If I had to choose between security and order or freedom and liberty, I would say that the peoples as a whole gained greater security and order more then the freedom and liberty that the people were wanting. I believe that the basic strategy used back then was based security and order, not giving the people freedoms and liberties. Between the women and the men during the Middles Ages and the French revolution there were a lot of wars and problems that in the end not all the people got the freedoms and liberties that they wished to have, securities and orders are how places were ran back then especially during destruction.
The primary source stated that, “Hence the sword, too, is necessary to eliminate the godless. To ensure, however, that
…show more content…
this now proceeds in affair and orderly manner, our revered fathers, the princes, who with us confess Christ, should carry it out. But if they do not carry it out the sword will be taken from then (Daniel 7), for then they would confess him in words but deny him in deeds”. Thomas Muntzer,” "Sermon to the Princes," 1524, p. 111. After reading this quote I believe that security and order are huge here. They are taking away his sword, to me supports security and are denying him in deeds so me shows a lot of order and none of freedom or liberty. It even states that orderly manner. In the secondary source the French monarchy began to fall due to financial problems. When Louis XVI came into order in the year 1774 he was welcomed by the debt that was growing. He hired a man who went by the name of Turgot to handle the financial crisis stuff, such as the taxation on lands to get out of the debt. Hiring Turgot for some help is my opinion was his way to add more security and order to the already failing monarchy. I believe that by using security and order to reform the monarchy. To me there was a lot of high taxes out there during this time and it took security and order to get the people to pay. In the primary source, "[Descartes] was a long time of opinion that it would be necessary for him to fly from the society of his fellow creatures, and especially from his native country, in order to enjoy the happiness of cultivating his philosophical studies in full liberty. Descartes was very right, for his contemporaries were not knowing enough to improve had enlighten his understanding, and were capable of little else than of giving him uneasiness. He left France purely to go in search of truth, which was then persecuted by the wretched philosophy of the schools. However, he found that reason was as much disguised and depraved in the universities of Holland, into which he withdrew, as his own country. For at that time the French condemned the only propositions of his philosophy which were true..." Voltaire, From the Letters on the English, c.1778, p. 123. This quote was very long but interesting to me. I think this quote is stating that philosophy was coming to be a huge way of thinking; It basically stated that in order for him to enjoy and voice his opinion he needs to leave his native area for his full freedom and liberty. He has to leave it shows that security and order were already being used. I believe that he left France to search for the truth of freedom and liberty; even then security and order were still being used. On August 26 the assembly proclaimed the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, this was very similar to the American declaration. Although the declaration didn’t rule to every citizens favor, particularly the women during this time. I believe the freedom and liberty given during this time were bias. Women did not get the full measure of these liberties or freedoms. I believe that through security and order of the men the women even though were coming to be more independent didn’t want them to be involved, women during this time were still not at the same rank as men were. According to the primary source, "Kings, princes, and magistrates are not the owners of their subjects; therefore they are not entitled to their subjects' freedom, nor do they have the right to sell anyone into slavery....
Sensitive and generous souls would undoubtedly applaud these reasons in the name of humanity, but the avarice and greed that dominate the earth, will always refuse to listen to them." Louis, chevalier de Jaucourt “Traite des nègres” [Slave Trade] entry in Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedia, 1765, pp. 130-31. To me this quote was very interesting. I believe that all the laws and bills made, shortened the way the kings and rulers could attend to their people. To me Security and Order was in favor for the people at this time, but I do believe that there were times it was not, and freedom and liberty was what they would have wanted to be the greater one. Security and order were used greatly during the time the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was made. They had decided to link the church to the governmental financial problems. To get France out of its debt they wanted to make the church nationalize. They seized property that the clergy had and cold them. I believe that through security and order the National assembly did this. To me it is a violation of the freedom and liberty that they are supposed to …show more content…
have. In the primary source, "From this moment until that in which the enemy shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the service of the armies.
The young men shall go to battle; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothing and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen into lint; the aged shall betake themselves to public places in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach the hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic." The Levée en Masse, 1793, p. 140. I believe this quote is big on order. This quote to me is a large system that every one of different ages plays a role in. I believe without the order here there would be hectic problems during this whole time, nothing would be done and people would have no places. I really would like to relate this to the secondary source about the exploration. Exploration became very big, new technologies and people wanting new land or territories. As that was a system of order I believe that sailing could not have been possible for those without security and order. This exploration was a race between the Portuguese, Spain’s, and the Europeans. Each started and different times with the Europeans entering the race last. In my opinion greater security and order that was out they’re got them to sail. With out security and order I think the boats or I like to think of them, as systems would not
sail smoothly. To wrap it all up I believe that the people during the Middle Ages to the French revolution gained more security and order then they did freedom and liberty. Through all the wars and problems, people wanting rights, and needing money and couldn’t get paid security and order are what kept the kingdoms, monarchy’s, democracy’s, and republics alive during this time. Although we have rights today I believe that if security and order had not played a greater role during this time that we would still have a lot of problems they had then, that we do not have now. Liberties and freedom are what the people want more of, but greater security and order had to come first.
In 1685 there sparked a new age in Europe, the Enlightenment. During this time enlightened thinkers brought forth enhanced ideas of equality. Men, woman, rich, poor, monarchy, or peasant, everyone should have equal rights. In 1789 France was especially influenced by the new ideals. The french realized that they were still following the social ladder of the feudal system. They could not buy bread because of the raised prices, but the Monarchy was eating a feast for every meal. They had no say in what happened to their government, and their inadequate king kept making poor decisions. You might even say they took the enlightenment to the next level and started a revolution based on equality. Although the french were fighting for freedom (like the enlightened thinkers), they were not using reason or tolerance, two key elements of the Enlightenment.
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.
