Richelieu Dbq

The 17th century was a tumultuous time in Early Modern European history dominated by the Fronde, a series of civil wars in France (1648-1653), and the English Revolution, confrontations between Parliamentarians and Royalists in England (1642-1651). Unlike other conflicts, which were fought to determine who should rule, these wars were a response by the citizenry to the manners in which France and England were being governed. Subjugated under two absolute monarchical authorities, France and England’s people experienced unfair taxes and regulations intended to establish their king’s sovereignty; however, the forces meant to limit the power of the people worked to the opposite effect by provoking the public against their countries’ oppressive

regimes.
In France, the politics of the day dictated, “…when the common people are too well off it is impossible to keep them peaceable,” (Political Testament, p.

31). This viewpoint, imparted by Cardinal Richelieu before he passed away in 1642, was the rationale behind the taxations imposed on the population by the monarchy. Richelieu argued for the importance of taxations and similar charges because of their subjecting qualities. He claimed without levies to subdue the people, the public would lose awareness of their station and excuse themselves from behaving civically (Political Testament, p. 31). This conclusion was justified by the imperial belief that the common people, as the less enlightened citizens of the state, were incapable of adhering to their own commonsense and the limits of the law (Political Testament, p. 31). In England, Henry Ireton expressed a similar consensus that denied the people their rights due to their social

ranking.
The Putney Debates were a series of discussions held between members of the New Model Army concerning the manifestos of An Agreement of the People, a social contract demanding constitutional changes to the English government (The Putney Debates). Among the listed proposals were the terms for near-universal male suffrage. Henry Ireton did not believe commoners should be permitted to vote for representatives of the state because they held no land and subsequently, no prerogative in the nation (Putney Debates). He argued, “I think that no person has a right to an interest or share in the disposing or determining of the affairs of the Kingdom… that has not a permanent fixed interest in this Kingdom,” (Putney Debates). Ireton challenged man’s “right of nature” to assert power over his own political destiny by likening the right of commoners to choose who governs themselves with the anarchical right to seize whatever they wants. For, if a man has the ability to determine the inner workings of a country he has no claim to, by the same right of nature, he has an equal entitlement to any possessions he wants that are not of his own (Putney Debates).
Thomas Rainsborough debated Ireton’s views by countering, “ [For] really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly… every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent put himself under that Government…” (Putney Debates). This sentiment was the consensus of the Parliamentarians – that a man possessed the natural right to take part in the establishment of the government under which he was subjugated. The claim was taken a step further by asserting a man was not forced to follow the law if he did not give his consent in electing the representatives making the laws for him (Putney Debates). An Agreement of the People was a revolutionary proposal that purposed to increase the power given to the people following the injustices they had experienced at the hand of the crown. In France, the people took their political destinies into their own hands after spending years oppressed by the tyrannies inflicted by Cardinal Mazarin.
In May of 1648, a tax was levied on judicial officers of the Parlement of Paris that incited a broad condemnation on past taxations from the monarchy.

Cardinal Mazarin, Chief Minister to the young King Louis XIV, responded to their insurrection by arresting the leaders of the parlement – in turn, sparking widespread, civil unrest throughout the public (Louis XIV and Absolutism, p. 25). This conflict was a product of the pent-up rage that had accumulated within the masses, for, “…they loved the Parlement too much, and they all hated the Minister,” (Louis XIV, p. 29). The Parisian riots forced the queen to pacify the Parlement and its zealous supporters by releasing the members Mazarin had arrested (Louis XIV, p. 29). The public had exhibited they were a force to be reckoned with, proving that they possessed the ability to assert power over their own political destinies by refusing to comply with the

monarchy.
A resource that enhanced the power of the people was propaganda in the form of articles and pamphlets that criticized the government (Louis XIV, p. 30). Often published anonymously, they served to spread rumors and discredit the authority of the government. The Mazarinade was a series of political pamphlets consisting of satirical works against Cardinal Mazarin. In a work published in 1649, the sovereignty of the monarchy is undermined by juxtaposing an idealized political system with the present government (Louis XIV, p. 30).