Robespierre's name is one of the most notorious France has ever known. In May 1879 Robespierre was elected as deputy of the Estates-General. He was then elected as president of the Jacobin political party. Due to the Jacobin Political Party, the churches property was taken by the state, the Catholic Clergy lost power. With the church out of power, Robespierre was left with all the power. He demanded that King Louie XVI and Marie Antoinette be beheaded. Under Robespierre's leadership, droves of people suspected of being resistant to the Jacobin party's policies were systematically killed during bloody public executions. He even created a national religion based on deism, "The Cult of the Supreme Being". He sought to use the cult as a tool to unify the masses against the Revolution's enemies. His supporters began to fear for their lives, and his power base quickly dissolved because of his excessive execution demands. Robespierre was banned from France's governing body,the National Convention and placed under house arrest on July 27, 1794. His followers attempted to free him and failed in their last attempt. Robespierre tried to commit suicide by killing himself only managed to shoot his jaw. A few hours later, he was executed by his own bloody regime, the guillotine. Later on all people suspected of following his rule were executed as well, therefore ending his reign.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre is important because he was not only a french revolutionary supporter but also the ruler for a period of time. His reign as ruler didn't help France at the time because him and his Committee of Public Safety basically ensured that anyone who opposed him would end being sent to the guillotine which included tens of thousands enemies of the revolution. So anyone that did not support the idea of a revolution would be killed off to ensure only one common belief would be available to the public/country and it was his belief in a revolution. This was until he was arrested and guillotined because of him trying to rid of France of all non-revolutionist thinkers.
Maximillien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was one of the main leaders of the French Revolution. He also ruled France for a short period of time. He was elected president of the Jacobin political party. One thing that he is well known for is that he beheaded a lot of people, only to be beheaded himself. The era that he ruled in was known as the reign of terror. He constantly sent people to death of guillotine. He executed Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
He started out a member of the third estate. He advocated for more power and equality for the third estate all throughout his life. Since the third estate made up 97% of France's population, he was a very popular figure. The public supported what Robespierre advocated and this helped him eventually rule France.
Robespierre
READ Strayer, p. 504-507.
LOOK UP Maximilien Robespierre, write a brief blog post that explains why Robespierre is important and how he is representational of the conduct of the French Revolution of 1789.
Maximilien Robespierre was one of the French Revolution's supporters. He held a lot of influence in the French Revolution, and retained it until he was executed in front of the Hotel de Ville. In a way, he represented many of the different types of conduct the French Revolution was handled with. Like the masses, he was very supportive of equality and the dissolving of the monarchy, among other things supported by the third estate-turned National Convention, and he fought strongly for them. He was a lawyer, a member of what was formerly the third estate, but he held tons of power, like many others were able to during the revolution. He gave many speeches and rallied political groups, including one founded by himself, so in a way he did not only portray the conduct of the French Revolution, he also created it.
However, he did not simply stick to quietly giving speeches to win over followers. During the Reign of Terror, he condemned many to the death of the guillotine, and killed many against his methods used in the revolution. This violence is similar to the excessive and not necessarily productive violence that was adopted by the revolting masses during the French Revolution. However, it did not sit too well, with some, and he was eventually captures and executed by guillotine, as he had done to so many others, in front of the Hotel de Ville.
LOOK UP Maximilien Robespierre, write a brief blog post that explains why Robespierre is important and how he is representational of the conduct of the French Revolution of 1789.
Maximilien Robespierre was one of the French Revolution's supporters. He held a lot of influence in the French Revolution, and retained it until he was executed in front of the Hotel de Ville. In a way, he represented many of the different types of conduct the French Revolution was handled with. Like the masses, he was very supportive of equality and the dissolving of the monarchy, among other things supported by the third estate-turned National Convention, and he fought strongly for them. He was a lawyer, a member of what was formerly the third estate, but he held tons of power, like many others were able to during the revolution. He gave many speeches and rallied political groups, including one founded by himself, so in a way he did not only portray the conduct of the French Revolution, he also created it.
However, he did not simply stick to quietly giving speeches to win over followers. During the Reign of Terror, he condemned many to the death of the guillotine, and killed many against his methods used in the revolution. This violence is similar to the excessive and not necessarily productive violence that was adopted by the revolting masses during the French Revolution. However, it did not sit too well, with some, and he was eventually captures and executed by guillotine, as he had done to so many others, in front of the Hotel de Ville.
