THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1789-1814)

REVOLUTION – A process of complete change, that can be economic, political or social.

Historians argue that a revolution is like a forest fire. It burns everything in its course. A
revolution relies on action and it must be collaborative and not individualistic. By its very nature
a revolution is a collective and active phenomenon which has for reaching implications or
permutations for the social, political or cultural lives of society. A revolution is not
individualistic because the entire people must be involved. That is why in France the rich, the
poor, the educated and the peasants collectively participated in the revolution. The oppressed
must challenge the oppressors in order to transform and transfigure themselves and improve their
circumstances.

In order to liberate themselves the oppressed must take action because “freedom is acquired by
conquest, not by gift” (Freire,P: 1972:24). Therefore, for a revolution to be successful, the entire
people must conquer the fear of death. In order for revolution to have meaning “the oppressed
must not, in seeking to regain their humanity, become in turn oppressors of the oppressor but
rather restores of the humanity of both”. This applies for example when we try to answer the
question, “was Napoleon a child of the revolution?” Normally, violence is initiated by the
oppressors who fail to recognize others as people and not by the oppressed. (Freire, P.Pedagogy
of the oppressed. Sao Paulo: 1972)

The Pre-revolution
The coming of the French Revolution (1783-89)
a) What was the nature of France before 1789?
b) What happened in the period 1774-89?
c) What were the political and ideological causes of the revolution?
d) What were the social and economic causes of the revolution?

The Phases of the revolution

a) Phase 1
➢ Was marked by the abolition of feudalism and attempts to create a constitutional
monarchy
b) Phase 2
➢ A period which saw the rise in the influence of the Jacobins in Paris. A legislative
Assembly was established and the Paris Commune also came into existence.
➢ Revolutionary armies tried to export the revolution by invading and declaring war
on other European states.
c) Phase 3
➢ A new National Assembly called the Convention was set up and conflicts between the
Jacobins and Girondins intensified.

1
➢ On 21 January 1793, the Convention voted for the execution of Louis XVI. The Edict of
Fraternity was issued and the French vowed to assist oppressed people anywhere in the world
➢ This resulted in the setting up of a coalition against France. The reign of terror was an
outstanding feature of this phase.
➢ Some leaders who had at one time spearheaded the revolution were themselves executed.
These included Herbert, Danton and Robespierre.
➢ The reign of terror finally came to an end and the Convention closed the Jacobins Club.
➢ A new government called the Directory controlled France from 1795-1799.

The Nature of France before 1789

Before 1789 France had a government best described as an absolute monarchy. This is a system
where the state is ruled by King or Monarchy who claims total/absolute control. Absolute
monarchy is oppressive. Absolute monarchy was thereby answerable to no one theoretically, for
their actions as their word was law. The basis of their authority was a mixture of divine right
(their belief that Kings were placed in authority by God) and hereditary right. It had a population
of about 27 million. France was difficult to govern because: There was significant regional
difference across the country, along with a strong tradition for each part of France to deal with
local issues in its own way. There were also different legal systems, which dated back for
centuries. The regions had different systems of taxation and there were also customs barriers
between some parts of France, meaning that trade could not move freely around the country.
These conditions meant that, in practice, the king’s orders were often ignored or proved too
difficult to carry out.
THE ANCIENT REGIME: PROBLEMS AND POLICIES OF LOUIS XVI
1. Social Structure
France was divided into 3 estates i.e. the clergy, the nobility and the third estates (ordinary
people)

a) The 1st Estate (Clergy)

They were about 130 000 in 1780. Williams (2003: 10) noted that they “were not ordinary
clergy, but came from the upper levels of the church hierarchy”. Examples include the Bishops,
Archbishops, monks, Parish Priests, Nuns and Abbots. They had influence which extended the
realm of spirituality. The Catholic Church was a state within a state.
Privileges of the clergy
➢ They had their own courts and Representative assembly to control their affairs.
➢ They were exempted from all direct taxes and many indirect wages.
➢ They collected their own tax from the rest of the population. The Catholic Church had a
monopoly over education and the care of the sick.
➢ The church owned about 10% of the land in France. In exchange for all these privileges, the
church generally supported the monarchy and vote through assembly.

