Afternoon historians, this goes out to Happison Vundla who wants to know about presenting work in the exam: PRESENTING YOUR ESSAY: Let us remember the basic rules of writing essays and follow these for example: (1) A short introduction highlighting key issues to be discussed and make your position on the question clear e.g. The American War of Independence contributed to a great extent to the outbreak of the French Revolution, or Peasant Grievances were only a minor issue in the factors leading to the French Revolution. (2) Topic sentences in other words the first sentence of each paragraph should contain your argument or main idea e.g. The American War of Independence was a highly important economic cause of the French Revolution by draining the treasury and increasing government borrowing. (3) As a general rule, the rest of the paragraph should provide evidence for the argument raised in the topic sentence. There should not be any different arguments or new ideas. Reserve those for other paragraph. So it should be One paragraph, One Idea. (4) Length of the essay is not important. You may have been told 4 pages or even 6 will do but the truth is that length is not the most important issue for your success. What is far more significant is how much information you present, how many valid arguments you make. So a candidate who offers ten valid arguments in 2 pages will score more than the one who offers 5 such arguments in 5 pages. Therefore keep your sentences as short and clear as possible, avoid big words that would have the examiner reaching out for a dictionary. (5) Familiarise yourself with key words/phrases used in the topic. In the French revolution, such words/phrases include Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Moderate, Radical, Bourgeoisie, Peasant, Third Estate, Sans Culottes etc. (6) Answer the question that has been asked by the examiner and avoid the tendency to re-fashion the question into the one you were hoping to be asked. For example the question may read “HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION?” instead of the one you had crammed which reads “TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE?” Some cunning students will immediately write: “The American War of Independence was not as important a factor when compared to the character of Louis XVI.” Thereafter the student will just discuss the character of Louis XVI instead of the American War which happens to be the focus of the question. Let us examine both questions: HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION? When answering this question you may find that you know so much more about how other factors contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution that you want to write about those instead of the AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE that has been asked. Avoid that temptation and focus on what you have been asked to do. Only after you have exhausted the issue can you then go on to discuss your favourite other factors like: (1) Character of Louis XVI. (2) Character of Nobles and clergy. (3) Poor harvest of 1788. (4) Political grievances of Third Estate. (5) Influence of the philosophers, (6) Economic grievances of the Third Estate (7) Financial bankruptcy. (8) Social grievances of The Third Estate. Even if you find this challenging there are at least three ways (which means at least three paragraphs) in which you can look at the American War as a cause and this is because you were able to define the French Revolution. According to your definition of the French Revolution you highlighted three main aspects that are Political Change, Economic Change and Social Change. Political changes must have political causes, social changes, social causes and economic changes, economic causes. This approach will enable you to discuss the American war as a political cause, economic cause and social cause. So there is indeed a lot to write even though that is not the question you were hoping for. Introduction: Revolution broke out in France in 1789 and various reasons were cited including the influence of the American War of Independence to which France had contributed soldiers and money to help defeat Britain in 1783. As this essay shall show, the American war was a highly important cause because it had political, economic and social implications for the Revolution which was a political, economic and social phenomenon. This essay shall also discuss other factors to demonstrate that the Revolution was not the end-product of just the American War of Independence and a single issue no matter how important, can not be more important than other factors combined. The American War of Independence was a highly significant social cause of the French revolution because it helped to sharpen the social grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who participated in that war were exposed to new American ideas about social justice and equality of all before the law. It became a paradox that they were fighting to help the Americans achieve social rights they did not enjoy back home. The France they lived in was one which was characterized by social injustices and inequalities. While the upper classes enjoyed social privileges like freedom from forced labour, from arbitrary imprisonment without trial, the Third Estate were angered by forced labour, arbitrary arrests, a heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths registration, subjection of peasants to nobles through rents and feudal dues. After that war, demands for social equality became louder in France. The American War of Independence was a highly significant political cause of the French revolution because it helped to sharpen the political grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who had participated in the American war of Independence in 1783 were influenced by American political ideas of democracy, accountability of leaders and participation for all citizens. It was an irony that they were in America helping the Americans’ fight to achieve a political dispensation that did not exist in France. What France had was an absolute monarchical system in which the absolute king chose to share his power with a small class of nobles while the rest of the people including the educated bourgeoisie suffered from political exclusion. The American war of Independence helped produce political grievances of the Third Estate which included demands for an end to their exclusion from political participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over ‘Divine Right of Kings, the absolute