the future. Events in France were intensifying by the day and the situation had become uncontrollable.
The king’s dismissal of the popular Necker on the 11th of July 1789 was a grave mistake. The news of his dismissal sparked riots in Paris. The police force was not equal to the task, and the French National Guard fraternized with the people. The mob plundered shops, broke open jails, and finally stormed the Bastille, a notorious prison, and a symbol of tyranny, on the 14th of July and obtained arms. So far the Revolution had not been characterized by any bloodshed. It was during the storming of the Bastille that the first blood flowed. News of the fall of the Bastille intensified rioting in the rural areas.
The news of the fall of the Bastille spread through France and intensified activity among the peasantry. The event itself took place on 14 July 1789 and had far-reaching results and marked a turning point in the course of the Revolution in France. It meant that real power had passed from the king to the elected representatives of the people. Louis had to share his power with the new National Assembly. He was no longer in a position to dictate to the assembly, because he could not rely upon the army. As a matter of fact, Lafayette became the commander of the predominantly bourgeois National Guard. Moreover, the Assembly, which had on 09 July 1789, taken the name of the constituent assembly was prepared to draw up a constitution for France and they felt, no longer, the threat of being dissolved by the king.
Important to note too was the fact that the storming of the Bastille led to the emigration of some of the Nobles who were led by the King’s brother Comte d Artois. These numbered around 20 000 émigrés who fled abroad in two months. Their flight abroad was directly linked with counter revolutionary activities which unfolded after 1790. It could thus be argued that the storming of the Bastille marked the violent phase of the French Revolution and the economic, social and political dispossession of the king and the nobility in France.
Candidates are expected to identify and explain the achievements/successes and failures of each revolutionary government in France. The various political forces at work during each revolutionary government also need to be discussed. Some of the achievements included the abolition of feudalism, the civil constitution of the Clergy, the constitution of 1791, the declaration of the Rights of Man, just to mention a few.
In the dramatic session of the 4th of August, one member after another of the nobility and of the higher clergy rose to voluntarily renounce his feudal rights. It was, quite obvious, a decisive moment in the Revolution. Serfdom, tithes, the corvee, the exclusive hunting and fishing rights were all abolished, with or without compensation.
-The principle of equal taxation was announced, the sale of judicial and municipal offices prohibited and all citizens without discrimination had access to all offices.
-A number of members of the nobility and the court circle, who feared for their lives, went into exile. They were the first of the émigrés, to be followed later by many more in the course of the Revolution. They were to form an émigré army of 20 000 men across the Rhine with the aim of restoring the king to his former powers.
On the 26th of August 1789, the foundation for a new government was laid by the approval of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The first clause begins with the words: “Men one born free and remain free and equal in their rights.” In essence this summarized the achievements of the revolution to date. The rest of the declaration is merely an extension of this statement. It laid down fundamental principles such as social equality, sovereignty of the people, civic freedom, sovereignty, freedom of the press, equality of taxation and the division of powers.
The royal courts, including the parliament were abolished. A new system of regional authority began to take shape in an attempt to break down deep provincialism and to obtain uniformity; the Assembly did away with the old provinces and divided the whole country into eighty – three “departments” of more or less equal size. Each department was subdivided into districts and cantons, which in turn included communes or municipalities. A new system of local government was also introduced. Elected councils in the communes, districts and departments replaced the intendants and provincial assemblies of the estates.
The ecclesiastical measures of the National Assembly were indicative of the dismantling of traditional authority which characterized the revolutionary period. The August decrees abolished tithes payable to the church without compensation. To ward off bankruptcy, the Assembly shortly afterwards seized church property and issued paper money (assignats) to serve as security. The following measures were passed by the Civil Constitution: First the old number of 135 bishops was decreased to 83 corresponding to the new departments. Second, priests and bishops would henceforth be elected, which meant that the non-Roman Catholics and apostates would be able to vote. Third, the clergy became paid state officials; fourth: the ties between the French bishops and the pope of before 1789 were broken by forbidding the clergy (and the rest of the French people) to recognize the authority of the pope. Fifth, all clergy had to take an oath of loyalty to the new constitution.