b) The 2nd Estate (Nobility)

2
These include Parish Priests, members of the Estates General. In this group there were different
levels i.e. the greater nobility, the lesser nobility and the nobility of the robe. Their privileges
were as follows:
-They were not liable to some of the cruel punishment given to the 3rd Estate.
-They were exempted from Taille (land tax).
-They were exempted from forced labour on the roads or public buildings (corvee).
-They owned over 10% of the land and enjoyed rights as local lords.
i) The Greater Nobility
The positions of power were reserved for them. They made up of about 100 000 families in
France. Many of them were staying at the court around Louis XVI and his family. They were
absentee landlords.
ii) The Lesser Nobility
There were about 90 000 families. They were forced to live upon the land.
iii) The Nobility of the robe
They enjoyed some of the privileges but not the luxuries of the lesser and greater nobilities. They
did work of defending their country. They occupied higher positions in the army.
c. The 3rd Estate (ordinary people)
All those who did not being to the 1st and 2nd estates belonged to the 3rd. In this group there were
the rich (bourgeoisie) e.g. doctor, lawyers e.t.c. They had their own grievances e.g. being sub
servant to the nobility. They were seriously discontent with financial mis-management of Louis
XVI. The peasants welcomed the revolution because they were the ones who carried the tax
burden of France. They supported the luxurious lifestyle of the 1st and 2nd estates. They had to
pay all the taxes since Nobles and the Clergy were exempted from taxpaying. They had to pay a
number of indirect and direct taxes. These included
1. Taille (land tax) - this was based on the income from property.
2. Capitation/Poll tax – this was imposed on each household head.
3. Property tax – tax for ownership of land.
4. Gabelle/Salt tax – fell more heavily on the poor than the rich.
5. Corvee – Forced labour.
6. Feudal Payments – money paid to the landlords for using their land.
➢ According to Ramm (2002:5) the peasants “were burdened by a crushing load of taxes,
crushing chiefly because the privileged classes had avoided their proper share of it.”
➢ Richards(1977:11) is of the view that “the peasantry were taxed more heavily as the expenses
of the French government mounted in the 18th century… and seeing their superiors living in
the greatest luxury, were becoming ripe for revolt”.

3
➢ However, in spite of all their grievances historians have commented that the peasants were
neither sufficiently united nor educated to produce a revolution by themselves. The
importance of their grievances was much that they were ready to become allies of the other
discontented classes. The bourgeoisie, even though they did not suffer the economic burdens
of the peasants, they disliked their exclusion from official positions at the head of the army,
navy or diplomatic service. They also wanted to openly criticize the government. They
further resented the lack of religious freedom.
2. Absolutism of the monarchy: Louis XVI and the parlements.

All power was invested in the king. Louis XIV once said, “The state is my-self” (Richards:
1977:8). Louis XVI is also remembered to have said “the thing is legal because l wish it”
(Richards: 1977). To say the least the old regime was chaotic. Privileges were rewarded to those
of the 1st and 2nd estates. The king was at the top of the social hierarchy. Louis XVI had been
crowned in 1775, when he was young and inexperienced.

He inherited a system in which the king had absolute power, however, and he would have liked not just
to keep, but to increase this power

There was no central government; the judiciary was in complete disarray, they allowed an unfair
and inefficient method of taxation to be in one place. There were 360 different feudal codes of
law. In one town there would be 29 courts. The government got money through those who could
least afford it, thus they came to resent the system.

However, it should be noted that Louis XVI was a popular king because he was better than the
ones before him. Louis claimed in his early years of the reign that he loved “his people”.

He was better because he was ready to change the system. However his weakness was that he
could never make a decision and fulfil it. That is why some historians such as Denis Richards
concluded that Louis was “King in name and power but not in character.” To further the point,
Richards (1977:16) argues that Louis was “mildly interested in reform, more interested in his
kingship but most interested in hunting”. Despite all this Louis held all power in his hands. Marie
Antoinette was the wife of Louis she was an Austrian princess. Her Austrian origins were a
disaster both to her life and her husband. She was often referred to as “the Austrian woman, the
Austrian enemy”. She became a powerful and dangerous counsellor of Louis in his hours of
crisis. Louis was also unfortunate because his advisors were weak; Necker lacked firmness,
Mirabeau who tried to save the king died at a critical moment.