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of revolutionary France. For his idea of the revolution, all enemies, even those with the smallest disapproval of the new France needed to be executed. During the "Great Terror," Robespierre sent over seventeen thousand people who opposed France's views to the guillotine to establish complete leadership and eliminate any dissent. He easily wiped out leaders of parties that remained loyal to the monarchy. Robespierre was extremely popular because he reflected the views of the French people who wanted freedom from their enemies at any cost. This can be shown by the public's unanimous accusation of Louis XVI and their readiness in sending even him to the guillotine to destroy remnants of their his oppressive history. However, as the threat of invasion from other countries or rebellion dwindled, Robespierre continued executions in the same matter, continuing to restrict the freedom of the people in a similar manner as that of the previous government. Robespierre was overthrown, and he, himself, was forced to the guillotine. (Other Source)
LOOK UP Maximilien Robespierre, write a brief blog post that explains why Robespierre is important and how he is representational of the conduct of the French Revolution of 1789
Maximilien Robespierre was a leader in France during the French Revolution. Robespierre had a strategy similar to the one that we were emulating in class: basically that people that disagreed with him would be killed. He was much different than what people had seen before, but surprisingly he was very popular among French citizens. In his eye, the benefit is that this type of government keeps everyone loyal because people all have the same beliefs. This potentially leads to everyone working together in a positive manner on everything. Of course, like any government, there are flaws. There is no way to actually prove what people truly believe, and not to mention the thousands of unjustified deaths he advocated. Regardless, Rebespierre supported equality and therefore was supportive of the third estate. He was against a monarchy and supported progressive, revolutionary thinking.
Maxy Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre is not only famous for his unimposing physical attributes with a hunger for change, but is commonly known for his influential figures of the French Revolution. After being inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, he stressed his opinion over the left-wing bourgeiose. They are most commonly used to refer to support for change in traditional social orders. Although Maxy had a strong push for change his reign came to a tragic ending of being beheaded in 1794.
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of France just after the French Revolution who led what would later be called the Reign of Terror. Robespierre came into power because he was a supporter of the idea of equality, which lead to him being followed by the lower and middle classes of the French society. Though he was supported by man people initially, his violent and radical tendencies led to most of France fearing for their lives.
During the Revolution itself, Robespierre spoke frequently in the National Assembly (or the Third Estate). However, during this time, his ideas of equality for all men was too radical and ahead of what the Assembly was going for. Years later, after Robespierre had risen in power, it was time for a new constitution to be written and brought to the king. When the constitution was finally ready, the royal family attempted to flee the country, which lead to their arrest. Now the country was not only without a constitution, but also without a royal family (even though the one they had previously had was awful). This gave Robespierre the opening he needed to rise to more power.
Robespierre had a very direct and semi violent way of getting things the way he and his colleagues wanted it. He pushed down rebels and killed many people using the guillotine. Eventually, after much drama and many bouts of terror, Robespierre and his followers were taken out of power and killed.
Gale number one, Gale number two.
During the Revolution itself, Robespierre spoke frequently in the National Assembly (or the Third Estate). However, during this time, his ideas of equality for all men was too radical and ahead of what the Assembly was going for. Years later, after Robespierre had risen in power, it was time for a new constitution to be written and brought to the king. When the constitution was finally ready, the royal family attempted to flee the country, which lead to their arrest. Now the country was not only without a constitution, but also without a royal family (even though the one they had previously had was awful). This gave Robespierre the opening he needed to rise to more power.
Robespierre had a very direct and semi violent way of getting things the way he and his colleagues wanted it. He pushed down rebels and killed many people using the guillotine. Eventually, after much drama and many bouts of terror, Robespierre and his followers were taken out of power and killed.
Gale number one, Gale number two.
Maximilien Robespierre - The Reign of Terror
Maximilien Robespierre led the French Revolution from September 1793 to July 1794, during the time period known as The Reign of Terror. Although he had a short reign, he influenced the French Revolution by turning it into one of the bloodiest and violent revolutions of all times.
After political conflict, the Jacobsins came to power and eliminated all their competition. However, they then began to fight among themselves, killing each other until only one small portion of the Jacobins in the National Convention were left. This group was led by Maximilien Robespierre. He was against a monarchy and had his own ideas about a national religion. His method of ruling was to execute anyone who was even a slight possible threat, and over the course of his rule, tens of thousands of people were brought to the guillotine.
Maximilien Robespierre was important because of his strategy of frightening people into believing what he believed. However, the strategy did not end up being successful because Robespierre was overthrown after a short time in power, as he himself was taken to the guillotine that everyone in France had come to fear in his reign.
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of France for a brief time during the French Revolution. He was also the head of the Committee of Public Safety and helped to execute tens of thousands of people by guillotine that were supposedly against the state. He was important because of his brief power during a dark hour of the French Revolution and was a major player during the Terror of 1793-1794.
Maximilien Robespierre is representational of the French Revolution because he brought about major change and ruled through dominance. The French Revolution was all about major reform and starting from scratch; it was not about tweaking and improving on past methods. Robespierre purged the country of anyone who threatened the revolution and so his arrests and executions of thousands were representative of the major changes that happened. Napolean tamed the revolution and conquered much of Europe, and Robespierre dominated France for a brief period while keeping the country in a state of terror. Robespierre represented conduct of the revolution because he was like a tyrant or dictator.
Info from the textbook and Gale.