power and lack of accountability to the nation. They were also angered by the church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power. The American War of Independence was also a highly significant economic cause of the French revolution because it helped to precipitate the financial bankruptcy that led to Revolution in 1789. It is widely acknowledged that the revolution owed so much to the economic crisis that was partly inspired by the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like the American War of Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis which he tried to solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure or mode of operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a further political and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution. The American War was therefore very significant because the financial crisis it helped to produce led Louis XVI into convening the ill-fated Estates-General whose disagreements led directly to the Revolution. So serious had the financial crisis become that Louis XVI did what no French king had done in 175 years when he convened the Estates-General. At this point you have the chance to discuss your other factors including the one you crammed about Louis XVI’s character or the influence of the philosophes. Also note that you should try and compare these other factors with the American war to decide which was more significant. Here is an example. The Revolution owed so much to the contribution of philosophes such that even without the American war, French people had already been exposed to these new political and social ideas as taught by Rousseau and Montesquieu. Rousseau was one of those who rejected the monarchy’s claims about the divine source of political power and argued that people in any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of all people in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising power in their interests. Montesquieu also made his contribution by teaching about the separation of powers, thus implying that there must be a constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy. So in 1789, the Third Estate revolted against Louis XVI and began the French Revolution. Even if the American war contributed it is worth noting that such political and social ideas had already become known in France through the philosophes. The poor harvests of 1788 also played their part in contributing to revolution. The Third estate particularly the peasants and workers who already suffered under heavy tax burdens, arbitrary arrests, forced labour and a host of other socio-economic ills could not bear the strain of high food prices and hunger brought on by the bad harvests. Not only did they engage in wholesale acts of violence especially against the noble land-owners but they organized a march from Paris to Versailles comprising mostly of women, in one of the famous efforts of the revolution in 1789. This was an act which was governed less by political and social ideologies as it was an instinctive reaction fuelled by the desire to survive. Even the financial crisis was not the singular product of France’s costly involvement in the American War of Independence as it was the outcome of various shortcomings including extravagance elsewhere and the refusal to adopt more prudent economic reforms. While it is true that France was bankrupt in 1789, this was not just because of French involvement in the American War as there were other structural economic weaknesses; the most important being an inequitable taxation system where the wealthy first and second estates were exempted from paying most of the taxes while the Third estate including poor peasants had to pay. Louis XVI and his reform minded ministers including Calonne had realised this and attempted to get the nobles and clergy to pay more only to meet fierce resistance. The structural economic deficiencies were worsened by the extravagance of the Monarchy amid reports that Louis XVI spent 1/12 of all government revenue on luxuries that included entertainment for the court nobles and over a thousand pairs of shoes for Queen Marie Antoinette’s wardrobe. In conclusion the American War of independence has been shown to be hugely important as it was a political, economic and social cause of the French Revolution. However, it has been shown that a single issue no matter how significant was not more important than the sum total of factors that included the poor harvests, contribution of the philosophes and the structural weaknesses of the French economic system. All in all, the American war was less important as a cause than the combination of the different political and socio-economic factors. TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE? Introduction: In 1789, France’s Third Estate (bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) refused to continue being part of the Estates-General and chose to defy Louis XVI by re-constituting themselves as the National Assembly. They gave themselves the political right to act and speak on behalf of the nation and thereafter set in motion a chain of events in 1789 which saw the undermining and destruction of the long existing political, economic and social order dominated by an absolute King, the Church and the nobles. That crisis of 1789 also known as the French Revolution was largely the result of Louis XVI’s character including his incompetence, indecision, extravagance and spinelessness when confronted by difficult situations. This essay will discuss these aspects of Louis XVI in detail as well as other factors in order to show that although his character played the major part, there were other important factors to the crisis of 1789. Indecision, procrastination and prevarication were major faults in Louis XVI’s character which contributed in a big way to the crisis of 1789. Louis xvi took his time in making a decision over the procedure to be followed by the Estates –General .When he eventually decided that they should sit separately and vote in blocs, this angered the Third Estate into open rebellion. Louis xvi apparently lacked the capacity to make a decision and stick to it, for example, he ordered the Estates to deliberate separately only to backtrack and order the first and second estates join the third estate in their National Assembly after the Third Estate had defied him. The crisis of 1789 owed so much to the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI spent 1/12 of the total government revenue on luxuries and entertainment for the nobles at the expensively built