Louis and his advisors i.e. royal council were literally the only people who governed France.
There were no representatives from other classes. The “letter de cachets” were on expression of
the despotic powers of the king. The only government instrument that seemed to function was
the parliament. The parliament at Paris was the main body registered with the king and could

4
pass laws. The parliament did not theoretically disagree with the king but as long as the king
agreed to respect their privileges they agreed with him.

3. Financial crisis

The extravagance of the court had to be paid somehow. Louis XV up to Louis XVI all drained
the country’s bank. France and its king had been involved in war for years and the wars were
becoming expensive. There were no meaningful means of sourcing income the taxation methods
were corrupt and inefficient and the nation was left to bankruptcy.

Turgot

When Louis came to power his controller general in finance was Turgot. Turgot appeared to be
in a position to help France rise up from where it had fallen financially. He wished to introduce
honesty and efficiency in public service, to make taxation fair and just, to create a free
atmosphere for trade and to control the church’s extravagance. Turgot abolished the corvee and
allowed free trade of corn. Free labourers became free to travel between provinces. Turgot
worked with passionate zeal for justice among humans. Turgot’s proposals aroused alarm in the
classes whose interests seemed threatened. The court’s two members who were Louis’ brothers
got together and made it clear that Turgot was going too far and had to be dismissed. Because of
Louis weakness, he could not support his minister when he became unpopular and Turgot was
replaced by Necker.

Necker

He was a Swiss banker. He tried to make use of his knowledge as a banker to lower the loans of
France received. He reduced the expense of the court. He persuaded Louis to reduce favours in
pensions to those who got the unfairly. Serfs were supposed to be freed and his ideas of changes
seemed too radical to the nobles. Necker was also dislike by Marie Antoinette and the court but
Louis persisted in his favour and he tried to make sure that France got better financial. However,
Necker was unable to make meaningful reforms because of the American war of independence,
which destroyed the treasury of France. In 1781, Necker published his Compete Rench, which
was a statement for the financial situation of France. The Compete Rench was widely read and
discussed and it costed Necker his job. Louis, instead of solving his problems, he gave into the
court, fired Necker and replaced with Calonne.

Calonne

Calonne was very popular at the court mainly because he did not attempt to interfere with its
expensive pleasures. He believed that an expensive court made borrowing easier and he live by
borrowing at an increasingly high rate of interest. He made the situation worse than it was before
and eventually he had to accept that indeed he was a failure. However, at one time Calonne
considered that a land tax that would be paid by everyone including the Nobles was to be

5
imposed. He led to the assembly of nobles who completely denied the land tax. In 1787 Calonne
was dismissed after he had suggested that the States General be summoned i.e. a body that
represents all the estates. Calonne concluded that nothing could be done to restore the national
finances while the nobles and the clergy remained exempt from paying taxes. Calonne feel in
1787 and was replaced by De Brienne.

De Brienne

He was an archbishop. He proposed to use royal power to impose tax on the privileged classes
and that the parliament at Paris should discuss the changes. They absolutely refused to agree to
it. The tried everything but they refused to pass the proposal into law. This event was referred to
as THE REVOLT OF THE NOBLES WHO HAD NEVER REVOLTED AGAINST LOUIS
BEFORE, because of this De Brienne found himself out of work and Necker was recalled
August 18th 1788. The king announced his decision of summoning the Estate General who
ultimately met in May 1789. As noted by Grant and Temperly “A king had been driven by
national bankruptcy to call the representatives of his people into council”. It was its calling of the
States General in an attempt to end bankruptcy and the subsequent request for lists of the
grievances that led to the revolution.

