Revolutions are always subject to criticism, especially when they challenge the entire political system that is in place. Reflections on the Revolution in France, by Edmund Burke, criticizes the French Revolution, discussing many controversial topics. Three topics that are mentioned throughout the text are the effects of religion, importance of legitimacy, and the effects of consistency and the resistance to change within a government system.
Tradition is important for conservative politicians, so many of Burke’s views of the government had to do with the importance of religion within a government, and the impact of God choosing the monarch. Throughout the Reflections, he describes how religion is the base of society, and that without it,
…show more content…
the country’s concerns will not be addressed. He explains that people without religion are “wholly unconnected individuals… they were not gregarious. They never acted in corps, or were known as a faction in the state, nor presumed to influence, in that name or character, or for the purposes of such a faction, on any of our public concerns.” (pg 88). He explains that without religion, individuals will not be concerned with public issues, nor will they take a stand for injustices. Also, since God chooses the monarch, he believes that the monarch is the best person to control the country’s affairs. Burke explains the Divine Right of Kings, the belief that the monarch is chosen by God, and this provides more evidence into his belief that religion is the basis of government. Religion creates credibility and stability, therefore, it is needed within the government. Although religion plays a part in Burke’s view of the government, it is not the only influence on his views.
Since Burke himself was a politician, he was very adamant on the fact that people who are helping run a country need to be qualified, specifically, politicians and monarchs. The National Assembly that formed during the French Revolution was made up of average citizens, so Burke’s position on the Assembly was that it was illegitimate. The assembly was made up of “inferior, unlearned, mechanical, nearly instrumental people” (pg 40), not people like politicians and people who had studied the government. Burke also criticizes Richard Price, for his sermon that accepts the French Revolution, particularly that the French will thrive with more adequate representation. Burke states that in “old fashioned constitution… our representation has been perfectly adequate for all of the purposes for which a representation can be desired or devised. I defy the enemies of the constitution to show the contrary.” (pg 54). Burke explains that the constitution is good the way it is, and there are no issues with the monarchy. Burke’s writing shows us his perspective on who is qualified to govern, and it is not the average …show more content…
citizen. According to Burke, consistency and moderation in the government is where the success of the system originates.
With disregarding France’s original constitution, the country can easily be lead to Its downfall. With the formation of the National Assembly, France left a “ferocious dissoluteness in manners, and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practices; and has extended through all of the ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege, or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruption of that usually were the disease of wealth and power.” (pg 35/36) In this quote, Burke explains the aftereffects of the sudden drop of the monarchy. If France had amended its system, it could have been successful. Populations change with time, as should the government to suit the dynamic country, and this is recognized by Burke. He explains that the government was “in need of reform, even though there should be no change in the monarchy. They required several more alterations to adapt them to the system of a free constitution.” (pg 208) With adjustments to the system, France could have become
successful. In conclusion, Burke believed that continuing the tradition of the monarchy was very important, and that religion, legitimacy, and resistance to change ultimately decides the success of a government, and would greatly impact the future of France.
Edmund Burke was an Irish political theorist and a philosopher who became a leading figure within the conservative party. Burke has now been perceived as the founder of modern conservatism. He was asked upon to write a piece of literature on the French Revolution. It was assumed that as an Englishman, Burke’s words would be positive and supportive. Given that he was a member of the Whig party, and that he supported the Glorious Revolution in England. Contrary to what was presumed of him, Burke was very critical of the French Revolution. He frequently stated that a fast change in society is bad. He believed that if any change to society should occur, it should be very slow and gradual.
In his book, The Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton describes four historically significant revolutions in modern states, the English Revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, and the Russian Revolution of 1917, and compares uniform trends and commonalities within those revolutions. Brinton hypothesizes that those revolutions have specific similarities in their inception, manifestation, conduct, and conclusion.
The ideas of change in the French Revolution came from Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau, from his book, Discourse on the Moral Effect of the Arts and Sciences, had the idea that civilization corrupted people and had once said “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. His ideas were the beginning of socialism. He believed in the common good. More extremely, there was Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) who fueled ideas for the Russian Revolution. He was the Father of Communism, a more radical form of socialism. Those who followed Rousseau’s and Marx’s ideas felt that the...
The American Revolutionary system served as a model, exemplifying the potential for great change and consolidation. The United States Constitution also provided a template for the French National Assembly. Montesquieu’s proposal of the separation of powers, as well as democratic conventions with representatives of the French people provided protection for the people against their government, securing “the greatest freedom and security for a state” (Duiker and Spielvogel 463). According to Article XV, people possessed the right to hold government officials accountable for their actions, developing a moral incentive as well as a foundational right for a more democratic society (National Assembly). France’s preparation for their independence showed a strong desire for equality and representation that mirrored that of the United
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.
