More handpicked essays just for you.
Reorganization of french society french revolution
Changes in ideology during the French revolution
Reorganization of french society french revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“I have killed one man to save 100,000” (“Charlotte Corday”). This famous remark was Charlotte Corday’s justification for assassinating radical journalist and politician Jean-Paul Marat in his bathtub on July 13, 1793. Exploring Corday’s time period and upbringing as well as the life of her victim, Marat, allows for an understanding of what made her the infamous assassin she is remembered as today. Though her actions were seemingly cruel and merciless, she, like many others of the chaotic times that so deeply characterized the French Revolution, acted upon noble intentions to purify her nation.
The life of Charlotte Corday spanned from 1768 to 1793, overlapping with the French Revolution, which spanned from 1789 to 1799. Her actions and much of her life story were intricately tied to the events of the French Revolution. A few years before the
…show more content…
storming of Bastille, the official beginning of the Revolution, factors leading up to it were already falling into place, such as the disappearance of feudalism in much of Europe, particularly France. As a result of this newfound freedom, the enormous peasant class became increasingly rebellious. Shameful of their feudal past , they aspired for better living conditions, ultimately leading to a steep population growth in France. Soon, the amount of people in France outweighed the amount of resources, resulting in a constant revolts due to the state of economic crisis. Furthermore, France’s involvement in the American Revolution had further dried up the already limited resources, straining the government to the brink of bankruptcy. Another contribution to France’s weakened treasury were the reckless policies of King Louis XVI. Economically chaotic times such as these fostered a sense of panic and havoc throughout france. As the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures. So, these desperate times prompted a greater acceptance of radical philosophies. The only way to prompt such radical changes was to begin a revolution. During the spring and summer of 1788, the time leading up to the official start of the French Revolution, the growing unrest in many areas of Paris forced King Louis XVI to convoke an assembly of the Estates General to help deal with the financial crisis. When the Estates General met on May 5, 1789 in Versailles, they were immediately in dispute over how the votes should be counted, by head or by estate. The Third Estate, the common people, then threatened to call themselves the National Assembly and act independently of the other estates. Predictably, when this happened, the King and the upper classes worked to overthrow the increasingly powerful National Assembly. Feeling threatened, the peasants retaliated, leading to the Great Fear of July 1789, a time period characterized by violence, chaos, and instability instigated by the lower class (“French Revolution”). Throughout the Revolution, France was host to a constant tug of war for power between its classes. Lower classes seized the power that they were never given. It was a time of change. Corday, like many others, fought for change. During this time of political change, two revolutionary parties reigned supreme, the Girondins and the Jacobins. While both groups were fervent in their passion for political power and change, the Girondins were the more rational and the Jacobins the more radical. The Girondins were believers in a more gradual change and tried to stray from violence whenever possible. Contrarily, the Jacobins believed that violence was the only feasible option to provoke an affective Revolution because it was the only way to whittle out the traitors (“Jacobins vs. Girondins during the French Revolution”). The Corday family has roots in Normandy, and was originally composed of mostly members or the highest military caste, known as the “nobility of the sword” (Streissguth 22). Furthermore, they were believed to be descendants of one of the most renowned 17th century dramatists, Pierre Corneille (“Charlotte Corday”). However, the Cordays began marrying into the lower classes and thus having to divide their property among the many new lower class members of their family. They nearly sunk into the peasant class, practically becoming indistinguishable from the peasants themselves. By the time of Charlotte Corday, only remnants of her family’s nobility remained (Streissguth 22). Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d’Armont, more famously known as Charlotte Corday, was born to Charlotte Marie Jacqueline Gaultier de Mesniral and Jacques Francois de Corday on July 27, 1768. When Charlotte was fourteen years of age, her mother passed away. Shortly after her mother’s death, Charlotte and her younger sister were sent to live in a convent in Caen, Abbaye-aux-dames. Caen soon became the heart of an expanding opposition to the Jacobins (“Charlotte Corday”). Having been surrounded by such strong beliefs during an impressionable period in her life, Corday became, according to Barfield, an “idealistic young woman from Normandy who had been strongly influenced by the deposed Girondins and their sympathizers” (149-150), thus foreshadowing her future as an active Girondist. Another important facet to evaluate when exploring the life of Charlotte Corday is the life of her victim, Jean-Paul Marat. Early on in his life, he fostered suspicion and distrust for others, leading to many of his actions during the Revolution, possibly because the French Academy repeatedly refused to recognize Marat for his achievements. During the time of the French Revolution, Marat was best known as an influential politician and journalist. He published an eight page daily newspaper, L’Ami de Peuple, translating to Friend of the People in English. In this newspaper, he outed those he believed to be traitors (Barfield 117-119). He was rumored to have spent much of his time writing in his bathtub, in an attempt to gain relief from a painful skin condition (Streissguth 23-24). Marat shared the vision of most other Jacobins, believing that violence was a necessity. He was well known for saying, “In order to ensure public tranquility, two hundred heads must be cut off” (Barfield 119). Undeterred by his violence and extremeness, he was well loved by the people because he was believed to have spent up to six hours a day graciously listening to citizens’ lamentations and offering advice (Barfield). A strong Jacobin leader means an even greater Girondin enemy.