palace of Versailles. Some historians have claimed that Louis XVI’s queen Marie Antoinette had more than one a thousand pairs of shoes meaning that she had the luxury of changing shoes everyday for more than a decade. Louis XVI also wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like the American War of Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis which he tried to solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure or mode of operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a political and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution. Louis XVI’s spinelessness or cowardly nature also contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789. Historians generally agree that Louis xvi was a well-meaning King who saw the need for political, economic and social reforms to improve the well-being of the French as a whole. Even though he saw the need for the abolition of some of the social and economic privileges of the church and nobles, he lacked the courage and decisiveness to force the two estates to give them up. He appointed reform-minded ministers such as Necker Turgot and Calonne who all demanded that the nobility and clergy assume a greater share of the tax burden to improve France’s financial situation. But he was too much of a coward to resist the two estates that simply refused to give up their privileges, pay more taxes and simply demanded that Louis XVI fire the ministers. Louis XVI was also guilty of short-sight and poor Judgment which all contributed in a big way to the crisis of 1789. He was so determined on humiliating the old enemy Britain to the point that he sent troops to assist their rebellious American subjects in their fight for independence. Not only did the French involvement in the American war of independence cost France and worsen its financial crisis, it also produced a political consciousness among its soldiers of democratic ideas and civil rights which led to the demands for the same being made upon his government. Participating in America was therefore a political, economic and social mistake. Louis XVI made other errors of judgment when he decided on a separate sitting and the bloc voting procedure for the Estate-General which gave the Nobles and Clergy a two to one voting advantage over the Third Estate. This was a mistake that sparked the revolt of the Third Estate and ultimately the French Revolution. Having noted all this, it would however be inaccurate to ascribe the crisis of 1789 solely to the character of Louis XVI as there were other important contributing factors. The philosophes and the American war of Independence were both highly important in generating new ideas about political and social equality which threatened the very basis of Louis XVI’s power along with that of the First and Second estates who had always been allies of the monarchy. Philosophers like Rousseau and Montesquieu advocated for political participation by all sections of society, accountability of the monarchy and an end to absolution through the separation of executive, judicial and legislative functions of government. French soldiers who had participated in the American war of Independence in 1783 were influenced by American political ideas of democracy, accountability of leaders and political participation for all citizens. The sum total of the philosophes and American war of Independence was that they produced political grievances of the Third Estate which Louis XVI could not satisfy without destroying the foundations of his own power. The Third Estate now demanded an end to their exclusion from political participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over ‘Divine Right of Kings’, the absolute power of Kings and lack of accountability to the nation as a whole. They were also angered by the church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power. The crisis of 1789 therefore stemmed from the Third Estate’s demands for political and social rights which Louis XVI could not grant without destroying his own power. The crisis of 1789 was also the product of the social grievances of the Third Estate which had nothing to do with Louis XVIs character faults and could not be addressed without undermining Louis XVI’s own position and that of the nobles and clergy that had always been allies of the monarchy. The Third Estate were angered by so many issues including forced labour, arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, a heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths, marriages registration, subjection of peasants to nobles through rents, feudal dues. So much has been said of nobles and clergy’s stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly over political power, exemption to taxation, forced labour and feudal dues. It has also been said that they were very selfish in demanding the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. While it is also true that they also displayed poor judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in 1787 and arrogance in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates General, this was all because they sought to protect their own interests. It was this desire to protect their own interests against the determination of the Third Estate to gain social and political rights which produced the crisis of 1789. It must also be noted that the crisis of 1789 was the result of poor harvest of 1788 and a financial crisis which had its roots in monarchical spending before Louis XVI’s ascension to the French throne. The poor harvests in 1788 were a general European phenomenon that caused hardships through food shortages and high prices for many Europeans not just France. The financial crisis can also be traced back to the extravagance of previous Bourbon kings in France including Louis XIV who had constructed the magnificent but costly palace of Versailles and involved France in costly wars against fellow European countries. It was unfortunate for Louis XVI that he had had to deal with the impact of such factors leading to the resultant crisis of 1789. In conclusion, Louis XVI contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789 but there were other ancillary factors as demonstrated above. While it the political, economic and social issues had been building in France over time, they only produced a crisis in 1789 because of Louis XVI’s short-sightedness, ineptitude as well as cowardice when confronted by tough choices such as dealing with nobles and clergy’s refusal to make concessions.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015