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was a highly influential political figure of the French Revolutionary era. He became a part of the National Assembly and participated in the battle for the rights of average people. He was famous for his strong beliefs in democracy and detest of monarchy. After he was elected first deputy for Paris of the National Convention, he stongly supported attacks against the king that eventually led to Louis XIV's trial and execution. He then continued to lead committes and powerful movements designed to govern the now monarch-less country, executing anyone who got in his way. He then tried to force France to take on a new official religion, a cult of the Supreme Being. Robespierre was conspired against and later executed by smaller groups of revolutionaries after his actions caused him to become more and more unpopular.
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was born in Ireland, but he later became a liberal lawyer in France, not to mention the eventual leader of the French Revolution. In 1789, he was admitted into the Estates General as a representative 3rd estate and as the public accuser. However, in 1793, he left the Assembly and was elected into the Committee of Public Safety as the leader. The Committee of Public Safety was a political group who initially and subtly promoted the idea of rebellion and revolution. This title and place on the committee virtually named Robespierre as a side-ruler of France along with 12 other members of the group.
Robespierre provided a major voice to the French population in questioning the authority and efficiency monarchy. As his popularity increased, more of the French middle and lower class were more encouraged to question the monarchy and therefore started to rebel. For instance, the seize of Versailles and the attack on the Bastille symbolized Robespierre's successful oratorial effect, such that the people of France resorted to violence to show signs of independence and disapproval.
As he continued to preach the concept of revolution, Robespierre gained political power over the Nation along with his Committee of Public Safety. After Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were executed under the Guillotine (national public beheading contraption), the Committee of Public Safety considered itself the new true rulers of France, with Robespierre as its primary voice. Out of suspicion towards potential revolutionary enemies, Robespierre and the committee ordered the executions of tens of thousands of people.
Robespierre's immense amount of power soon placed him in a similar position as a monarch; he pictured himself as a prophet and executed whomever he pleased. As the revolution progressed, many people began to realize Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety's hypocracies and madness. The Committee had become the very type of government it had set out to abolish forever. Robespierre was soon found out, and was kidnapped by his own people. He attempted suicide by shooting himself in the head before he was seized, but his attempt failed and he went to prison and soon became exiled from France with a hole in his jaw. Eventually, he was decapitated under the Guillotine in France.
From observing the timeline of Robespierre's reign, we see the irony in how his philosophies and his actual governing methods operate with one another. The French Revolution as a horrendous time that essentially provided France with little benefit in the end. However, other countries observed how a total reversal in government and tradition can occur within a nation. The power of revolution and an angry population proved to be immense during the French Revolution. Questioning the monarchy was a blasphemous notion before the revolution occurred in France. Therefore, the French Revolution changed the rest of the world by questioning the authority of an unjust government. Separate countries used this philosophy to shape their nation today by learning how to rebel against corruption. Robespierre is the source of this new way of thinking during the 18th and 19th centuries, and although his actions were twisted at times and his reputation is considered somewhat infamous, his philosophy on a nation's government and social structure has helped shape the world today.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Maximilien Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was a French citizen during the French Revolution that embodied the darker side of the Revolution, known as the Reign of Terror. Maximilien started off as a peaceful, articulate, and intelligent member of society. He later became infatuated with the French Revolution, he was influenced by enlightenment philosophes such as Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Russeau. As he became more and more involved in the French Revolution he developed a reputation as a bloodthirsty tyrant. He became a leader of the French Revolution, and after he seized control he began the slaughter of all who opposed him. His reign was refered to as the Reign of Terror because with maximilien in control, no one was safe. He murdered all who opposed him, even if they had initially supported the revolution. Overall, Robespierre is important because he is responsible for the negative reputation that the French Revolution attained. He also exemplifies the problems with the revolution; while the people were fighting to overthrow an unjust government they were becoming weak and it was easy for tyrants to seize power.
Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre is a good example of the kind of corruption that sprouts easily in people when they are given too much power. He started out as a peaceful man that was elected to the Third Estate, and once he gained power he became bloodthirsty and corrupt. He was a large influence in the death of King Louis XVI. After the death of the King he got more power and more power. In his speech for Louis's death he said "Louis ought to perish rather than a hundred thousand virtuous citizens; Louis must die, so that the country may live." After the King was killed the country became divided and unified. The Reign of Terror was a period in France when huge amounts of executions took place, mostly led by Robespierre. Ultimately, he was brought down by his own side and executed for his excessive bloodlust. This shows how revolutions that strive for peace lead to destruction of some kind, even if it is for a greater good. Revolution and change almost always requires violence and it can easily get out of hand. When presented with power people can easily become corrupt.
Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre grew up in Arras, a town in France. He excelled in his studies, and later became a lawyer, thus allowing him to lead a comfortable life with his income. He attended, and later became chancellor and president of the Academy of Arras. In 1788, he wrote Mémoire pour le Sieur Dupond, protesting royal absolutism.
He was chosen as a representative of the Third Estate for the Estates General until he left in 1793. He was chosen to be leader of a political group called the Committee of Public Safety. He, among 12 other leaders, pushed the initial ideas of revolution. He was popular with the people, and spoke often at the National Assembly.