The new measures had far-reaching consequences. Not only was it rejected by the Pope Pius VI, but more than half the clergy (most of the bishops and the majority of parish priests) refused to take the oath. These were called the non-juring priests or refractory clergy. Those who took the oath were known as the juring priests. No other measure did the cause of the revolution as much harm as this. France was torn apart, and the counter-revolution gained popular support. Gershey quite rightly says “The fires of religious fanaticism were lighted, as from each side came increasing violence and persecution”.
The measures against the church roused the king to action. He had signed the Civic Constitution of the Clergy with a heavy heart. The break with Rome was highly inconsistent with his religious convictions. He began to think of placing the fate of the French monarchy in the balance by leaving Paris, where he had been brought from Versailles, through the famous March of the Women of 5 October 1789. From some city on the border, he would be able to appeal for help from foreign rulers (absolute monarchs) to stem the revolutionary tide in France. Ignoring the advice of Mirabeau, (who died in 1791) and once again listening to his wife, in June a dramatic escape attempt to reach Metz near the eastern borders failed when the royal family was recognized and arrested at Varennes.
The flight of the royal family can be seen as a turning point in the revolution for the following reasons:
1. Firstly, it revealed Louis’s attitude towards the revolution. It was clear that he was an unwilling collaborator in the matter of reforms.
2. It brought republicanism into full force:- in the National Assembly a number of republicans demanded that the king be dethroned, but the majority was still in favour of monarchical government.
3. European monarchies – Austria and Prussia in particular realized afresh that they would have to show solidarity in opposing the new revolutionary order.
The constitution of 1791 was approved by the assembly on 3 September 1791 and by Louis XVI, eleven days later. In its terms, France became a constitutional monarchy. In other words, the king was bound by a constitution which had been compiled by representatives of the people.
An important principle was the separation of the Legislative, executive and judicial powers, as advocated by Montesquieu. This differed totally from the position in the ancient regime, which had united all three powers in the absolute monarchy.
Legislative power was in the hands of the legislative Assembly, which was to consist of 745 members. Only “active citizens” had the vote, that is to say, male landowners of 25 years and older, whose annual taxes were equal to three days wages. More than 4 000 000 people qualified for enfranchisement, and about 3 000 000 were excluded because they did not qualify since they were “passive citizens”. The legislative Assembly would be elected for two years, and the king could also not nominate a deputy as minister. The king’s participation in Legislation was limited to the “suspensive veto”, in other words, he could only delay legislation but not prevent it. This veto was not in force for fiscal and constitutional measures.
The king was the head of the executive authority, but his powers were strictly limited. The reason was the fear that he might reinstate the ancient regime should he have sufficient powers. Now he was unable to introduce legislation and could not conclude treaties or declare war without the consent of the legislative Assembly. He had no judicial powers, and could not appoint judges. He had no control over local authorities, and there were no longer agents in the provinces like the intendants who represented the monarch’s authority.
Administration of justice was to be independent of both the executive and the legislative authorities. The hodge – podge of royal, administrative, ecclesiastic, feudal and manorial courts which bedeviled justice to such an extent, was abolished. Procedure was simplified and made uniform for the whole country. Judicial officers who had previously bought their offices were replaced by elected ones. Judges were elected for only six years and received relatively low salaries, which made it difficult for them to ignore the pressures of public opinion. Administration of justice would be free, and all citizens, irrespective of their religious or social status would be equal before the law.
Thus the National Assembly concluded its activities in September 1791 in great disfavour. The people as a whole were not satisfied. The lowest classes were becoming mistrustful of the attitude and policies of the bourgeoisie, and the radical Jacobins were determined to take the revolution further. At the other side of the spectrum, the counterrevolutionaries, the clergy, the nobility and the émigrés abroad, were waiting for their opportunity to restore the ancient regime with the help of foreign rulers.