Clearly there never was just one French Revolution, but rather a series of revolutions. These occurred while the French struggled to create a new political and social system – one that would follow principles radically different to that of the ‘ancient’ regime. There were five regimes during the French Revolution between 1787 and 1800. However, despite this fragmented revolution, the same fundamental principles guided most of the revolutionaries involved. These principles included equality under law, centralisation of government, elimination of feudal rights, religious freedom and careers open to talent, not birth.
Taking into account the reality of the effect of the Reign of Terror and its acts to secure the government, it is important to highlight the circumstances that made the Reign the most necessary: war. Marching an 80,000-man army into France, Prussia and Austria moved to attack and capture the providences of Longwy and Verdun. Along with the pressing overseas forces, an additional “10,000 French army officers.formed armies and allied themselves with France’s foreign enemies” (Document B). To match the amassing legion that was shaping against them, the French government had to enforce regulations (in example: The Tribune) to divert the internal forces they were spending calming riots back to their needed place on the front lines. Similarly, without the Committee on Public Safety “employing a.network of informers and spies” (Document E) it’s impossible to say how the French would have suffered if the infantile government had lost information to enemies, especially considering many of their own countrymen had abandoned their patriotism and fled to the Austrian-Netherlands.
...poleon was in power. Many important civil liberties were taken away, like the freedom of speech and press. Slavery was reestablished, to the chagrin of many. Women’s rights were dealt a huge blow. After the gains women had made during the revolution, they were stripped away by Napoleon and women were once again expected to be subordinate and subservient to the men in their household. The biggest loss was the loss of a republic. No longer were the rulers of France selected by the public. The king had been replaced by a king in all but name.
Every system was corrupt, there was practically no right and wrong; no order, just rebellion. Several conflicting arguments can be made, but there is a definite decision to make in this situation.... ... middle of paper ... ... King Louis XVI tried to rule his country with an absolute monarchy, and the plan backfired substantially.
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
Two-hundred and ten years ago, the country of France was rapidly changing, whether for better or for worse was not yet known. At this time, young Napoleon Bonaparte was leading his fledgling empire in France. He was challenging all the laid down rules and regulations that had been in place within his country and Europe for hundreds of years. This year, however, he would enact a set of laws known as the Civil Code, which was later called the Napoleonic Code. This set of laws was one of Napoleon’s longest lasting effects on the world, as it “is still in effect today, and has served as the model for many other national codes, especially in Europe” (Princeton Review). It was this set of laws that laid down rules and guidelines that are seen as normal in a modern day sense, such as that all men are equal. These concepts were brand new to the period, and no leader had ever allowed such idea to be enacted. It went against what the kings and queens in Europe had fought so hard to maintain, the idea that aristocrats and priests were above commoners, and more importantly, above the law. The Civil Code would forever change the way the French governed their people, and how those people were represented in their government. One of the most significant aspects of it was that it protected private property, as well as restoring power to the males of the family. At this time, France was a country where you were born into your wealth and social status. However, this all changed with the Napoleonic Code as well. The society began moving towards a “merit-based society in which individuals qualify for education and employment because of talent rather than birth or social standing” (Bentley pg. 792). Among other things, the code improved education with...
The smell of gunpowder and atrocities fill the gloomy night, enveloping the world in an eerie darkness. Screams of terror cut through that darkness making it even more daunting. The aurora of death clings to every fiber of the countryside making it seem more like the underworld than like France. He pops up in a dark uniform, rifle gleaming but it does no good, for he is shot in the head just as quick as he appeared. Why did he have to die? What could have prevented his death? What is the most effective response to aggression? Leaders before World War Two thought the answer was appeasement to Hitler, but the war still happened which means it didn’t work. Collective Security would have been a better option when dealing with Hitler’s actions pre
...nd the republic nature of France.) and The Royalists (Who wanted a return to the system of monarchy).
“Europe cannot conceive of life without Kings and nobles; and we cannot conceive of it with them. Europe is lavishing her blood to preserve her chains, whereas we are lavishing ours to destroy them”(Maximilien Robespierre). For centuries upon centuries, the monarchal system had dominated European life. The very nature of this method of rule incited rebellious feelings, as a definite imbalance of power was present. Understandably, people under this system had risen against authority. The glorious nation of France was no exception. The eighteenth century brought about a great deal of economic and social turmoil. By the end of this one hundred year period, rebellion had been talked about by many citizens for quite some time. However, no definitive action was taken until one man stepped to the forefront; Maximilien Robespierre. Born in Arras, France about thirty years prior to the French Revolution, Robespierre was an immensely intelligent man as is seen from his ability to read and write fluently from the age of eight (the Force of 10). Robespierre rose from fairly humble origins to become a provincial lawyer, advancing further to become a representative in the Estates General, and eventually ascending to the leader of the French Revolution itself. For its sake he sent thousands to the guillotine, overthrew a monarchy, declared a new national religion, and invigorated the will of a nation. “No individual of the French Revolutionary era, with the exception of Napolean Bonaparte, has excited more passion in his time than the…dedicated provincial lawyer, Maximilien Robespierre”(Maximilien 1). During this era, Robespierre led France’s world inspiring cry for the liberation of mankind and petrified the world with its relentle...
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
...wn the monarchy because “World History,” states that, “Louis was well-intentioned and sincerely wanted to improve the lives of the common people.” (Beck Roger, Black Linda, Krieger, Larry, Naylor Phillip, Shabaka Dahia, 653) However, King Louis XVI lacked the conviction and initiative to carry out any of his plans to truly improve the lives of the French citizens. Proof of this was that the French citizens were desperate enough to riot the streets of France and storm the prison of Bastille. After all that has been said, it is clear that the citizens were indeed justified to overthrow the monarch.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.