He lead the Jacobins, a group who promoted ideas of revolution. He was a fighter for liberty, causing him to be disliked by many of higher class. He predicted the war between Austria and Prussia, so when it broke out, people looked to him, and elected him head of the National Convention. He was a montagnard, the political group of the extreme right. The Girondins, a political group to the extreme left, accused him of dictatorship. Robespierre ordered King Louis XVI to be executed. The poor condition of the people set them in a revolutionary mood. He tried and killed many of the Girondins.
After a rebellious group called the enragés attempted to rise up the people to revolt again, he intensified the reign of terror. He executed many innocent people, including people who had opposed the death of the Girondins, and the king's sister. He proceeded to guillotine anybody else who tried to oppose the government.
More and more rumors were spreading around the nobles and his colleagues accusing him of dictatorship. The Great Terror of the summer of 1794, caused many people to begin to change their positive view on him. After his last speech, the people turned against him, and he was arrested. He was then guillotined along with 108 people who helped him, in front of a cheering crowd.
Robespierre was a prominent figure in the French Revolution. Originally, he helped spread ideas of revolution. After the revolution, he practically became a dictator himself, which is quite ironic. He guillotined many innocent people during the reign of terror. Later, the people turned on him, and he was guillotined himself, which is also ironic.
Maximilien Robespierre
READ Strayer, p. 504-507.
LOOK UP Maximilien Robespierre, write a brief blog post that explains why Robespierre is important and how he is representational of the conduct of the French Revolution of 1789.
Maximilien Robespierre is known for being one of the most influential figures in the French Revolution. He was the "leader" of the Terror of 1793-1794 where enemies of the revolution were executed on the guillotine. Robespierre's philosophy was that a man's life has to be sacrificed to save the Revolution. The man he had in mind was King Louis XIV. He argued that the King betrayed the people when he tried to flee the country previously and that he posed a danger to the State as he was unifying enemies of the Republic. On July 27. 1793, the Convention elected Robespierre for the Committee of General Security.
Robespierre subconsciously gave the men of France an idea of what the Revolution is doing to its citizens because he was the main person that was in "control" during the Terror of 1793-1794. Robespierre was influential to a numerous amount of people, but his ideas were disagreed by The People. Eventually, the population of France started to have the same beliefs as him and that was one of the major turning points of the Revolution. The people of France eventually executed him on the guillotine in July 28, 1794 at Place de la Révolution in fear that he was starting a dictatorship instead of a Republic. Analysts now agree that he was becoming a threat to the people of France and the French Revolution.
LOOK UP Maximilien Robespierre, write a brief blog post that explains why Robespierre is important and how he is representational of the conduct of the French Revolution of 1789.
Maximilien Robespierre is known for being one of the most influential figures in the French Revolution. He was the "leader" of the Terror of 1793-1794 where enemies of the revolution were executed on the guillotine. Robespierre's philosophy was that a man's life has to be sacrificed to save the Revolution. The man he had in mind was King Louis XIV. He argued that the King betrayed the people when he tried to flee the country previously and that he posed a danger to the State as he was unifying enemies of the Republic. On July 27. 1793, the Convention elected Robespierre for the Committee of General Security.
Robespierre subconsciously gave the men of France an idea of what the Revolution is doing to its citizens because he was the main person that was in "control" during the Terror of 1793-1794. Robespierre was influential to a numerous amount of people, but his ideas were disagreed by The People. Eventually, the population of France started to have the same beliefs as him and that was one of the major turning points of the Revolution. The people of France eventually executed him on the guillotine in July 28, 1794 at Place de la Révolution in fear that he was starting a dictatorship instead of a Republic. Analysts now agree that he was becoming a threat to the people of France and the French Revolution.
Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre was most important to that period of time during the French Revolution called "the reign of terror," lasting from 1793-1794. Robespierre encouraged the Revolutionary Tribunal in electing and beheading the seventeen thousand whose deaths have made the French Revolution one of the bloodiest in history. No one was safe during this time, not even those who had supported the Revolution from the beginning. If at all connected to opposition you were a danger to the changes in society and so deemed a threat. Amongst the beheaded were Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, both Lavoisiers, and thousands of others. Despite the purpose of the Revolution, to create an idyllic society, Robespierre ordered his political opponants slaughtered to better pave his way in argument. Paranoid, he did not allow the bloodbath to end even when the Revolution was passably stable and met only by victory. This unnecessary brutality was what put the French people into motion yet again, throwing down Robespierre because the Revolution "was devouring its own children." In its volatile and incensed state, France was easily taken in by potential tyrants or dictators, such as Robespierre.
Tennis Court Oath
What seem to be the grievances of the Third Estate? Pick one or two of the apparent complaints and ANALYZE them in a BLOG POST, that seeks to explain the grievance type. Is it financial? Physical? Mental?
The Tennis Court Oath was like a pep rally which rallied the Third Estate to think about their rights and state their rights to the King which united them. What the Third Estate complained about is as followed:
Some of the complaints of the third estates were that the lowly peasants were forced even when they did not have money or were flat broke had to pay outrageous and disproportionate taxes that made them all in dept to the king, So they had to do forced work without pay to pay their taxes. Which made them want to revolt against the King. This was called Corvee, forced work. This could also play into The Physical and Mental Aspect because the induced labor would have affected their bodies and mind. The long and hard days would be straining and unbearable and it would day by day internally and externally destroy their bodies. Which after time they wold probably say enough is enough and they rebelled whhich resulted in many casualties.
