French Revolution Final

Question #1 - B Rick Quintero May 12, 2008 History 312

The Crimson Thread If we are still to find things to celebrate and marvel at in European history, we should certainly let our gazes linger on the Age of the Enlightenment, of the French Revolution, and of Napoleon. But we should not belittle what they destroyed. (Bell pg317)

Dr. David A. Bell provides a rollercoaster of dips and turns through the years encompassing the Old Regime, the Enlightenment, the Constitutional Monarchy, National Convention, the Directory, the Consulate, Napoleon’s mercurial rise to grace along with his Empire, and finally ending with Napoleon’s fall. With his book, ‘The First Total War’, Bell begins a deliberate and methodical walk to demonstrate how total rejection of the Old Regime and zealotry for liberty brought about the genesis and blooming of total war. Total war; where the military began to be seen as a separate and morally superior entity coupled with the rise of naked militarism. Total war; where a nations economic, political and population are mobilized to support the efforts of conquest. Total war would bring about a corrosive ideology where the death of its’ enemy was the only solution to war. Finally; the Crimson Thread that links the Vendee to the Terror, to Moscow, to Spain’s Calabria where the enemy was seen as barbaric and unworthy of life or mercy. Bell reflects that without keeping some residue of the past where honor, virtue, and order were paramount and placing war in a category where kings fought kings and not people against people. The path taken by the men and women 1

of 1789 may have turned out very differently if only they would have hesitated to quietly reflect on the deeds and actions to obtain a republic, freedom, and removal of the abusive past. Edmond Burke invited the French to look to their neighbors in Britain where the melding of both monarchy and democracy held cautious hands. Burke wrote, ‘ The science of government being therefore so practical in itself, and intended for such practical purposes, a matter which requires experience and even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life’. (Reader:Burke pg441).

Bell lies in the camp with Immanuel Kant, where he ‘Insisted that no state should treat another as an ‘unjust enemy’ against which it might wage a ‘war of extermination’. Such a war would allow perpetual peace only upon the graveyard of the whole human race. It should be ‘wholly forbidden’. (Bell Pg77).

The forces that defined and kept people stranded by order and rank within estates were like earthquakes awaiting the slightest disruption to begin a sequence of events that world history, as never seen, would rearrange how nations would war against nations. The Battle of Valmy stands as a white, hot light that shines as a flashpoint showing how the new world order would institute the beginnings, implementation, and perfection of Total War that would come to exist outside the shadows of the toppled Old Regime. September 20, 1792 a battle raged in the small French village of Valmy where Prussian General Brunswick; leader of forces superior in every way, led a disciplined army composed of seasoned professional soldiers. Goethe would later describe the battlefield at Valmy as; ’a new era of world history begins here.’ (Popkin pg 71) Brunswick had decided that if the day did not 2

return the offices of success, he would retreat and return to hostilities in the coming spring. The idea was not to lose any of his valued commodities in the form of expensive soldiers and would execute a ‘cautious withdrawal.’ (Bell pg136) The action of not engaging this ragtag, hastily assembled volunteer French army; defines the eroding status of the Old Regime and the quickly changing canvas of war. The Old Regime would stand in columns and await a similarly stationed opponent and let the best man win, but at Valmy an unseen maneuver would appear – a new technological tactic where cannons and artillery would set back hundreds of yards and inflict incredible damage with limited loss of life for the victor. This new method of carnage would reinvent war and give Total War a new child to raise as its’ own. Dumouriez would bring a new face to the military - a general unconcerned with the orders or wishes of his commanders in Paris. He would make field decisions without their input and fight a new arrangement of engagement between combatants – an engagement that saw, ‘rapid movement and decisive clashes linked to an acceptance of massive political risks.’ (Bell pg136). By pairing the new technology of cannon and artillery with new laser like tactical maneuvers executed on the battle field – the Old Regime saw its death. As Brunswick and his dysentery riddled army stood rigid on the field of honor, the new Total War general would move like a scythe through wheat, over their dead bodies. Brunswick, by being a relic of the Old Regime, squandered his opportunity to remove the French General Dumouriez and defeat the French. 3