Political Parties in the modern sense were non-existent in the National Assembly, but the deputies soon showed a tendency towards separating into groups. They sat in a semi-circle around the chairman, and so the concept of “left”, “centre” and “right”, originated to indicate political groupings. The advocates of the ancient regime took their places at the extreme right. These were the court nobility, the nobility of the robe and the higher clergy. They had extensive contacts with the counter-revolutionaries inside and outside France. In the centre to the right sat those members of the nobility who sympathized with the reform movement, but who thought that the Revolution had gone too far. They wanted a constitution modelled on that of England.
At the left centre, were such outspoken reformers such as Mirabeau, who desired reforms of the absolute social order, but simultaneously wanted to retain strong royal authority. They called themselves the ‘patriots’, and formed the majority in the National Assembly. Directly to their left the outspoken revolutionaries took their places, those who wanted to construct a constitution on democratic principles. At the far left wing there was a group of radicals, people such as Robespiere, who strove for a total social and political revolution on the principles of Rousseau’s theories.
i) Describe the stages by which the challenge to the power of the Monarchy increased in 1789.
ii) To what extent was the role of Louis XVI the main factor shaping the course of events between 1789 and 1792?
This was the second revolutionary government. It was the first government elected under the new constitution; its deputies were mainly men of little political or administrative experience. The major focus on this government was on the various groups which influenced the course of events, the 1792 war, the abolition of the monarchy and the formation of the First French Republic.
Of the 745 members of the new legislative assembly 264 were Feuillants, or rightists who were in favour of a constitutional monarchy, although not necessarily of the existing constitution. They had no strong leaders. The left wing in the Assembly consisted of only 136 members, the Jacobins and the Girondins. The Girondins were from the department of Gironde. They were also known as Brissotins, after their leader, Brissot. They wanted the constitution of the Revolution and the deposition of the king. The large majority of members 345 sat in the centre, and had no definite political convictions. Outside the Assembly were the radical Jacobins led by Robespierre.
.Within a few weeks of the first session, the Assembly paid attention to the elements postering a counter-revolution. These were the non-juring priests in La Vandee and the Bastille émigrés in the Netherlands and the Rhine territories. As the legislative Assembly regarded them as the most dangerous enemies of the constitution, two decrees were proclaimed in 1791, one ordering the émigrés back to France by the 1st January 1792 or face the pain of death. The other was depriving all priests who refused to take the oath of allegiance of their office and emoluments. When the king vetoed both decrees, tension between the legislative and the executive almost reached breaking point. Louis’s veto, in fact benefited the radicals, as the supporters of the constitution suspected him of collusion with the enemies of the Revolution.
This was the war between France and the Allied powers of Austria and Prussia. This war was to rage on for the next twenty years. Candidates are expected to determine why France went to war with the Allied powers, and the effects of that war on France.
While the revolutionary changes in France rumbled on, international politics also took its course by 1791, some European countries had became anxious about the events in France. France was subtly threatening the monarchs of other powers by its abolition of feudalism and the institution of a constitutional monarchy. The king, Louis XVI’s flight to the eastern border of France, his suspension and subsequent imprisonment, gave rise to thoughts of information among the threatened monarchs. This led to rapprochement between the absolute monarchs of Prussia and Austria, who eventually fought France.
Marie Antoinette was a sister to Leopold II of Austria. Antoinette appealed to her brother, Leopold II to intervene in France and reinstate her husband. Therefore, Leopold II was under pressure because of the safety of his sister, to intervene in France.
According to this declaration, done jointly by Austria and Prussia, the restoration of the monarchy in France was a matter of common interest to all the monarchs of Europe. The declaration of Pillnitz was a gesture rather than a serious threat, and the restoration of Louis XVI to his throne, once he had approved the constitution in September 1791, provisionally ruled out any reason for intervention. The language of Pillnitz was, however, provocative, and the émigrés continued to foment war.