Another grievance is the Bourgeoisie the middle class( merchants and scientists). During the rebellion in the national assembly, they believed in Enlightenment ideas of equality and social justice called for reform in the tax system. Their grievances grievances were they wanted what the other estates had (ie their rights).
The Tennis Court Oath was like a pep rally which rallied the Third Estate to think about their rights and state their rights to the King which united them. What the Third Estate complained about is as followed:
Some of the complaints of the third estates were that the lowly peasants were forced even when they did not have money or were flat broke had to pay outrageous and disproportionate taxes that made them all in dept to the king, So they had to do forced work without pay to pay their taxes. Which made them want to revolt against the King. This was called Corvee, forced work. This could also play into The Physical and Mental Aspect because the induced labor would have affected their bodies and mind. The long and hard days would be straining and unbearable and it would day by day internally and externally destroy their bodies. Which after time they wold probably say enough is enough and they rebelled whhich resulted in many casualties.
Another grievance is the Bourgeoisie the middle class( merchants and scientists). During the rebellion in the national assembly, they believed in Enlightenment ideas of equality and social justice called for reform in the tax system. Their grievances grievances were they wanted what the other estates had (ie their rights).
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was a protest by french citizens against the lack of equal representation of the third state (composed of peasants of course) in the States-General meeting. The third state was not receiving equal say in these meetings because King Louis XVI had set up the States-General so that the other two states (comprised of clergy and nobility) could out vote the third state on every decision made. In 1978 when the third state asked King Louis XIV for equal representation, he denied their requests and so the third state decided to protest this by staying out of the States-General meetings and in one case, meeting on a tennis court after being locked out of a session, hence the name The Tennis Court Oath. Grievances faced by the third state were that they were mental and physical. Mentally, the peasants of the third state were being counted as lesser to the nobility and clergy which gave them ample reasons to revolt. By not allowing the third state to have the same amount of say in the states general meetings the government had expressed to the public that the say of nobles and clergymen was more important than that of mere peasants; which infuriated the third state. The other Grievance that the third state had was financial. The third state was comprised of people that were suffering to make money at the time, and working very hard for low pay, while the nobles taxed the peasants consistently. Since the third state could not out vote the clergymen and nobles, they were forced to watch as new taxes were imposed upon them with the sole intent of making the first and second state's lives easier. Overall, financial injustice and social inequality gave the third state ample grievances.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was taken by members of the Third Estate in France on June 20, 1789. It's very nature presents us with one of their greivences, too much power given to the monarch and corrupt rule. This oath was taken under strange circumstances. The Third Estate was formed to represent the common class in France as opposed to the clergy or nobility. On the day that they gave this oath they had been locked out of the room that they normally met in, sending them into a panic. They believed that the lock-out was intentional and caused by the King to try to make them stop meeting and representing the commoners of France. They took this as a threat to their governmental power. Instead of giving up, they held their meeting in a nearby tennis court and took this oath to ensure that they would continue to represent their class, despite any setbacks that the nobles or the clergy gave them. The tennis court oath was the first time that any major political group really stood up to the King and disputed what he said. By doing this, they publicly protest the King's exessive power and their own lack of power, despite their clear majority. They were trying to take power away from the King because they wanted to keep their government as pure and uncorrupted as possible, and to put decisions made for the common people into their own hands and away from the King. It was unfair for the upper classes to hold so much political power while they represented only a tiny fraction of France's population.
TCH (Just to be a lil different out here)
The Tennis Court Oath a historic event that happen during the french revolution. The Oath was pledged by 576 people that took place in the tennis court building near the Palace of Versailles. It involved the First-estate and Third-estate during a Estates-General meeting. On the morning of June 20 several deputies descovered that the doors to their chambers had been locked. Fearfully, they held a meeting in a near by tennis court.
They took an oath in the building: " Never to seperate, and to meet wherever circumstances demand, until the constitution of the kingdom is established and affirmed on solid foundations." The oath was not only a revolution act, but a way to show that they believe in a government ran by the people and not by the Monarch himself.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath (other source: here) was an oath proposed by Jean-Joseph Mounier of the national assembly (members of the third estate) that stated the members shall be bound together until a new constitution was formed. All members of the national assembly pledged the oath except for one, Martin Dauch. The oath is called the Tennis Court Oath because, after being locked out of their regular meeting place, the members of the national assembly decided to meet in a nearby indoor tennis court.
The grievances of the Third Estate was mostly social and physical, because the main thing the Third Estate was rebelling against was equality between estates. This started with the fact that each estate had an equal amount of votes, but the first two estates agreed with each other, which left the third estate out-numbered two to one, even though the third estate was 97% of the population. This is a social grievance because it had to do with who had power. The nobility had the power to make the decisions of how to divide up the votes, and the third estate had absolutely no say in this. This is also physical, because it has to do with the physical structure of how the votes were divided up, and this ended up not being fair.