If French General Kellerman had not returned to assist Dumouriez, Brunswick would enter an unprotected Paris. But fortune shines on Dumouriez, the new son of Total War; Brunswick retreats to a safe tent, and here he exemplifies all that is aristocratic. These men of the Old Regime; wearing a cloak emblazoned with honor and virtue, they believe that war is a, ‘test of a person’s very essence, his moral qualities, and intentions. It was not a question of self control but of self expression’. (Bell 140) War was an activity to be cherished, respected, and honored where civility, manners, protocol, and conflict was a, ‘test of self…..it involved skill, precision, and elegance – it was a test of a person’s very essence’. (Bell pg140). This explains to a point why Brunswick, facing certain defeat, would be able to reconcile any shame or disgust due to being outmaneuvered by Dumouriez. Bell offers up Brunswick as the archetypical case in point of everything that represents the Old Regime and how he follows Loyseaus’ ‘Treatise no Orders’. Loyseau informs that there must be order in all things, ‘inanimate creatures are all placed according to their high or low degree of perfection: their times and seasons are certain, their properties are regulated, their effects assured.’ (Mason – Rizzo pg16) The role of nobility is to defend the state and that to hold this station only gentleman could be eligible. He is ordained by birth, where nobility is derived from ‘the ancient law and arrangement of the state…which exceeds the memory of man.’ (Mason and Rizzo pg19) Brunswick would be a man of virtue and never engage in an activity where profit was the sole gain. He would be asked by King Fredrick 4

William to defend the state and he would gladly assemble an army, and perform his required duty. This man was everything the Old Regime had represented for centuries, and in 8 hours his kind would vanish. The men who represented the aristocratic model would soon be pushed aside in favor of the men who, like General Dumouriez, would wear the breastplate of Total War. This battle at Valmy had multiple men of royalty that witnessed the fall of the world where king’s and nobility trumped the needs and desires of the Third Estate At this moment these men became spectators to a future where ordinary men and women felt that they should have a voice in their daily lives. If King Louis XVI could be overthrown, were they next? Would their vassals, peasants and merchants become the next Sans- Culottes, Jacobins, or National Assembly? Would centuries of rule anchored by monarchy and the Catholic church come down on them in an avalanche of revolution? They saw the future and understood that they must fight or perish as did Louis XVI. These questions would be answered by 23 years of intensive warfare and upheaval of the European continent. Most historians have seen the Battle of Valmy and subsequent Battle of the Vendee as events, ‘that changed the character of the Revolution. The war created the move toward radicalism.’ (Popkin pg72). This victory gave the newly formed National Assembly and those radicals who had 18 days earlier emptied the prisons and executed 1,400 mostly innocent prisoners, a sense of ordination for their republic. This Battle of Valmy legitimized the new direction the Revolution had taken – one where absolute loyalty to the new order would not tolerate 5

detractors and the original ideals of the 1789 Revolution would be set aside and a , ’second revolution’ …would not be seen as a mass movement.’ (Popkin pg72) but where small, highly politicized groups wrangled for power and control. This new vision of Total War led to the death of King Louis XVI, the launch of The Terror, and a final and complete break from the past. Dr. Bell has written this book as an oracle sounding a sad, repeated warning to all nations that believe that war is the regenerative, cleansing lotion that will move a nation and world towards permanent global peace. The parallels are clear of then and now - Dr. Bell’s position is the following: ‘But as I have argued in these pages, the idea of such an absolute break is false. For all the impact of twentieth-century wars, there are still continuities. Echoes. Threads. The changes that took place in Napoleon’s Europe still have a surprisingly critical bearing on the world in which we live, above all in the idea of war as exceptional, as something apart from and at odds with the ordinary course of modern life, whether horrifically or sublimely so. The threads stretch out from Europe, moreover, and today grip the United States as strongly – perhaps even more strongly – than they do the old continent itself.’ (Bell pg314) Part II Question B

