# French Revolution



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dear all, in response to suggestions, here is the French Revolution thread.
As an easy, really easy introduction, may I recommend a rather larger entry level text https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0140049452/ . Schama's "Citizens" has already been mentioned, https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141017279/ which is a good read, and for, essentially a novelisation of the Revolution, https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/000725055X/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

A book that will be of especial interest to our American members will be https://www.amazon.co.uk/1789-Revol...1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405677834&sr=8-1&keywords=1789


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Just to start things off, I would argue that the main cause of the Revolution was the failure of the Monarchy, that without the incapacity of the Monarchy to make the system work, the other factors, high bread prices, the ideas of the philosophes and the enlightenment, the Revolution in America, wouldn't have brought about Revolution. France had experienced many challenges before and had dealt with them, from famine to financial difficulties to military defeat. I would, therefore argue that none of these were significant causes of the Revolution.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If you don't mind, I'd like to hijack this thread and discuss healthcare reform...;-).

I agree with Chouan, the primary cause was a failure of the monarchy and it's ability to manage the economy. Among various factors, of course, was the price of grain, and therefore bread, but in the context of overall inflation due to the incessant devaluing of coinage. 

Let's remember, too, the philosophical underpinnings in the form of the enlightenment and the rise of the age of reason.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

So they replaced the Monarch with an Emperor??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So they replaced the Monarch with an Emperor??


I don't remember who it was, but I recall a British aristocrat saying something like "it takes an Englishman to conduct a proper revolution" or something to that effect in response to the French Revolution and the ensuing reign of terror.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

French Revolution

Dysfuntional society
Dysfunctional monarchy
Revolution
Monarchy abolished
Reign of Terror
Nobility & other undesirables slaughtered
End of Revolution
Self-made Emperor ruling an Empire


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> French Revolution
> 
> Dysfuntional society
> Dysfunctional monarchy
> ...


Quite. Buonaparte's announcement on making himself Emperor was, to paraphrase (in English) "The Revolution is now ended on the principles which began it".
What?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I know....and greater minds than yours & mine have been puzzling over it ever since. How in such a climate as prevailed in France at the time he was able to seize power in 1799 and how in 1804 he was able to make himself emperor. Very odd! But that's the French for ya!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Quite easy really, he controlled the army! A supreme egoist who was able to use the Revolution to further his own career, and who was also unbelievably lucky.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Quite easy really, he controlled the army! A supreme egoist who was able to use the Revolution to further his own career, and who was also unbelievably lucky.


...and yet our George Washington avoided the same temptation.

We Americans are quite exceptional!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and yet our George Washington avoided the same temptation.
> 
> We Americans are quite exceptional!!


I think that's a good point to remember.

The French Revolution was a complete purge of society, it's values and it's old intellectuals. The American Revolution, and I am reluctant to call it that as it was not truly a revolution, still had at it's core the rights of the citizen under English Law and a respect for conservative values. We did not kill our clergy or anyone having had anything to do with the old regime.

John Adams was not strung up for once having defended English soldiers. And more importantly, George Washington did what Caesar and Napoleon could not do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The French Revolution was a complete purge of society, it's values and it's old intellectuals.


A gross exaggeration I'm afraid.



SG_67 said:


> The American Revolution, and I am reluctant to call it that as it was not truly a revolution, still had at it's core the rights of the citizen under English Law and a respect for conservative values.


Yes, as true Englishmen they wanted English freedoms.



SG_67 said:


> We did not kill our clergy or anyone having had anything to do with the old regime.


Neither did the French; again a gross exaggeration.



SG_67 said:


> John Adams was not strung up for once having defended English soldiers. And more importantly, George Washington did what Caesar and Napoleon could not do.


Imbued with the English conviction that the army was subservient to the state.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> A gross exaggeration I'm afraid.
> 
> Yes, as true Englishmen they wanted English freedoms.
> 
> ...


You deny and nuns and priests were executed during the Reign of Terror?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and yet our George Washington avoided the same temptation.
> 
> We Americans are quite exceptional!!


But Washington, although C-in-C, did not control the Continental Army. Neither was the US involved in a major war once independence was recognised. Your not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, please continue with your self-congratulation, it does amuse the rest of us!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> You deny and nuns and priests were executed during the Reign of Terror?


No. Most became state employees, indeed, some became Jacobins cf Joseph Le Bon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Le_Bon Of course, some priests and some nuns were killed, but your assertion is an exaggeration; it implies that the clergy as a whole were killed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> But Washington, although C-in-C, did not control the Continental Army. Neither was the US involved in a major war once independence was recognised. Your not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, please continue with your self-congratulation, it does amuse the rest of us!


Look, I can accept that you make excuses for terrorists, subversives, Commies or what have you.