A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. In 1775, America was ready for dramatic change, freedom, and a disconnection from Great Britain. Taxes, trade regulations, and overarching, power, made all colonists, aside from the loyalists, more than ready to detach from Great Britain’s rule. The American Revolution portrays many similarities and qualities of the French revolution, due to the inspiration of one to another. The similarities and qualities lie within their spiraling economies, selfish, money-worship-thirsty leaders, ideologies, and provocation.
Edmund Burke delivered his speech on conciliation with the Colonies to Parliament on March 22, 1775. The purpose of the speech was to persuade the British Parliament to consider their relationship with the American Colonists in regards to them being forced to pay taxes and whether or not their relationship would evolve. The evolvement would see the Colonists as more of an equal nation instead of the “loyal” British subjects that they were. This speech came almost 10 years after Parliament passed the Stamp Act (Mamet, 2015). This meant that the Colonists had been living with the oppression of the Crown as well as being taxed without proper representation or consent.
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
Edmund Burke, as a conservative theorist, claims that England’s preference for restoration over revolution makes the Glorious Revolution more legitimate than the French Revolution. To substantiate this, Burke quips, “We are not the converts of Rousseau…” to hastily dismiss the French philosophe based on his Enlightenment reputation (75). In comparing Rousseau’s conservatism with Burke’s, it’s important to categorize conservative thought into two genera: foundationalism and traditionalism. While foundationalist conservatives believe that there is a distinct, morally correct way to govern, traditionalist conservatives are grounded in the continuity of government for the purpose of stability. While these two categories are reductionistic, the
New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. Print. The. Kreis, Steven. A. A. "Lecture 12: The French Revolution - Moderate Stage, 1789-1792.
However, the noble-born were not ready to lose their supremacy, and there are very high chances that had they been aware of what the low-class citizens were planning, they would have retaliated with brutal force. Consequently, an upheaval was a need to change France, and anything contrary to that would need concrete proof that the Crown was ready to consider the problems of the people. On that note, contrary to Burke’s views, the people obviously had enough sense to realize that they were never going to have any privileges without force.
Though Paine’s reaction towards the British monarchy is definitely an extreme one given that the majority belief was reconciliation with the crown of the British Isles, Burke’s reaction would be just as extreme on the other side of the political spectrum (the extremist belief would even manifest itself in hostile words towards the French). However, both political beliefs have them fit neatly into the notion of historical progress, for they both advocate for the same thing: governmental change. Burke argues that political change is best done gradually and makes that argument with at least a century of “evolutionary politics” as evidence, while Paine appeals to the common citizen while using rhetoric and emotion to found his argument. While Burke and Paine might have had conflicting views, their contributions to revolutions and political processes positively changed the diplomatic world with lasting
He believed that the revolutionaries’ concept of freedom was wrong - that freedom in and of itself was not right or wrong but the application of it, particularly if used with (voluntary) restraint. He thought that there was a continued ‘social contract’ within society that exists in both the past and present, and will continue into the future: ‘Society is indeed a contract…As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’ (Burke 80) and that to ‘preserve this partnership, Burke believed that both government and longstanding customs and traditions are indispensable.’ (Ball, Dagger, and O’Neill 102) and so he espoused a view of human imperfection, the fact of inequality across society and the provision of freedom and order within the existing social system of society.
The quote “The blood of the people has flowed as in July; but this time this noble people shall not be deceived”, is almost a perfect rebuke to von Metternich’s assessment that the French Revolution was pointless as here. The people have held their rulers accountable for their actions and made sure to not give an opening for demagogues likes Robespierre. In addition, as if to add insult to injury to Metternich, the words “The provisional government wishes to establish a republic, --subject, however, to ratification, by the people, who shall be immediately.” is everything that Metternich disdained. The French people didn’t want to wait another century to gain the benefit of political power or when “people were wise enough”, they wanted their rights immediately. Therefore, the French people believed that establishing a Republic would be the best way to achieve that goal. In addition to a Republic style government being the culmination of everything Metternich disdained, a Republic has no absolute monarchy that can do as it likes and the government has to serve the people first instead of someone who lucked out on being born into the right family. Also, republics often tend to be secular, which would end the Catholic/Protestant Church’s political power, and essentially put the last nail in the coffin on divine right being the way