What You Don’t Know About the French Revolution! First, allow me to say good morning to all of you and say what a pleasure it is to be standing in front of you. I was asked to provide a short, but brief lecture concerning a specific period of the French Revolution that most people – or citizens – are fairly unfamiliar with and since I wrote a book on the years concerning the Old Regime and their influence on the events leading up to and including 1787-1789 – these years are identified - ready as ‘The Enlightenment’ – and my book is called, ‘Boo Hoo - You Thought 6

You Had Problems – The Life and Times of Marie Antoinette Losing Her Head Over a Guy Named Louie!’ (loud applause of recognition from the class). I remember having a class with Dr. Accampo who was so advanced in years, we use to giggle like small schoolgirls and remark that she was older than most glaciers. But…..She had a real hunger and desire for the French Revolution. And that is how I came to love the Revolution and become enraptured with those periods. I stand before you because of her – and only her! So here begins my lecture – no pencils – no laptops – I just want you to listen and I will begin with the years prior to 1787. ‘The social pact establishes equality among citizens in that they all pledge themselves under the same conditions and must all enjoy the same rights. Hence by the nature of the compact, every act of sovereignty, that is every authentic act of the general will, binds or favours all the citizens equally, so that the sovereign recognizes only the whole body of the nation and makes no distinction between any of the members who compose.’ (Rousseau pg76)

Why would this passage, first published in 1762, play such a prominent role in the language of Rousseau’s’ ‘Social Contract’ where the paramount concern dealt with the relationships between the citizen and the sovereign, the citizen and the nation, and the citizen and law? These 3 roles - citizen to – sovereign – nation – law would impact what occurred during the first three years of the French Revolution and see these ideals quickly morph into polar opposites of their original intent. To get a better understanding of the Old Regime, I need to setup with a quick review of how four Old Regime events that brought change prior to 1787. The first major, ‘weakness that did the most to precipitate the Revolution was the monarchy’s inability to balance its income and its’ expenses.’ (Popkin pg 3) This was due to the costly support 7

of assisting the Americans in their revolution which practically bankrupt France. They had to bankroll the United States because they were secretly planning to invade Britain after the revolution. Second, the idea that the monarchy was some type of absolute power is false, even though he had last say on major legislation he was, ’obligated to rule according to laws and customs that had accumulated over the ages.’ (Popkin pg 2) The third was something all of you are familiar with – TAXES – King Louis needed to raise money quickly and went through multiple Ministers of Finance who valiantly attempted to implement tax programs that landed with marginal or disasters results. Though it should be noted, ‘that most peasants were better off than their ancestors under Louis XIV.’ (Popkin pg22) The trip wire is in the details if you were a noble, you had the option and ability to opt out of paying the customary, age old taxes. Poor Louis XVI could not create NEW taxes unless the Parliament and judges approved. Why would you raise taxes on yourself? The King would have ‘tax farmers’ who would go out and collect monies from the group that could least afford them – the peasants. So little money made its’ way to the King. The other connected issue was that these tax farmers would allocate large amounts of taxes to their own pockets. A fact often overlooked was the fourth, and possibly the single, crucial domino to fall prior to 1787, is the advent of increase activity concerning reforms. King Louis XVI, by allowing reforms to even be discussed, let the proverbial cat out of the bag. To implement reforms meant that the Kings’ ministers had to criticize programs in order to bring about change. An example would be the 8