In France, too, a strong mood of war was fast developing. As a result of the deteriorating economic conditions, there was a spirit of restlessness in the country which could easily be turned into a desire for war. The feuillants led by Lafayette were in favour of war because they hoped that a short and glorious campaign would restore the prestige of the king in the eyes of the people. The leftists were divided. The Girondins were in favour of war, not only because it would win all classes for the revolution and bring their true attitude to light, but because their large shipping and trade interest would benefit. The Jacobins were opposed to war because they feared that a long exhaustive war would in case of defeat, destroy the fruits of the revolution. Louis XVI himself was in favour of war as he expected France to be defeated and hence – the restoration of the monarchy.
In March 1792, Leopold II died. His successor, the youthful Francis I was rather inclined towards a military adventure. In this policy, he was supported by the veteran imperial chancellor,Von Kannitz. Francis rejected the demand of the French government that he revoke his alliance with Prussia. This resulted in war.
The French army of only 130 000 men entered the war totally unprepared, and as a result suffered heavy casualties. Discipline was extremely slack, military equipment was poor and the economy was not prepared for war conditions. Many volunteres joined the French army for patriotic reasons and without adequate military training.
Early military reverses immediately exerted an influence on the political state of France. Suspicion of the Royal family and Marie Antoinette, in particular, rose to new heights. In Paris, it was rumoured that an Austrian committee was working from the Tuileries. This endangered the Royal family.
Instead of discouraging the French, this actually did the opposite. The war led to more unity of the French people in defence of the gains of the Revolution. It is important to note that the legislative Assembly was able, at a heavy cost in human lives, to defend the gains of the revolution.
The last event preceding the fall of the monarchy was the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick, commander in chief of the Austrio-Prussian forces. The manifesto declared that the allies were calling on France to suppress anarchy and restore the king – Louis XVI to his rightful position of authority, and that any members of the National Guard who resisted would be shot and their homes demolished. The Manifesto also stated that if the Tuileries were to be stormed again or the slightest harm befalls the royal family, revenge would be taken on Paris. It seemed to confirm the suspicion that the émigrés and foreign rulers were secretly working hand in glove with counter-revolutionary groups within France.
1) Increased violence, especially in the capital Paris –
This threatened the security of the Royal family who sought shelter in the legislative Assembly.
2) The rise of the Revolutionary Commune in Paris –
The municipal administration of the city of Paris was taken over by the representatives of the 48 sections into which Paris had been divided in the middle of 1790. They called themselves the Revolutionary Commune. The Sansculottes, that is action groups from the lowest classes of the petit bourgeoisie such as craftsmen, shopkeepers and industrial workers, joined the Revolutionary commune. Although a republic had not yet been officially proclaimed, (but defacto), it already existed.
The legislative Assembly had lost control of the situation. Leadership now rested in the hands of the Paris Revolutionary city council or Commune. It now controlled the police and the National Guard. A provincial government was chosen in which Danton played the leading role. The Council provisionally maintained the Legislative Assembly, but forced it to keep the king suspended and confined until such time that the National Convention, elected on the basis of universal suffrage, could draw up a new constitution.
These were caused by the rumours that Verdun was surrounded and that the enemy cavalry was on its way to the capital. Panic seized the city, and new volunteers were hurriedly recruited. Jails were stormed and the suspects were indiscriminately murdered on 2 September 1792. Various provincial cities followed the example of Paris. In the course of four days some 1200 victims died.
The September massacres had far-reaching results. The events strongly influenced the election of delegates to the National Convention. Thus atmosphere of violence caused the Monarchists and moderates to stay away from voting. In fact only 10% of the qualified voters registered their votes. This ensured a thoroughly republican convention and the election of extreme revolutionaries such as Marat, Danton and Robespierre. With one exception, all 24 members for Paris were Jacobins, while the Girondins found most of their support in the rural areas.
Sadza is a simple, hearty dish that forms the backbone of many Zimbabwean meals. It's…
Caesar Salad A classic Caesar salad is a simple yet flavorful dish with crisp romaine…
Zimsec and Cambridge past exam papers free download pdfs on eduzim
Zimsec and Cambridge past exam papers free download pdfs on eduzim
Zimsec and Cambridge past exam papers free download pdfs on eduzim
Pacific – A Level Physics – Convection and Radiation pdf download
