ON WHAT PINCIPLES DID THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SEEK TO RESTRUCTURE FRENCH GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY IN THE YEARS 1789-91?
When the National Assembly established a dominant position in the running of the French state in 1789, they needed to move quickly to reform the old state around them into one that corresponded to the political views held within the new Assembly members. A ‘principle’ or origin from which all remodelling could take form from, and that would justify the actions of the Assembly to the people as they began reconstructing the state into a ‘ uniform, decentralised, representative and humanitarian system’ was needed. The question being asked is for us to define this principle used by the Assembly to remodel French society and government, a question that can only be answered by studying the declarations of the Assembly to discover the point at which they declare the main principles of their new system openly in a bid to justify further actions.
When the newly gathered members of the National Assembly met on the royal tennis court on the 20th June 1789, they declared a vow that was to be remembered as the ‘Tennis court oath.’ This vow was to never rest until they ‘provided France with a constitution,’ a basses that the Assembly could remodel France around. However, constitutions were new to this time in history and the constitutional writers needed time to discover the art of preparing such a document considering the lack of knowledge they had in the field. They may have been aided by information from the recent events in America and the benefits from studying their new American Constitution, but the Assembly still needed time to insure success, and this meant they needed a temporary base of principles to work from.
The starting point in the history of the Assembly’s actions to change France can be seen in the 4th August ‘ August Decrees.’ The Assembly had drawn up this set of principles after the pressure created by the Great Fear had forced action to be taken for the safety of French society. The assembly had wanted to calm down the peasant rising in the country and at the time this meant abolishing the feudal system, a system that hung around the shoulders of the peasantry mass. This action would provide the country with a freedom from personal servitude along with the removal of the dues that restricted the peasantry from day to day.
In one corner we have a nation, fed up with the corruption and constant bullying of their big brother nation, seeking the approval of the world for a revolution. In the other corner we have a nation, bent on gaining the equality among all individuals in their state, coming together to lay down the law to their king. Both America and France had a thirst for a new equal nation and government in which power was given to the people and not to a tyrannical figure. Individuals from both of these countries sat down and wrote up a letter of declaration in demand of the freedom that they so rightfully deserved. Both of them won that freedom, as the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen flourished with success in the late 18th century. ‘How did these two important documents come about’ is the question we should be asking ourselves. What separated these two monumental letters from each other? What gave each of them their fire, their spark to gain their rights to liberty? America’s Declaration of Independence focused more on America gaining sole ownership of their nation, abolishing their connections with the British and their tyrant King George, and setting up their own government based on Natural law and equality among all men. France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen confronted the king on his neglect to the equal rights of man, laid down the basic principles of how the nation should be run, and proclaimed that the nation should be and is going to be run by the people for the people. With those key differences stated as well as several other small values, such as taxation, oppression, and security, my concern is how both methods worked so efficiently given their varianc...
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.
The English Bill of Rights (1689) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) are roughly around the same period, in that it is possible to think the both documents share similar ideologies. To the thought’s dismay, it is not. Even if both documents start from the same question of taxation, the outputs vary enormously in that each has different aims: the English Bill of Rights (shortened as the English Bill from now on) only changes the crown and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (shortened as the French Declaration) changes the whole society. However, they are similar in that both strived for the representation of the masses.
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)
After the French Revolution, the nation of France wanted to take on a different type of governing. There were those who wanted to go back to the feudal system that was in place before and those who wanted a limited monarchy with a constitution. Edmund Burke and Emmanuel Sieyés were writers who had strong opinions on the both sides of the scale. Sieyés believed in the Third Estate, and believed that they could run a better nation, where as Burke said that the nobility or the Second Estate was the only people that could do that job. But as we can see Sieyés view was the one that thrived in the end.
Louis the XVI’s reign was a time of political turmoil in France. Massive debt from his predecessors, especially Louis XIV, and from various wars caused numerous economic struggles for the entire country. Many people began to lose faith in an absolutist government and rooted their ideas in the Enlightenment. The people called for reform and, because of his weak position due to his earlier capitulations, Louis XVI had to call the first Estates General meeting in over a century. The three Estates came with their cahiers to address their concerns. The grievances laid out before the Estates General were both political and economical, and while the nation was successful in addressing (but not resolving) these requested reforms, the
In attempt to form a new government the French decided that they were going to do just that without anyone/anything stopping them. For years the French government had ruled and made changes without consideration for the citizens consent. However the ‘new’ government were hoping to change that.