effort to suppress working guilds because the guilds had the power of who is allowed to work in various trades and they could set prices for the sale of goods. If you criticize the current economic, societal, government issues you run the risk of criticizing the very people who owe their livelihood to these programs. The Rich – the Nobles – The aristocracy. King Louis XVI was not the greatest king ever; he loved to hunt, read, write, and study the stars. Ruling was a chore and he just couldn’t make a decision! As we leave the Old Regime and enter the Enlightenment, we see France broke, the monarchy was relatively inept, taxes on the poor, merchant guilds were restricted, and the aristocracy threatened by the talk of reforms. Throw these into a boiling cauldron and you have the makings of a first rate Revolution. Before we leave I would like to quote Alexis de Tocqueville who described this period before 1787, ‘the most perilous moment for a bad government is one when it seeks to mend its’ way.’ (Popkin pg 8) Due to my limited time I will select 2 events during the 17881789 years that came to symbolize the Revolution. They were directly influenced by the Old Regime. If enough money could have been raised through taxes, Louis had a willingness to have a hands-on approach to ruling as did his predecessors, along with the suppression of reforms, we can only guess if the events of 1789 could have occurred. No one moment is more important than the other, nor carries more weight. They are just a few examples of what occurred.

9

Its late fall 1788 and the Treasury is empty still, Louis XVI sees that his provinces (Dauphine) around the country are beginning to rebel, and his only option was to assemble a legislative body called the Estates-General which had not met since 1614. But first he would like to hear from his subjects in the form a document called a ‘Cahiers de Doleances’, where Louis would ask for a list of grievances prior to the meeting of the Estates-General to get some input into why his monarchy is experiencing so many problems. What he found was that the problem differed by class within estate. Those who worked in the fields loved Louis and would gladly pay any tax he asked, but only wanted to eliminate the additional tax that came from the nobles who they worked for or had to pay tolls when traveling. While those living in cities, the grievances were anchored around the recognition of the third estate. One man – one vote and limit the power of the nobility. Again this shows the danger, as expressed by the aristocracy, by letting people have a say in the management of their lives and those who govern is dangerous. Once the grievances were received, the Estates-General would experience an agenda that would turn the country upside down. They finally gather within three separate chambers representing each of the three estates: clergy (1st), nobility (2nd), and finally the commoners (3rd). The inequality was that the 3rd estate made up the majority of the country, but had the smallest voice in the legislation. The abbe Sieyes would boldly scream in a pamphlet during the fall 1788, ‘What is the Third Estate? EVERYTHING! What has it been until now in the political order? NOTHING! What does it want to 10

become? SOMETHING! (Popkin pg51). These words laid the foundation for the Revolution, where the commoner whose voice had never been heard, was suddenly at the top of everyone’s list. The nobles and aristocracy felt intimidated because if the Third Estate gained the majority in the new Estates-General, imagine the havoc they could cause. Their fear would later be realized by the Terror and Robespierre. October 5-6, 1789 Women – yes hundreds of women lead a march to Versailles to confront the King and Marie Antoinette the foreign Queen. Accompanying the women was none other than Lafayette leading the National Guard. He was not in league with these women, but rather wanted to ensure his men would not mutiny. Why is this important – the commoner – especially women no longer would await for the new National Assembly or the weak monarchy to solve their problems. The Women of Cherit better explain their purpose, ‘The National Assembly coming to understand that the women

were absolutely committed to persist until there was something definite for always, accorded to our twelve deputies (1) a new prohibition against exporting grain; (2) the promise that a tax of 24 livres would be levied on wheat, an honest price so that there can be enough bread, and bread at a price within reach of even the least comfortable citizens; (3) that meat would cost no more than the livre.’ (Mason – Rizzo pg 85-86

This march shows the deteriorating relationship between the sovereign and citizen. The monarch was responsible for the needs and welfare of his subjects and Louis XVI was unable to fulfill this obligation or duty. I am repeatedly questioned why the years of the Old Regime and the subsequent 3 years stand as a watershed moment in history? These years 11

would permit the Republic to create new Constitutions, a re-definition of the Revolution and its lost ideals, formation and influence of a few political groups on the republics destiny, justification of the Robespierres’ Terror, the ‘Quiet’ years of the Directory, and then the cascading tsunami of military history called ‘Napoleon’.

12