4. The American war of independence

➢ France joined the American war of independence against Britain in 1775 seeking revenge for
the defeat by the Britain in the 7years’ war.
➢ Between 1756-1763 there was a war over the colonies of Canada and India. The French
troops were led by Lafayette. France suffered an additional debt of 2000 million francs.
➢ The nation fell into endless borrowing e.g. taking new loans to pay the old ones. Therefore,
even though France helped defeat Britain, it also brought about its bankruptcy.
➢ The attempts to achieve financial reforms provoked the political crisis that led to the
revolution. The major economic impact of the war was that it distracted trade.
➢ To make matters worse the war was followed by an economic depression. Politically,
France’s participation in the war not only bankrupted her but it brought in people’s minds the
words liberty and equality.
➢ It sounded foolish that the French fought for the American independence yet they did not
have it themselves. These ideas were also in line with the influence of the philosophers
through the enlightenment.
➢ The political thinkers provided the theory for the Revolution but the American war of
independence provided the practical example.
6. Poor Harvests (1787-1789)

➢ The disastrous weather patterns of 1787-1789 were devastating on the crops.

➢ During this season rivers were freezing and there was general crop failure
➢ There was crop failure which led to food shortages.

6
➢ Food prices went up sharply while there was a decrease in textile production. Unemployment
became rampant.
➢ There was widespread misery both in rural and urban areas.
➢ These conditions created an explosive situation which only needed unpopular decisions to
ignite the revolution.
➢ The rural urban drift that was created by the food crisis resulted in the creation of the Paris
mob.
➢ This was a group of restless and unemployed people who were ready to explode into action.
➢ Denis Richards describes them as hordes of people who hoped to find food and shelter. They
were idle desperate, ready to cheer on the most extreme measures.
➢ The people`s purchasing power was eroded and there was no international trade. As a result
France could not import food.
➢ Lefebvre is quoted as having remarked, “How can anyone fail to suspect a connection
between this ordeal and the furore of insurrection that gripped the population at the time”.
7. Marie Antoinette and the court
➢ The Queen had a negative influence on the King and state finances
➢ Marie Antoinette was an Austrian woman who was highly unpopular.
➢ She was the symbol of the hated French-Austrian alliance which had dragged France into
unnecessary wars and cost her empire in America and India.
➢ She did not understand the French needs of her time. She had 500 servants, bought four pairs
of shoes per week and consumed half of government revenue.
➢ She was ignorant of the need for reform, unsympathetic to French needs and incapable of
grasping the political situation. She advised the King to fire Turgot and Necker and gave
wrong advice at critical moments. Mirabeau an adviser to the king once said ‘The King--- has
only one man about him, his wife `. She was a woman, too strong minded to be sensible.
➢ The King’s close relatives at the Royal Court included his nephew Phillip the Duke of
Orleans and the court of Provinces and Artois. These men were frivolous and irresponsible.
They also had a negative influence on the King’s decision making.
8. Pressure for change: Enlightenment.
➢ Influence of Philosophers
➢ In the 18th century France was home to some of the greatest thinkers and writers of the period.
They became part of an intellectual and philosophical movement known as the ‘Enlightenment’, and
they had a major influence on the whole revolutionary process in France.
➢ Many of these writers did not just criticise what they saw happening in France; they also supported
practical improvements.
➢ One of the most influential factors of to the way events happened was the fact that France
had an educated who thought and read widely on political ideas. It was worth nothing in the
18th century, there was an influential movement called The Enlightenment which brought
about new ways of looking at social, political, economic and religious matters. In France
these thinkers were called philosophers and they believed in reason, logic and rationality.
They believed that by exercise of reason man was capable of understanding the world. They
7
 criticised the church’s despotic powers. The powers were based on superstition and tradition
rather than reason. Men who were to become leaders of the revolution absorbed these ideas
which were destructive to the Ancient Regime.
➢ Philosopher 1: Baron De Montesquieu (1689-1755)
➢ He “was a profound student of constitutional problems” (Ramm: 2005:11). He was
influenced by the constitution of the USA and more by the constitution of England which he
like many Frenchmen of his day admired immensely. Montesquieu there for admired British
democracy and wanted France to copy it. His idea of a government was a government which
checks and balances the separation of powers i.e. the independence of the legislative,
executive and the judicial branches of the state. He attacked absolute power and he opposed
the divine right concept of kings. He supported tolerance that the people should be allowed to
have their own opinion. He advocated for constitutional monarchy i.e. a monarchy whose
powers would be lifted by various representatives and bodies. The revolutionaries would
therefore demand a constitutional monarchy.
➢ Voltaire (1694-1778)
➢ His real name was Francoise Marie Aroulet. He was the best known and widest read of all
philosophers. He was highly critical of the church. In politics he was neither liberal nor
democrat but his idea of good leadership was an honest and benevolent despotism. He was
for the abolition of all privileges, removal of all traces of feudalism and serfdom plus
removal of all legal injustices. He opposed religious persecution unfair taxation and
campaigned against the use torture. In protesting against all this and many other ways,
Voltaire was the spokesman to mankind and also their conscience. His satire, the clearness of
language and the humanity of his appeal pervade the 18th century and the French revolution
in particular. However he wanted society to be changed from the above. He once said, “It is
not a question of making a revolution as in the time of Calvin and Luther but only of bringing
one about in the minds of those who govern” (Peacock). Voltaire was not a democrat because
he was once remarked that “I would rather be ruled by one lion than by a 100 rats” (Richards:
2010:12)
➢ Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
➢ Rousseau preached the equality of man. The social contract, in French it was called “Du
Contrat Social”, was published in 1762, summarized his ideas on revolution. He recognized
the importance of emotions as well as man`s capacity to reason. He once remarked that “God
gave man reason to know good, conscience to love it and free will to choose”. He believed
that “Man is capable to think for himself”. He believed that the state owned its origin to the
people and therefore belonged to the people and he once said “A legitimate government
listens to the people”. People have the right to alter or abolish their government. However
Rousseau did not think that democracy was possible except in small size states. He was quite
happy when the idea of a dictator. He proposed that a simple a civic form of religion should
be imposed on all the people and that even a death penalty should be imposed. He also once
said “The voice of the people is the voice of God”. The French Revolution bears traces of his