In June 20, 1789 the members of National Assembly in France signed The Tennis Court Oath. The National Assembly consisted of representatives of France’s lower class - the Third Estate. In the Oath, 576 members of the Assembly swore that they would not separate until a written constitution had been established for France. This constitution would reject the doctrine of the ‘divine right’ of the King and the ideals of an absolute monarchy, stating that the power of the people resided not in the king, but in the people of the nation. As a result of this declaration, the revolutionaries gained power, political presence and the vision of a France worth fighting for.
...search for a way to relieve the national debt, however policies by financial ministers like Jacques Neckler and Charles Alexandre de Calonne increased the debt even more. Louis would attempt to evoke the Assembly of Notables, which consisted of nobles, and later the Estates-General, which consisted of peasants, to ease the economic burden. However, both assemblies were shocked and disgruntled with the poor economy, and revoked the power of the King, leading to the French Revolution and forever abolishing absolutism from France.
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.
As the nation fell into the French Revolution, a mob of Parisians broke into Versailles and imprisoned the royal family in the Tuileries in October 1789. This act put power into the hands of the French society and formed the National Assembly. Whether it was true or not, I was a symbol of luxury and self-indulgence of the aristocrats.
...n after National assembly created liberal parliamentary system and rebelled against Monarch rule by passing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The National Assembly made governmental reforms forcing Constitutional Monarchy in France. The Constitutional Monarchy was represented by electorates. The legislative Assembly promoted liberty, equality, secularism, freedom of thought and replaced Constitutional Monarchy by Republic. It also declared war against Austria and Prussia in 1792. The government organised Terror of Regime to eliminate enemies of regime. The radical Jacobins won over the moderate Girondins. The Terror of Regime ended with the execution of Jacobin leader Robespierre in 1794. The executive directors governed from 1795 to 1799 under the Directory Rule. In 1799, Napoleon overthrows the Directory Rule and France fell back to Monarch Rule.
The most concrete results of the French Revolution were probably achieved in 1789-91, when land was freed from customary burdens and the old corporate society was destroyed. The great reforms of 1789-91 nevertheless established an enduring administrative and legal system, and much of the revolutionaries' work in humanizing the law itself was subsequently incorporated in the Napoleonic Code. Politically, the revolution was more significant than successful. Since 1789 the French government has been either parliamentary and constitutional or based on the plebiscitary system that Napoleon inherited and developed. The Revolution nevertheless freed the state from the trammels of its medieval past, releasing such unprecedented power that the revolutionaries could defy, and Napoleon conquer, the rest of Europe. Moreover, that power acknowledged no restraint: in 1793 unity was imposed on the nation by the Terror. Europe and the world have ever since been learning what infringements of liberty can issue from the concepts of national sovereignty and the will of the people.
One is DSI, also referred as product-specific innovativeness. Consumer innovativeness may vary from one product category to another. The other emphasizes an innate predisposition of innovativeness from a socio-psychological perspective, which includes cognitive and sensory traits. This socio-psychological view of innovativeness has been variously called life innovativeness. Demographic variables can be of substantial help in customer segmentation and targeting the most innovative market condition. Nevertheless, demographic factors are often overlooked in consumer innovativeness studies. Among demographic variables, gender and country (or culture/nationality) has broadly used as important moderators between cause and effect relationship in psychology and business research studies of human behavior. In psychology, gender differences have been studied in many areas including cognition and social behavior in psychology (Wooyang Kim C. Anthony Di Benedetto Richard A. Lancioni,
One is DSI, also referred as product-specific innovativeness. Consumer innovativeness may vary from one product category to another. The other emphasizes an innate predisposition of innovativeness from a socio-psychological perspective, which includes cognitive and sensory traits. This socio-psychological view of innovativeness has been variously called life innovativeness.Demographic variables can be of substantial help in customer segmentation and targeting the most innovative market condition. Nevertheless, demographic factors are often overlooked in consumer innovativeness studies.Among demographic variables, gender and country (or culture/nationality) has broadly used as important moderators between cause and effect relationship in psychology and business research studies of human behavior. In psychology, gender differences have been studied in many areas including cognition and social behavior in psychology (Wooyang Kim C. Anthony Di Benedetto Richard A. Lancioni,