But are you going to sit there and defend Frenchie??

Really??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Look, I can accept that you make excuses for terrorists, subversives, Commies or what have you.
> 
> But are you going to sit there and defend Frenchie??
> 
> Really??


The people who gained you your independence?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That was then.

This is now!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> No. Most became state employees, indeed, some became Jacobins cf Joseph Le Bon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Le_Bon Of course, some priests and some nuns were killed, but your assertion is an exaggeration; it implies that the clergy as a whole were killed.


Some? In September of 1792, in the span of 2-3 days, some 200 priests were murdered. There was a systematic and state sponsored effort to destroy the Church. Property was seized and clergy locked up, and who knows how many died in captivity. Nuns were executed if they did not comply and if you've seen the opera "Dialogue of the Carmelites" it is presented in a very dramatic way.

Of the estimated 30-40K people who were murdered during the reign of terror, it is estimated that some 6-8% were clergy. This constitutes some 1800 - 3200 priests. Call it a gross generalization if you will, but to suggest that it was just "some" is hardly correct.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Your post made it sound like the clergy as a whole were massacred. I don't know one way or the other, but I had never heard that all the clergy were massacred.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Quite easy really, he controlled the army! A supreme egoist who was able to use the Revolution to further his own career, and who was also unbelievably lucky.


He may have been lucky in some areas, but in military matters he was a genius on par with any in history. He used his advantages like few before him ever had and you can make a case that the only time he was well and truly defeated while at full strength was by an unusually harsh Russian winter.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Some? In September of 1792, in the span of 2-3 days, some 200 priests were murdered. There was _*a systematic and state sponsored effort to destroy the Church*_. Property was seized and clergy locked up, and who knows how many died in captivity. Nuns were executed if they *did not comply* and if you've seen the opera "Dialogue of the Carmelites" it is presented in a very dramatic way.


You can hardly cite an opera as historical evidence! It would be like arguing that an event was so because it featured in a play, or a film, or a television drama! "Did not comply"? Did not comply with what? 
You appear to think with your assertion that there was "a systematic and state sponsored effort to destroy the Church" that the Convention was monolithic and all controlling, a sort of proto-totalitarian regime, with a fixed universal ideology. Some members of the Convention were anti-clerical, some were indeed anti-Christian and sought to destroy religion. Other sought to replace Christianity with the cult of the Supreme Being. Others were good catholics or good protestants. Many of those who sought to destroy the Church were themselves destroyed for their fanaticism. It is simply wrong to suggest that "the state", during the Revolution sought to destroy the Church. Many churches remained open, although monasticism was condemned, and church property was seized by the state. However, because church property, farm land, for example, was seized, doesn't mean that the Convention sought to destroy the Church.



SG_67 said:


> Of the estimated 30-40K people who were murdered during the reign of terror, it is estimated that some 6-8% were clergy. This constitutes some 1800 - 3200 priests. Call it a gross generalization if you will, but to suggest that it was just "some" is hardly correct.


There were a lot more than 40k people executed and by due legal process, not murdered. Perhaps 300-500k in the rising of the Vendee alone.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Well, so long as they got a fair trial...


----------



## Thunderball57 (Jul 12, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The people who gained you your independence?


...and we Americans saved the French, and Britain, from the goose step. Debt paid in full.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You can hardly cite an opera as historical evidence! It would be like arguing that an event was so because it featured in a play, or a film, or a television drama! "Did not comply"? Did not comply with what?
> You appear to think with your assertion that there was "a systematic and state sponsored effort to destroy the Church" that the Convention was monolithic and all controlling, a sort of proto-totalitarian regime, with a fixed universal ideology. Some members of the Convention were anti-clerical, some were indeed anti-Christian and sought to destroy religion. Other sought to replace Christianity with the cult of the Supreme Being. Others were good catholics or good protestants. Many of those who sought to destroy the Church were themselves destroyed for their fanaticism. It is simply wrong to suggest that "the state", during the Revolution sought to destroy the Church. Many churches remained open, although monasticism was condemned, and church property was seized by the state. However, because church property, farm land, for example, was seized, doesn't mean that the Convention sought to destroy the Church.
> 
> There were a lot more than 40k people executed and by due legal process, not murdered. Perhaps 300-500k in the rising of the Vendee alone.


I cited the Dialogue of the Carmlites as a dramatic depiction, not as a factual recounting. Nonetheless, it was based on a true story.

I'm not sure where this notion that "all" priests and nuns were killed. I never indicated that, but a large measure were. As for the de-Catholicization of the country, this is something that certainly did occur, or was attempted. There were isolated uprisings, but as a whole, there was a systematic effort toward this.

