The revolution of men changes the form of governance or structure toward one cruel system to another. But, as it is self-evident as the system changes in favour of the plebeian or a more “representative” system, that inefficiency and corruption grows within the nation state or populace. And to which the continuous plight of man and social thought continue we doth ask ourselves. Have we truly evolved towards the true enlightenment? And what system ought to be imposed to represent the people and/or to maximise efficiency? That I do not know… However, I can say with great confidence and mindfulness that it is not democracy (Oligarchy, at this point), nor is it a monarchy, and just like the latter, the former will crumble and fall and either a new system will be devised or the latter, once again in reactionary nature will be imposed… That probably made me sound like a pretentious douchebag.
I have chosen to do the American colonist revolt from the Crown (1765 – 1783) and the French Revolution (1789–1799) both to which are gargantuan in immense relevance and still has substantial impact on the world today (like arguing with your neo-tory friends on Facebook about the pros and cons of the “ancien regime ap euro”) both movements sparked colonial nationalism, forced the Ancien regimes of Europe to treat plebeians and colonial subjects with more dignity and to a certain degree expanded the free market. Yet both are vastly different in what they were trying to achieve, what they did achieve and how the world viewed each in terms of significance.
The French revolution, was a revolution with so much promise to change the face and to overthrow the confines of the status quo of the natural contract, with promise of equality egalite fraternity, (these prospects made famous by Maximilien Robespierre in a speech regarding the national guard) however this promise was dissolved maybe not on purpose but on happenstance.
To explain the topic sentence, we must see the circumstance the French revolution is the result, like many revolutions of three build ups. Firstly, crippling debt after the Seven year’s war*(1) and from funding the French revolution, no money left to maintain any administration cost or upkeep >50% of the GDP going to debt repayment, a terrible harvest and finally a new hatred for the other powers of the world and the administrators of the nation state (these problems aren’t happening in Europe today however. *cough*). This led to the plebeian Parisians of the third estate to question those of the first and second estates*(2). And after they met years after the 7 years war when the uproar was at it’s height (They hadn’t met in near a several score). They were dealing with solutions to reform the military and to fix the economy and after several a firm debate, no compromise and general incompetence on all sides of the parliament. The third estate demanded a new national fraternity. And after it was declined and their estate dissolved for the session the third estate gathered in an indoor tennis room and set out an oath and convention to which set out an agreement to all the representatives. They would not surrender, nor would they give up, nor would they work for the apparent profligate, wastrel aristocracy until a constitution was implemented to achieve checks and balances within parliament. Then after a few days of revolting and the Aristocracy were running out of food. They put Paris under martial law. In response the revolters siege the Bastille and arm themselves then the average Frenchmen had freedom, security and property ( foundation for more free market ideas later on, and more democratic ideas from Jacobin-led radicals). And whilst the prospect of a constitution was feasible and acceptable to most of the revolutionaries of France, this soon turned into a peace term that did not meet the requirement for normality according to the Jacobins that wished for full democracy. In retaliation, the national assembly massacred the Jacobins. So rebels were slaughtering rebels* (3). Emperor Leopold the Second of the Holy Roman Empire and King William Frederick the Second of Prussia agreed upon an agreement to reclaim France for the Monarchy (These actions were heavily inspired by national interest). The national assembly in retaliation preemptively invaded the Holy Roman Empire to seize land, Prussia joined the war to defend the Holy Roman Empire. And when King Louis XVI (16) of France was caught encouraging Prussia to join the war. He was deemed an enemy of the revolution and was guillotined as with some 16,000 enemies of the revolution (mostly aristocrats of the day). With this brought the dissolution of the Monarchy, elections, the implementation of a constitution and most importantly the appointing of Napoleon Bonaparte to lead the French armies to victory over Prussia and Austria. Him being considered a war hero to the French people, (and defeating the coups of opposition) he officially took office in 1799 and dissolved much of the revolutions implementations of years previous. The revolution may be summarised in four opinionated quotes of the revolution from the period.
“Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil.” – Maximilian Robespierre
“I perceive that in revolutions the supreme power rests with the most abandoned.” –Georges Jacques Danton
“God has always been hard on the poor” –Jean-Paul Marat
and most importantly:
“Citizens, the revolution is established on the principles which it began”
Napoleon Bonaparte. Which truly describes the manaughtny of it all.
The French revolution was important simply because the ideas that it put forward inspired liberals and Jacobins in Europe. The ancient regime and natural social contract were dead. And slowly populaces would see this. The French revolution put forward the idea of nationalism by the people. And that the framework of the world should not be spearheaded by the aristocracy, however everyone. This revolution’s flame of ideas died out, but the heat that it left in the market of ideas stayed, and it still does to this day.
The American Revolution is hypocritical to the foundation to which it was founded upon. And to which they disregard the very essence of the documentation to which they hold dearly.
The American revolution was the gathering of revolutionary movements (1765 – 1783) in the thirteen colonies that to which Britannia held in the southern right flank of North America. And the principles to which they set out to achieve was the right to self-governance. A centralised banking system for the bank that was spearheaded within the colonies. And total separation from Britannia and her law makers*(4) they had many protests such as the Boston tea and rum rebellion which saw the act of disposing and destroying of imported goods to protest the tea and import taxes. and to which they fought the British domestically and established the central continental congress to which they would discuss matters of state. And within one meeting of the continental congress. They drafted a document which entails every man’s right to self-determination of the premises of God’s foundation. And they ended up winning the war with intervention on the part of the Netherlands, France and Spain. This sent mass fabrication of statehood across the world. And set out in founding the American and Jefferson methods of governance. Both statements from nationalism, nation fraternity and American governance is still prevalent even today. However,
The key issues to which they debated was the ideas of central planning vs state’s rights many proponents of both led to from the start of the nation’s history a divide between north and south. Federalists vs Whigs on the stage of world events. This links to the topic sentence because the very revolution that was fought and was one to secure men’s right to self-determination. Was not true for African slaves, this details the hypocrisy to which revolutions fall under. To which scrutiny of principle is rampant.
The paragraph that can be referred to as hypocrisy is such
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
This statement was disregarded for many years in the slavery debate, but I am not here to use my modern arbitrary sense of morality and ethics on this issue because as much as people like to think, it doth change nothing in the grand scheme of life. However, I’d like to point out something greater and back to my central point. To which the revolution change things for the majority and doth it change anything at all? It returns to the same point of major principle.
In, finality we can see many similarities between the two revolutions, an interesting one was that they were both hypocritical in a war. The French set out to have more power to people but were willing to give it up for a kinder emperor. The American revolution set out for freedom for all but were willing to compromise on the backs of African Americans. They are different in the fact that they were fighting for American home rule and alternative French home rule. So whilst it is evident that revolutions bring into effect a more kind system, it does also bring into effect systems of corruption and inefficiency. And to which we must ask ourselves. The revolution brings one king to another. The kings of the world were literal kings with subjects. And modern kings are those who are willing to influence the system through monetary gain, and whilst I do not want to disparage the revolutions of old, it is to be said that revolution as a whole is, in fact, a revolution a circular object that replaces the object but, indeed will end up practically in the same place. These gradual changes doth create a better world, but not a completely different world.
Notes: (because adding these in brackets made my eyes kill themselves due to the lack of A E S T H E T I C)
- The Seven Years war was a world war consisting of the Prussians, British, Portuguese and more (most interesting the Iroquois confederacy a native American tribe) against the Holy Roman Empire, French, Russians, Swedish, Spanish and Mughals. Which was the challenging of Hapsburg aggression in Europe, Fredrick the Great claimed the throne on the premise of primogeniture (But in reality he just wanted to take but his core provinces) this war ended in France losing its colonies in the Americas. And the crippling of the French economy.
2. The first estate being that of the divine righteousness (Kings, princes and so fourth) the second estate being that of the clergy and papal officials, and the third state being the plebeians and middle class.
3. Marie Antoinette was speculated to of been hoarding grain in Versailles. They were marched to Paris by angry revolutionaries.
4. This did not begin this way, however. They just wanted colonial representation if they were being taxed so ludicrously for imported goods.