Marat constantly used his notorious newspaper as a weapon against the opposing faction, often encouraging people towards mob violence against the Girondins. In fact, Marat was even seen encouraging the mob of Jacobins that were evicting Girondins in June of 1793 (Streissguth 22-23). Marat was also an anti-monarchist who was against the formation of the republic. These combined factors, violence against Girondins and the threat that Marat posed to Republican virtues, were reason enough for Corday, a born and bred Girondin supporter of the Republic, to begin plotting his death. Corday feared that Marat’s thirst for violence would doom France’s already weakened condition into a civil war. She believed that only the Girondins could solve the conundrums that her beloved nation faced, and thus she held Marat responsible for them because he was in large culpable for the fall of the Girondins (Barfield 150). Corday believed that his death would allow the Revolution to “regain ideals and cure itself of the mindless violence inspired by Marat’s newspaper” (Streissguth
23). Blaming Marat for many of the struggles of the entirety of France, Corday set out to stop the problem at its root; she planned an assassination. In early July of 1793, Corday left Normandy and traveled to Paris to purchase a kitchen knife from a cutler’s shop (Streissguth 23). Corday attempted to acquire access into her victim’s home, but was stopped by Marat’s fiance, Simone Evrard. In a desperate attempt to gain entrance, she shouted to Marat that she had names of more traitors. Marat, tempted by the chance to punish more treasonists, told Evrard to let Corday pass into his bathroom where he lay in his bathtub (Streissguth). Baiting Marat, Corday revealed information about anti-Jacobin activists in Caen. In his last few breaths, Marat tells Corday, “In a few days I will have [the traitors] all guillotined” (“Charlotte Corday”). Enraged, Corday pulled the knife from the folds of her dress and fatally stabbed Marat in the carotid artery. The nation wept for their loss, and awarded Marat a seven hour long hero’s funeral (Barfield 119). Corday was quickly incarcerated in Prison de l’Abbaye, and showed no remorse for her actions. She justified them with her most famous quote, “[Marat] was perverting France. I have killed one man to save 100,000” (“Charlotte Corday”). In her short four days in prison before her execution, Corday wrote a letter of apology and explanation to her father. In it she explains “[that she has] avenged many innocent victims and [...] prevented many future disasters. The people will one day be disabused and be glad to have been delivered of a tyrant” (Streissguth 25). Up until her last dying breath, when she was guillotined on July 17, 1793, Corday supported her actions and truly believed that she had done her country a favor by ridding it of someone who encouraged chaos and violence. Corday, like most politically driven assassins, hoped that her actions would better her nation. Arguably, she both succeeded and failed. Corday inadvertently inspired a time of even more violence and bloodshed than the French Revolution in the short term, precisely the opposite of what she had meant to accomplish, but her actions were vital to the republanization of France in the long term. Upon the conclusion of the Revolution and the tyrannic rule of Napoleon, it seemed that Corday had died in vain. The continuation of the Revolution only brought more gore and less power to the people, not at all what Corday had fought for. She had hoped that by exterminating Marat, she would dismantle the entire Jacobin faction. Her dire mistake was in underestimating the passion and devotion that the people of France had for Marat. She unintentionally made him one of the most famous martyrs of the French Revolution. Statues of Marat replaced crucifixes in Roman Catholic churches for a brief span of time (“Charlotte Corday”). Corday failed to realize that this dedication made the Jacobin faction much like a hydra. While she had managed to sever one head, two more grew in its place, thus the Jacobins only grew in strength. Instead of purifying the Revolution like she had intended, “[Corday’s] murder of Marat had the effect of spreading fear and paranoia [...]. This fear would help inspire the Reign of Terror of 1793-1794” (Streissguth 25). During the Reign of Terror, Jacobin leaders continued with their previous brutality, except now with even more rigor due to the fear and panic that Marat’s death had provoked. In this time period, Corday’s claim to have killed one man to save 100,000 seemed ludicrous. The murder of Jean-Paul Marat had led to one of the most bloody times in French history, clocking a total of about 40,000 deaths, with hundreds of victims being fed to the guillotine every day. Even if the Reign of Terror was inevitable, Corday’s actions acted as a catalyst for the massacres to come. Eventually, Corday’s actions did better her beloved nation. Although it took the remainder of the Revolution and tens of thousands of deaths, France was able to attain the values that Corday had stood for. Because of the aforementioned love and devotion for Marat, the people began demanding that the government reform in order to prevent future tragedies, like his death, from recurring. Thus the government created a new constitution for France to fulfill the request of the people. This discovery of the influence that the people could have on their government fomented many future demands. Eventually France had a constitution that included rights that were foreign to the rest of the world at the time. The outrage that Marat’s assassination delivered prompted the people of France to demand better from their government. Corday’s actions gave the public a voice (Barfield 150). And with this newfound voice, over many years of demands and constitutional rewrites, a republic was born from the ashes of the violence that was the French Revolution. Born in a period of such havoc and bloodshed, Charlotte Corday’s life become defined by the events of the French Revolution. Due to her move to Caen, she was raised as a Girondist activist, foreshadowing the single event that was her claim to fame, the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat. In her time, Corday died a villain, while Marat died a hero. However, as the years progressed, France was reborn as a republic. Charlotte Corday’s death was no longer in vain, for France had finally encased the virtues for which Corday had valiantly surrendered her life to the crimson blade of the guillotine.