And if you want to call what the Committee for Public Safety and Robespierre's assault on dissenters as "due legal process" you're so inclined. Just as long as you also consider extra-judicial lynching the same way. I suppose Stalin and Mao's purges were also within the context of "the legal process".

But I suppose if you want to believe these things about the French revolution you're certainly welcome to. I realize that we have a romanticized view of the French Revolution but it was indeed a bloody affair. I can only imagine if it had occurred post industrial revolution with the advent of rail just how pervasive and how much greater the body count would have been.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You should have cited Les Mis...

I'm a Scarlet Pimpernel man myself!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Was Les Mis supposed to have taken place during the Revolution? I thought it was a post revolution story.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Was Les Mis supposed to have taken place during the Revolution? I thought it was a post revolution story.


The abortive quasi-Revolution of 1832.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I cited the Dialogue of the Carmlites as a dramatic depiction, not as a factual recounting. Nonetheless, it was based on a true story.
> 
> I'm not sure where this notion that "all" priests and nuns were killed. I never indicated that, but a large measure were. As for the de-Catholicization of the country, this is something that certainly did occur, or was attempted. There were isolated uprisings, but as a whole, there was a systematic effort toward this.


But the fact is that there wasn't a systematic effort towards de-Christianisation. Some Revolutionaries were anti-religion, referring to all religions as "cultes" and religious people as "fanatiques", but it was never the stated policy of the state. Some "Deputies en mission", like Javogues in the Loire, did carry out de-Christianising. The "Armees Revolutionaires" that set out from Paris carried out de-Christianisation, but without any legal authority to do so.
The Revolution did seek to bring the Church under government control with the "Constitutional Oath", making the clergy, effectively, civil servants, with salaries paid by the state; many of the clergy refused the oath, following the instructions of the Pope. These "refractraires" were the clergy that were subject to proscriptions as agents of a foreign power, which, effectively, they were!



SG_67 said:


> And if you want to call what the Committee for Public Safety and Robespierre's assault on dissenters as "due legal process" you're so inclined. Just as long as you also consider extra-judicial lynching the same way. I suppose Stalin and Mao's purges were also within the context of "the legal process".


The difference was that those executed by France had all either done something, or were suspected of having done something, or were suspected of planning to do something. In all cases they were subject to legal process, whether of regular law courts, Revolutionary Tribunals, or Military Commissions. They weren't selected and killed by quota, as in the two regimes that you mention. In any case, the period of control by the Committee and Robespierre was only a very short time in the revolutionary period. If the Revolution began, arguably, in 1789, and ended in 1799, the government of France by the Committees and the Terror, was only from 1793 to early 1794, so can hardly be characterised as the government of "The Revolution".



SG_67 said:


> But I suppose if you want to believe these things about the French revolution you're certainly welcome to. I realize that we have a romanticized view of the French Revolution but it was indeed a bloody affair. I can only imagine if it had occurred post industrial revolution with the advent of rail just how pervasive and how much greater the body count would have been.


It certainly was a bloody affair. As I suggested above, the death toll in the Vendee alone was somewhere between 300 and 500 thousand.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm curious how you feel about the modern application of the death penalty as you seem to dismiss the murder of thousands during the reign of terror as being subject to lawful application and proscription. 

Priests in this country, catholic at least, follow the dictates of Rome but aren't seen as agents of a foreign power. I suppose one can argue that things were different then as the pope was in essence also the leader of the Papal States. 

I don't think my argument with you is over body count, but over the pervasive and systematic effort on the part of the revolutionary government to completely subvert and overthrow any aspect of the old regime, including the calendar! The brutal crimes committed were not isolated incidents but part of a systematic cleansing of French society.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm curious how you feel about the modern application of the death penalty as you seem to dismiss the murder of thousands during the reign of terror as being subject to lawful application and proscription.


"The past is a foreign country, the do things differently there." My opinion on the death penalty now has nothing to do with the application of the death penalty in the late 18th century, anymore than my current personal view on religious toleration as opposed to current views of religious toleration then.



SG_67 said:


> Priests in this country, catholic at least, follow the dictates of Rome but aren't seen as agents of a foreign power. I suppose one can argue that things were different then as the pope was in essence also the leader of the Papal States.


Priests were going to be paid by the state and be servants of the state. To be priests they were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the state and the Constitution. If they refused, they were assumed to be acting under the orders of a foreign power, and thus subverting the state. One could argue that, essentially, that contention was true!



SG_67 said:


> I don't think my argument with you is over body count, but over the pervasive and systematic effort on the part of the revolutionary government to completely subvert and overthrow any aspect of the old regime, including the calendar! The brutal crimes committed were not isolated incidents but part of a systematic cleansing of French society.


