StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Right now, I am studying the French Revolution (again). I wonder if any of you can help me with a questions.


1. I understand WHY the revolution began due to the nature of feudalism relics, inequality of the Estates General, and the economic collapse of France.

2. What I do not get, however, is:

A. What happened to the National Assembly? My book makes it out to be so significant. It states that it fought the other two estates tooth and nail to become separate and establish a new constitution and its base as the official government of the French Constitutional Monarchy. When it won, however, it seems like all of the sudden, according to my book, that the National Assembly "poof" disappeared and was replaced by the Legislative assembly and a castrated King.

B. After all the trouble of creating the a new constituion and the Declaration of the Rights of Man...I does not seem like anything changed economically and politically. THe wealthy "nobility" still seemed in charge! So what the hell was the pont of drafting that constitution, overthrowing the Estates General, and making a Declaration of Rights similiar to the American version and Enlightenment ideas.

C. Then I am thinking that a counterrevolution took place which overthrew the Legislative assembly and created a more Radical movement started by the Jacobins in Paris. As a result, the NEW government under the National Convention replaced the legislative assembly which had previously replaced the National Assembly!?!? Still, not my changed immediately because the entirety of France was not under the control of this new National Convention; as well, the French were under attacks from all corners of Europe in an attempt by foreign nations to restablish the Old Regime. It seems to me, however, that the Old Regime never really left....it just changed forms into what they called the Republic. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! French are messed up.

I do think it is funny, however, that the nations of Europe, especially the Dutch Republic and England were trying to fight against liberty, prosperity, and the general will of the people to establish again the Old System. It seems like they, who already had their own republican revolutions in the 17th century were trying to enforce monarchial control....but England didn't like MOnarchies!

A) It dissolved itself. It was only meant to be a temporary gov't body, like the Continental Congress.

B) The Declaration of the Rights of Man favored land-owners, like nobles, IIRC.

C) They just made a new body so it'd seem like things were being done.

The word "republic" does not automatically mean the government is made up of the people's representatives. The English loved a monarch as long as there were nobles to check his power.

I think it is ironic that after all the Republican forces fought for, the government Directory established by the new legistlature in 1795-6 eventually ended up in 1799 falling to the Saviour of the Republic, Emperor Napoleon.

The government ended up being more autocratic than the monarchy of Louis XVI

Except Napoleon always knew that his power stemmed from the people and he did a better job of providing for them.

It was still far more autocratic and not the Republic they had in mind. Continued war, depravity, and economic ruin combined with a monarchy they just fought to get rid of hardly seems like it was beneficial.

But didn't Napleon commision the codifying of the law of France; Napoleonic Code? Based on the ideals of the Revolution, wasn't this a big development and perhaps Napoleon's true legacy to Europe?

Whenever I read over the evetns that follwoed the revolution and on deep into the next centruy, it seems like just such a nasty time. The government kept falling or being overthrown. And it seems like they wen through almost every form of government in those years.

It is too bad it couldn't go more like with England, ending in a constiutional monarch. But perhaps the French would disagree.

Phil Skayhan wrote:But didn't Napleon commision the codifying of the law of France; Napoleonic Code? Based on the ideals of the Revolution, wasn't this a big development and perhaps Napoleon's true legacy to Europe?

Yes, but the man was still an absolute ruler of France and a dominator of Europe for a short time. It proved critical later on in combination with nationalism created in the wake of Napoleon's invasion, but I don't think he followed his own legal code to the letter.

As for the British, remember that at this time the House of Lords is still quite powerful, and the House of Commons is controlled by the wealthy landed gentry- so England, although more democratic than Europe except France before Napoleon, is extremely conservative.

StarshipTitanic wrote:
B) The Declaration of the Rights of Man favored land-owners, like nobles, IIRC.

The right to property was considered very important philosophically at the time. "Pursuit of Happiness" in the U.S. constitution is actually "Pursuit of Property" modified from Locke; the change has caused numerous developments in the history of the U.S., maybe for the good and maybe for the bad, but was critical. However in the early part of the Republic it was definitely interpeted as "Life, Liberty, and Property", and in the case of the French it was the same. The right of Property was considered very important.

The problem was that this preserved the peasantry in a very poor position. In the USA and even in the UK there were strong landholding classes; essentially, yeomanry. Freeholding farmers. Such a class was really not developed in France and so the peasantry was still tied to the land that was possessed by the big landowners.

What France really needed was Land Redistribution, or the confiscation of large estates with fixed recompense and the parcelling out of those estates to the peasantry. It didn't happen and so the government remained trapped in the clothes of the ancien regime, paving the way for the radicalism to follow.

I know. It seemed like they were going good in theory, but not reality. THe First constitutional monarchy was a flop economically and socially and the problems remained that first caused the revolution.

The second Republican attempted failed somewhat in the hands of the National Convention and the Comittee of Public saftey. Their constitution was all good on paper, but not in reality. As you said, a lot of the former "nobility" still had a large amount of power, and power just shifted from the hands of the 1' st and second Estates into the hands of the wealthy Burgeoise.

The inherent inequity as well as the Reign of Terror I think shows that the ideas of the englightenment were put into effect on paper, but not reality untill some time later. (Declaration of the Rights of man and the citizen, natural rights (life, liberty, fraturnity, property).

When Napoleon came in, he acted very much like the Roman Emperor Agustus. He pretended he was one with the government and a man of the people, when he really was nothing but a usurper of the throne who relished having so much power. I think he even called himself First Consul, the same position held by Agustus before he became emperor.

Sure, he made some achievements and codified some law which resembled what was going on during the revolution, but it wasn't long lasting or serious. A dictator who gains power through conflict and war has to maintain it through conflict and war. He was good in some respects, but he was a far cry from what the people expected. In reality, she ended up screwing the nation similiar to Hilter.