The other part of equality that the third estate was rebelling against was the level of taxes they had to pay versus the taxes the first and second estates had to pay. This was a financial grievance, and also a social grievance, because even though the peasants made much less money than the merchants, they still had to pay the same amount of money.
The new constitution (that was decided to be developed by the Tennis Court Oath) pledged to fix all of these grievances which mainly revolved around equality within estates.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath happened when Louis XIV called the three estates together for a meeting about taxes. The Third estate wanted more influence, so they would not be outnumbered by the clergy and nobility, but were refused more votes in the assembly. They then refused to cooperate, and eventually were locked out. Some of the clergy joined their cause, trying to give them more rights. The group then met in a n empty tennis court, where they made an oath not to leave until they had created and signed a constitution. This was a major step against the king, and sparked the revolution.
The reason the assembly had been called had been about taxes. The clergy and the nobility were paying none at all, while the third estate was paying a lot. This assembly might have changed thta, but the third estate knew they would be outvoted, and so staged their protest. Their main complaint was about lack of influence in the government, but that trickled down to many other things. For instance, their taxes. The peasants had to pay large sums of money to the government each year, making their lives, already difficult in comparison to the nobility and clergy, much harder, and creating a lot of poverty. While the estate system gave them the right to submit a single vote, they would almost definitely be overruled by the nobility and clergy, so it almost did not matter that the third state existed at all.
The financial difficulties experienced by the third estate also translated to other difficulties. One large example is food. When one has less money, that is less of an ability to feed himself and all of their dependents, and so the poor, tax stricken peasants starved. If the third estate had had more influence int he government, they would have been able to influence their lives more, and would have been able to overall have a better quality of life.
The reason the assembly had been called had been about taxes. The clergy and the nobility were paying none at all, while the third estate was paying a lot. This assembly might have changed thta, but the third estate knew they would be outvoted, and so staged their protest. Their main complaint was about lack of influence in the government, but that trickled down to many other things. For instance, their taxes. The peasants had to pay large sums of money to the government each year, making their lives, already difficult in comparison to the nobility and clergy, much harder, and creating a lot of poverty. While the estate system gave them the right to submit a single vote, they would almost definitely be overruled by the nobility and clergy, so it almost did not matter that the third state existed at all.
The financial difficulties experienced by the third estate also translated to other difficulties. One large example is food. When one has less money, that is less of an ability to feed himself and all of their dependents, and so the poor, tax stricken peasants starved. If the third estate had had more influence int he government, they would have been able to influence their lives more, and would have been able to overall have a better quality of life.
The Tennis Court Oath
This oath was a form of contract between the men of the National Assembly, taken by all but one man. This oath was a promise that they would band togehter and never seperate until their demands had been met and a constitution was written. The National Assembly was formed mostly by members of the First Estate, who's goal it was to limit the power of King Louis XIV.
The creation of this assembly and oath were a huge step toward democracy and equal rights for all. This was the first time any organized group had successfuly stood up to the king, largely debunking his claims of being chosen by God. After this incident it became incrasingly harder for Louis to hold his firm position as absolute monarch.
The National Assembly was created mainly to attend to mental and physical greivances cast upon them by the government. These men realized that between the clergy and nobility, they would never have any influence over their country. They felt the pressure of this mental restriction pressing on them and couldn't stand not to act. They also felt the physical confines of their social class, and saw how unfair it was. These men were fighting to get a chance to change that which was not right.
The creation of this assembly and oath were a huge step toward democracy and equal rights for all. This was the first time any organized group had successfuly stood up to the king, largely debunking his claims of being chosen by God. After this incident it became incrasingly harder for Louis to hold his firm position as absolute monarch.
The National Assembly was created mainly to attend to mental and physical greivances cast upon them by the government. These men realized that between the clergy and nobility, they would never have any influence over their country. They felt the pressure of this mental restriction pressing on them and couldn't stand not to act. They also felt the physical confines of their social class, and saw how unfair it was. These men were fighting to get a chance to change that which was not right.
Tennis Court Oath
What seem to be the grievances of the Third Estate? Pick one or two of the apparent complaints and ANALYZE them in a BLOG POST, that seeks to explain the grievance type. Is it financial? Physical? Mental?
There were many grievances such as Corvee, which is forced work. People in the Third estate or the remainder of the population, owed the king money from debt of land and other things. The first estate, the clergy, and second estate, the nobility, didn't have to pay taxes while the Third Estate, who were poor, had to pay taxes. They also had almost no money and since France was almost bankrupt, so they wanted to establish more taxes upon the Third Estate. The people in the Third Estate had little wealth because the wages were diminished while the taxes were rising. This is one of the reasons why the third Estate wanted to rebel. Also because of the Enlightenment, which inspired them to have more rights and equality.