Yet French society remained essentially the same. Nobles and the nobility continued to exist, most accommodating the Revolution, some becoming active revolutionaries themselves. The clergy continued to exercise it's spiritual role, most lawyers continued to practice law, most landowners continued to own land, most peasants remained peasants. On the restoration of 1814, France was able to return to monarchical rule with very little difficulty, and the social structure of France was, in all essentials, very much the same as it was in 1788. The only significant difference was that there was a uniform system of law, a uniform system of weights and measures in place, a uniform system of taxation, without exemptions, and internal customs barriers and levies had been abolished. The hierarchical system of society remained intact.
Brutal crimes? A country threatened by its neighbours, a regime whose very existence was under threat, and which was being attacked on all sides, defended itself and took the extreme steps necessary to defeat its foes both internal and external. That defence took the form of attack and aggression towards France's neighbours is nothing unusual. Indeed, a contemporary country in the Middle East repeatedly attacks its neighbours and seizes their territory in the name of security and defence and many think that they are perfectly entitled to do so. There had been numerous occasions where Generals, for example, had attempted to lead their armies against the state and the government, Dumouriez was one, Lafayette was another. Given the desperation of the times it is hardly surprising that France took extreme measures to deal with traitors. On the other hand, the period of Terror only lasted just over a year, out of 11 years of Revolution.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

So if political or thought cleansing is required, do so efficiently and quickly so history shall read "well it was a genocide of sorts but it only lasted a year!!"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Priests were going to be paid by the state and be servants of the state. To be priests they were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the state and the Constitution. If they refused, they were assumed to be acting under the orders of a *foreign power*, and thus subverting the state. One could argue that, essentially, that contention was true!


Indeed, quite foreign and quite powerful.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So if political or thought cleansing is required, do so efficiently and quickly so history shall read "well it was a genocide of sorts but it only lasted a year!!"


Sorry, I'd thought that I'd made it clear. There wasn't the political cleansing or the thought cleansing that you seem to mean, not in the modern totalitarian sense that seems to be meant. There certainly wasn't anything that can seriously be described as any kind of a genocide. People who actively opposed the Revolution, or who corresponded with France's enemies, like the King, or who were likely to oppose the Revolution, or who were suspected of opposing the Revolution were likely to be under surveillance, and were likely to be brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal if they weren't obviously supporting the Revolution. If one was a noble, or a lawyer, or a merchant, or a farmer, who did not support the Revolution, as long as one didn't make it obvious, one would be pretty much safe. Under Stalin, however, middle class land owners, or peasant proprietors were already classed as anti-Revolutionary by existing. There is a difference. Our perceptions of the Revolution are very much coloured by Dickens, Orczy and Hollywood. 
An example. If a noble emigrated to Coblenz, because they wouldn't live under the Revolutionary government, and then, a couple of years later they returned to France to collect their rents. If caught they would be likely to be sentenced to death for treason as a returned Emigre. The Emigres had been warned that if they left France without a passport, if they emigrated and abandoned their country, they were traitors and would be treated as traitors if they returned.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> If a noble emigrated to Coblenz, because they wouldn't live under the Revolutionary government, and then, a couple of years later they returned to France to collect their rents. If caught they would be likely to be sentenced to death for treason as a returned Emigre. The Emigres had been warned that if they left France without a passport, if they emigrated and abandoned their country, they were traitors and would be treated as traitors if they returned.


Delaware and the rest of the USA have been grateful since Mr. duPont arrived!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So if political or thought cleansing is required, do so efficiently and quickly so history shall read "well it was a genocide of sorts but it only lasted a year!!"


Hardly a reign of terror if it only lasted one year. That's the title of a new book; "That Annoying Year: The Aftermath of the French Revolution".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Charles' and Jerome's dad as well, perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bonaparte_(Attorney_General) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jérôme_Napoleon_Bonaparte 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Napoleon_Bonaparte_II


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Hardly a reign of terror if it only lasted one year. That's the title of a new book; "That Annoying Year: The Aftermath of the French Revolution".


The rule of the committees and what is usually described as the Reign of Terror was about a year long, 1793 to 1794, ending with the fall of Robespierre. On the other hand, the executions didn't end with the fall of Robespierre, the Thermidorians, of course, had to deal with the rest of the Terroristes, like Carrier, Le Bon, Javogues etc, once they'd sorted out Robespierre's associates, like St.Just, Couthon, and Fouquier-Tinville of course. Neither did they begin with Robespierre, with the only real outbreak of "lynching", the September Massacres taking place in Paris in 1792.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Hardly a reign of terror if it only lasted one year. That's the title of a new book; "That Annoying Year: The Aftermath of the French Revolution".


I like the part when they reconstituted slavery in French colonies.

It didn't last long so pfffft!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I like the part when they reconstituted slavery in French colonies.
> 
> It didn't last long so pfffft!!


That was Buonaparte, post Revolution.


----------