During the 20th century, there were many outlaws and crimes that made history and left their mark on society. The murder of Quebec prison guard Dianne Lavigne , in Montreal, by Hells Angels members Stephane “Godass” Gagne and Andre “Touts” Tousignant under the orders of Maurice “Mom” Boucher was one of these exact instances. Based on the Hells Angels attempt to destabilize the justice system, her assassination and that of Pierre Rondeau not long after were committed in 1997. As will become evident, the murder of Dianne Lavigne resulted in the incarceration of those who were responsible, the police repression of biker activity, and the revulsion of the public while generating fear within the judicial system.
(A) Make a list of the evidence that suggests that Oswald was preparing to kill President Kennedy.
Liberty, equality, and freedom are all essential parts to avoiding anarchy and maintaining tranquility even through the most treacherous of times. The Reign of Terror is well known as the eighteen month long French Revolution (1793-1794). In this period of time, a chief executive, Maximilien Robespierre, and a new French government executed gigantic numbers of people they thought to be enemies of the revolution, inside and outside of the country. The question is: were these acts of the new French government justified? Not only are the acts that occurred in the Reign of Terror not justified, they were barbaric and inhumane.
The notion of Bertrande de Rols in The Wife of Martin Guerre as having good intentions suggests not only that she was mindful of her own feelings in her pursuit of the truth, but also of the feelings of others. However, Bertrande’s intentions were to cleanse her soul and absolve herself from sin by indicting the impostor, Arnaud du Tilh. Yet, she undertakes this task considering the despair it would inflict upon the mesnie. These actions also are detrimental to Bertrande in causing her perhaps the most anguish and grief of all. Bertrande intends to uphold the status quo, yet she has due knowledge that pathway to the greater good will be harmful to her and the Mesnie.
Mob violence was a persuasive feature of the Revolutionary War in every port city, particularly Boston. These mobs, which were often described as motley crews, were central to protests and ultimately played a dominant role in significant events leading up to the American Revolution. Throughout the years, leading up to the American Revolution, many Americans were growing tired of British rule and thus begun to want to break free from Britain and earn their own independence. Some of these Americans, out of anger, madness, and in defense of their rights, began terrorizing towns, sometimes even to the point of paralysis highlighting grievances and concerns that the common man couldn’t say with mere words. These groups would then be absorbed into a greater organization called the Sons of Liberty. With the use of violence and political strategy , these radicals defending their rights, struck terror into anyone opposing them but also carried out communal objectives ultimately pushing for change which was a central theme for the American Revolution. It will be proved that these men through their actions not only were the driving force behind resistance but also proved to be the men who steered America toward revolution.
In 1976, the US Senate ordered a fresh inquiry into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who was murdered in 1963 during a motorcade in Dallas, Texas while campaigning for re-election. People who had been involved in the original Warren Commission investigations were asked to make fresh statements. The FBI and the CIA were persuaded to release more of their documents on Oswald. New lines of inquiry were opened and individuals who had not previously given evidence were persuaded to come forward. Most important of all, pieces of evidence such as photos and sound recordings were subjected to scientific analysis using the most up-to-date methods and equipment. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed their investigation in 1979 and they finally came to a discrete verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy, one of which killed the president. A fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll, which was contradictory to the statement printed by the Warren Commission 16 years earlier. They concluded that John Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy.
Assassination is a strong word with a powerful meaning. Assassination is defined as to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously. Assassinations and attempts have occurred throughout history. The victim is sometimes aware or unaware about their dangerous situation but is either guarded or unguarded. The assassin must have qualities of being determined, courage and intelligence to make the mission successful. Assassination is a long process of planning. It can take even years just to plan an assassination of a victim. Often times, assassination planning cannot be on paper because it can be evidence. The most common ways of assassination are using weapons, drugs, accidents and explosives. Surprisingly, the most common way of assassination is by gun. There can be many motives for assassination such as jealousy, political or religious ideas, revenge and etc. There are many famous assassinations. The assassination of Julius Caesar is very famous. Julius Caesar was Roman political figure, who was later was made the dictator of Rome, that was assassinated by the Senators.