During 1788, the third estate asked King Louis for a higher population in their own class to equal the first and second estates. Louis agreed because he wanted to support the third estate in the upcoming assembly. This grievance is a financial and physical grievance because they had problems with money and they had a lot of pain from low wage labor. It was also difficult for the people in the Third Estate in those times until the rebelled.
Another grievance is when Bourgeoisie or the middle class (Merchants, scientists, etc.). Enlightenment thinking influenced the middle class to want equal privileges to the second class. They beileved in the ideas of equality and social justice, called the reform of the tax system. The tax structure for the bourgeoisie was that they paid a smaller percentage of their income compared to the peasants. This grievance is also financial which was another cause of the rebellion.
There were many grievances such as Corvee, which is forced work. People in the Third estate or the remainder of the population, owed the king money from debt of land and other things. The first estate, the clergy, and second estate, the nobility, didn't have to pay taxes while the Third Estate, who were poor, had to pay taxes. They also had almost no money and since France was almost bankrupt, so they wanted to establish more taxes upon the Third Estate. The people in the Third Estate had little wealth because the wages were diminished while the taxes were rising. This is one of the reasons why the third Estate wanted to rebel. Also because of the Enlightenment, which inspired them to have more rights and equality.
During 1788, the third estate asked King Louis for a higher population in their own class to equal the first and second estates. Louis agreed because he wanted to support the third estate in the upcoming assembly. This grievance is a financial and physical grievance because they had problems with money and they had a lot of pain from low wage labor. It was also difficult for the people in the Third Estate in those times until the rebelled.
Another grievance is when Bourgeoisie or the middle class (Merchants, scientists, etc.). Enlightenment thinking influenced the middle class to want equal privileges to the second class. They beileved in the ideas of equality and social justice, called the reform of the tax system. The tax structure for the bourgeoisie was that they paid a smaller percentage of their income compared to the peasants. This grievance is also financial which was another cause of the rebellion.
Tennis Court Oath
Look up the TENNIS COURT OATH using the library databases (off-campus passwords are available from the librarians). What seem to be the grievances of the Third Estate? Pick one or two of the apparent complaints and ANALYZE them in a BLOG POST, that seeks to explain the grievance type. Is it financial? Physical? Mental?
The Tennis Court Oath occurred on June 20, 1789 during the French Revolution. It was taken by the Third Estate, and was a result of previous grievances that were to be solved. The third estate represents peasants and the common class. The main grievance was about a lack of voice in the States-General meeting. During these meetings, King Louis XVI made sure that a vast majority of the say was in the hands of the first and second estates, which both had higher class people than the third estate.
The name "Tennis Court Oath" was because after the people of the third estate were locked out of their regular meeting place (most likely intentionally), they held their meeting in a tennis court nearby. During the meeting they discussed grievances that they had. They noticed that even while having such a high percentage of the population, they had such an insignificant say in the decisions made. There were also financial grievances regarding the taxes that each estate payed. They had to pay a much higher percentage of their income because they payed an equal amount in taxes as the second estate, which was much wealthier. The grievances they discussed had to do with the difficulty they had compared to other estates.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was a pledge signed by the members of the third estate of France, or the least wealthy of the three social classes, and the oath was taken in a tennis court near Versailles. 576 out of the 577 members took this oath. It was a response to Louis XVI's desire to maintain absolute power for the government, and it was also a demand for more power for the third estate. They also wanted the King to write a constitution for France.
The oath was to never seperate from the national assembly and basically do whatever necessary to maintain it, and they would keep this pledge until a written constitution was written for France. The third estate wanted more power King Louis XVI eventually gave in and increased the size of the estate. They made up most of France, and the King ended up giving more nobles and clergy members to the third estate. While they thought they got more power, each estate was given one vote so the size of the representation of the third estate grew, but the voting power stayed the same, and the clergy and noblemen were outvoting them, so nothing still went the way of the third estate.
These are financial and social grievances. It relates to finances because the third estate represented the poorest group of France. The social part comes from the fact that the third estate had the least amount of social power and they were asking for more.
The oath was to never seperate from the national assembly and basically do whatever necessary to maintain it, and they would keep this pledge until a written constitution was written for France. The third estate wanted more power King Louis XVI eventually gave in and increased the size of the estate. They made up most of France, and the King ended up giving more nobles and clergy members to the third estate. While they thought they got more power, each estate was given one vote so the size of the representation of the third estate grew, but the voting power stayed the same, and the clergy and noblemen were outvoting them, so nothing still went the way of the third estate.
These are financial and social grievances. It relates to finances because the third estate represented the poorest group of France. The social part comes from the fact that the third estate had the least amount of social power and they were asking for more.
The Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was the oath taken by the third estate of France 1789 in an empty tennis court to oppose the Kings that they suspected was going to move against them. The oath said that the third estate bind themselves together as a whole French nation until a fair constitution was drawn up.