8
 ideas throughout (Robespierre). Rousseau had a famous statement “Man was born free but
man is everywhere in chains” (Ramm: 2005:12) gave people the idea that they must fight for
their own liberty and equality. It is important to argue that the enlightened ideas did not cause
the French Revolution but they provided the framework for criticism and a moral
justification for change in position. These political thinkers “helped to create the emotional
spirit which made people ready to rebel” (Richards: 1977:14). The philosophers equipped the
people with the theory of the Revolution.

Encyclopaedists

They forced people to think because they wrote articles which highlighted the good and bad
about the government. They attacked France’s social evil especially Denis Diderot. He worked
with Voltaire to set an encyclopaedia. He was also an author of an encyclopaedia of ‘sciences, arts
and crafts’, who was determined to advance knowledge. He was a great advocate of independent
thinking, and was anxious to promote a critical and questioning attitude to everything.

The Economists

They propagated the following ideas

• All wealth comes from the application of labour to the land.

• Workers are the most truly productive, perhaps the only productive class.
• Government interference should be reduced to the minimum – free trade.
• Complete free trade and establishment of a universal system of education necessary for
economic development.
• All taxation should be reduced to a single land tax.
One example was Quesnay, who wrote on economics and argued against the constraints on the free
production and movement of goods which existed at the time in France.

➢ Turgot made great efforts to put this into practice. The economists eg A. Smith had a
considerable effect on the course of the French Revolution but never approached the
importance of the followers of Rousseau and Voltaire.
➢ In short, these men challenged established ideas, institutions and social structures. They
encouraged argument and debate on a wide range of major public issues. They argued that
there could be improvement in all areas of public life.

THE REACTION OF LOUIS XVI TO ATTEMPTS AT REFORM

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Social and ideological factors played a major part in the start of the revolution in 1789, but politics and
economics also played a key role.

In response to the demand for reform, Louis carried out the following decisions:

9
 a) Joined the American war of independence.