In this essay I shall try to find whether the Terror was inherent from the French revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstances. The French revolution is the dividing line between the Ancien Regime and the modern world. After France the hierarchy that societies of the time had been founded on began to change and they began to sweep away the intricate political structures of absolute monarchy, but however to achieve this was the Terror absolutely necessary? And was it planned/ or was it just the extraordinary circumstances, which the French had lead themselves into once they had deposed of Louis the sixteenth. Whatever way it is looked at, the political ideology of the rest of the world was going to change after the French revolution. The conflicting ideology's of the French revolution from socialism to nationalism would now be mainstream words and spearhead many political parties in years to come. The French revolution had been in high hopes that a peaceful transition could be made from absolutist to parliamentary monarchy, but what went wrong? Surely the terror could not have been in their minds at this time? Surely it was not inherent from the start.
1793, the first year of the Reign of Terror, Robespierre grasped on to his new power and as the revolution spun out of control the Jacobins Club established a new way to “fight enemies” by constructing a Committee of Public Safety and a Tribunal Court. (Doc A) This new government was working swell; it contained counterrevolutionaries in the Vendée Region, and it smothered and ferreted the internal threats. (Docs A, C, G) The counterrevolutionaries adopted a name that meant trouble – the rabble.
The protagonists, The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont, consider it their life’s ambition to sadistically control and dominate those around them through sexual intrigue. These two villains are indeed locked in psychological combat to see who can actually ‘out-do’ the other in stalking, capturing and destroying the souls of others. Taking absolute pleasure in ripping any virtue from the hearts of their prey, Merteuil and Valmont wave their accomplishments in front of each other like spoils of war. The less the chance of surrender, the more relentless is the pursuit.
Furet, Francois ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’ in G, Kates(ed.) The French Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies Clarendon Press, Oxford (1997)
]“Little by little, the old world crumbled, and not once did the king imagine that some of the pieces might fall on him.” – Jennifer Donnelly. The French Revolution was a time period in which the people of its country had enough. They ripped up the thousand-year-old monarchy and redesigned their country’s way of government. The French Revolution was a time of struggle for its people. King Louis XVI had essentially bankrupted the country with his lavish spending and his involvement in the American Revolution. While the king was living a luxurious life, his people couldn’t even eat. During this time the king had people heavy taxes on the Third Estate, which consisted of 98% of the population, causing the French citizens to resent the monarchy. This lead to riots, looting, and strikes in a stance for better living conditions. Women of France had a specific hatred of the queen, Marie Antoinette. In the early days of October 1789, thousands of Partisans, several of which were women, walked
Anne Robert Jaques Turgot, baron l' Aulne, was born in Paris on May 10, 1727 to a noble French family of Normandy. Following in the footsteps of his ancestors, who had furnished the state with numerous public officials, Turgot would achieve public renown as Intendent of Limoges and later as Controller General of all France. Although Turgot ended his public career in unfortunate circumstances, being dismissed by Louis XVI for ineffectiveness, his political theories became a major influence in the remaining years of the Old Regime. The depth of Turgot’s economic thought was not recognized at the time because it largely went against what the ruling aristocracy wanted to hear. His clairvoyance is much more fully noted in light of the last two centuries. Furthermore, Turgot was one of the King’s last controller-generals before the French Revolution ended the monarchy. When his political and economic ideals are considered against this backdrop their importance as well as their contradictory nature become apparent.
Given his significance throughout the late 1700s and the early 1800’s, Napoleon Bonaparte has been deemed a controversial figure by many historians. Born Napoleone di Buonaparte, he was a French military leader and a political figure who was feared by many and hailed as a military genius by others. Notwithstanding the praise, Napoleon disguised policies of his own interests as reforms that served the needs of the state. An analysis of the Napoleonic Code, Napoleon Bonaparte’s excessive use of military force and his reintroduction of Catholicism through the Concordat of 1801, provides a balanced overview of Napoleon as a corrupt leader.
Napoleon Bonaparte remains one of the most prominent figures in the history of France, and his impacts on the courses of the history of his nation are so evident and outstanding. Ever since he seized power, there have been many debates and discussions as whether he was the “savoir” and the defender of the French Revolution or was he a tyrant who destroyed the ideals of the revolution in search of his own personal ambitious glory. In this respect, Napoleon is considered as a complex and ambiguous character who is portrayed as an heir to the revolution and at the same time its betrayer.