Louis In 1778 decided to form an alliance with the colonists in America who were fighting for
independence from Frances’s old enemy, Britain. France declared war against Britain, determined to
regain not only the colonies that it had lost to Britain in 1763, such as Canada, but also the prestige lost
as a result of the many military defeats it had suffered in the war.

A-R-J Turgot was the finance minister when Louis became king in 1775. He warned against any more
involvement in wars, arguing that ‘the first gunshot will drive the state to bankruptcy’, but he was
ignored. The king took advice instead from the Comte de Vergennes, his foreign minister, who was
interested in France’s (and his own) prestige, and did not worry about such matters as cost.

b) Dismissing the finance minister.

In a bid to solve the economic problems and also because of the advice to stop joing the war, the
king dismissed the cautious Turgot in 1776. He had predicted correctly that the war would do little
harm to Britain, and instead would prevent the vital financial reforms that France needed so badly, with
the risk of national bankruptcy.

In 1777, a new finance minister was appointed. This was Jacques Necker. He was an unusual choice, as
he was not a French aristocrat, but a middle-class banker of Swiss origin and also a Protestant. Naturally,
this meant that many people at Louis’s court disliked him, notably the queen. The appointment of an
outsider like Necker indicates that there was a growing awareness that French state finances were in a
dreadful state.

Necker promised to reform the financial system. Many people, unwisely as it turned out, had great
confidence in him. He investigated and analysed France’s finances, but he did not deliver reform. He
funded the expensive war with Britain through borrowing at increasingly high interest rates. In 1781, he
published – for the first time in France – a public account of the royal finances. However, in this report
he claimed that these finances were in a good condition. They were not. He also hid the huge cost of the
war with Britain. He was dismissed four months after the report was published. Government borrowing
at high interest rates continued to increase.

The war with Britain came to an end in 1783. The United States became independent, but France gained
nothing from the war except deeper national debt. There was now, however, an opportunity for
financial reform and stability. With growing concern about the state of royal finances, another new
finance minister, Charles de Calonne, was appointed in 1783. Initially, he declined to cut royal spending
and simply borrowed more money to keep the government running, but he did start to plan important
changes. He was aware that without change France would go bankrupt.

In 1786, with the cost of servicing the state’s debts becoming too high, Calonne submitted a series of
needed reforms to the king. He made three main proposals: Reform the system of taxation by increasing
taxes for the wealthy. Stimulate the economy generally and encourage commerce and industry. Create
confidence in France and its economy so it could borrow more money at lower rates of interest. The

10
king, prepared from time to time to take an interest in matters of finance, approved the plans. The
decision was taken, in the light of growing public concern and interest in the economy, to submit these
proposals to the Assembly of Notables in the hope of gaining support for the measures. This body, made
up of nobles and clergy (only 10 of the 144 members were not nobles) then met for the first time since
1626. Calonne was in an impossible position. He was disliked by the vast majority of the Notables. He
had little serious support from the king and the rest of the government. Many of those in a position of
influence chose to believe Necker’s earlier statement that all was well with the royal finances. In
addition, the expensive war was over, so they thought the crisis was also over. Calonne had no idea how
to manage the Notables, and, in fact, there was no clarity on what the Notables’ role was. Was it just
consultative? Was the Assembly there just to support changes? Did it have any authority? Most
Notables recognised a need for some reforms, but they wanted to make sure that they, and the class
that they represented, did not suffer from those reforms.

The king was faced with an uncertain situation and tried to solve the problem by sacking Calonne in April
1787. Calonne was replaced by yet another finance minister, Etienne Brienne, who, as president of the
Assembly of Notables was felt to have influence over its members. The king disliked and distrusted him,
however, which meant that Brienne had limited royal support. When the Notables demanded an
accurate account of the royal finances, the king refused and instead dismissed the Assembly. This
caused great anxiety and protest among the educated public, and marked the start of the financial and
political crisis that eventually led to the revolution itself. The meeting and dismissal of the Notables
showed:

• just how deep France’s financial crisis was the many failings of the king and his court and
government
• that the public had not been given a true picture of the state of the royal finances
• that there was real opposition in the country to the king and his government that the public
demanded change and greater involvement in government.
c) Calling the Estates general meeting

11