The main grievance of the third estate was the lack of equality in the States-General. Before the French Revolution, each estate was given one vote, making it so the first two estates (the clergy and the nobles) could out-vote the third estate at all times. However, in 1788, the third estate asked the king to double their numbers because the third estate made up the majority of France. The king obliged and the third estate thought of it as a victory. They thought that if they had double numbers this meant that the vote would be taken by a head count, and not by a single vote for the entire estate. Unfortunately, the King never made this clear. This is what lead to the Tennis Court Oath being taken. All the third estate wanted was for their numbers in society to equal the amount of say that the estate had in the States-General.
Before the States-General took place, the third estate forced all the estates to join and vote as one. This caused a delay in the organization of the States General. To keep delaying the official meeting until they got their way, the third estate then called for the credentials of everyone in the General to be questioned and verified. After some more meetings, it became clear that the third estate was starting to win over the clergy and the nobles, and therefore gaining too much power. This made the King feel threatened and caused him to call of the States-General for an amount of time. Seeing this as a threat to their win, the third estate gathered in an empty tennis court and vowed to work together as a nation until they got their way. All they wanted was equality and a fair say.
The main grievance of the third estate was the lack of equality in the States-General. Before the French Revolution, each estate was given one vote, making it so the first two estates (the clergy and the nobles) could out-vote the third estate at all times. However, in 1788, the third estate asked the king to double their numbers because the third estate made up the majority of France. The king obliged and the third estate thought of it as a victory. They thought that if they had double numbers this meant that the vote would be taken by a head count, and not by a single vote for the entire estate. Unfortunately, the King never made this clear. This is what lead to the Tennis Court Oath being taken. All the third estate wanted was for their numbers in society to equal the amount of say that the estate had in the States-General.
Before the States-General took place, the third estate forced all the estates to join and vote as one. This caused a delay in the organization of the States General. To keep delaying the official meeting until they got their way, the third estate then called for the credentials of everyone in the General to be questioned and verified. After some more meetings, it became clear that the third estate was starting to win over the clergy and the nobles, and therefore gaining too much power. This made the King feel threatened and caused him to call of the States-General for an amount of time. Seeing this as a threat to their win, the third estate gathered in an empty tennis court and vowed to work together as a nation until they got their way. All they wanted was equality and a fair say.
Grievances of the Third Estate
In 1789, France, although very successful, was nearing bankruptcy, so Louis XIV decided to impose a tax upon the noble class and clergy, who were not supporting the state, and the bourgeoisie, who paid a much smaller amount than the peasants. However, this proposition was met with much hostility, and Louis XIV ended up calling a meeting of the States-General, virtually untouched during Louis' reign due to his belief in absolute monarchy. The States-General was the system where each of the three estates, the peasants, the clergy, and the nobility, would convene separately to vote on whatever issue at hand. To the third estate, the peasants who made up most of the population, this seemed extremely unfair. Although the third estate was much larger compared to the other two estates, they have only a third say. Therefore, they would be outvoted since the clergy and nobility often have similar interests.
One grievance of the third estate was that they deserved a much larger say in the government. Because they were so many fewer members of the upper classes, those two estates essentially made all decisions regarding the status of the state. At the time, common opinion was divided into two groups, the lower class and the higher class. However, because of the nature of the States-General, the higher class is given two votes, the clergy and the nobles. The third estate believed that they were underrepresented in government because the opinions were not equally voiced. Even more importantly, the third estate comprised much much more of the population than the other two combined, yet they were only given one vote. This grievance, revolving around the idea of freedom and equal rights in government, was just another way for the nobility and the clergy to retain control over the lower class and keep the power and wealth within their class.
However, when Louis XIV sought to rescue the nation, he needed the vote of the common people, the only ones who would vote for his proposition of taxing the nobles and clergy. He gave the third estate an extra vote due to their size. Excited at the idea that they could have an opinion in government, that their kind needed them, they named themselves the "National Assembly," fighting for the voice of the common man. However, after a turbulent period, the National Assembly found themselves locked out of the voting, and they instead convened in a nearby tennis court. There they wrote their own constitution, determined to receive representation in government, not as a single estate, but as a reformed nation.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was an oath of allegiance by the Third Estate in France to remain bonded together until a constitution has been written. More and more people were joining the Third Estate as they began to seek more power and authority; therefore King Louis XVI decided to lock them out completely to seclude their votes. After the Third Estate found themselves locked out of the usual meeting session, they realized that the king was determined to oppose and eliminate them and thus made the oath of bonding and their rights.
The main grievances of the Third Estate were that they did not have the equal amount of power and authority as the other estates. The Third Estate was mainly made of the citizens besides the clergy and nobles, which were the peasants, and thus had the least control. However, since they made up most of population, they claimed that they must have a larger proportion in control. Although they did have the most people, their votes were outnumbered by those of the First and Second Estate since each estate had only one vote and the other two would usually bond, and so were never heard. Their oath was a movement to show direct declaration against the estates and the king’s concentrated powers. They claimed a want for equality to state what they wished, and also the distribution of rule that they deserved. Another grievance was of the financial, that the First and Second Estate did not pay taxes while the population besides the nobles and clergy had to support the entire nation. The rich who actually had the wealth and resources were able to pay much less taxes than the peasants who struggled to live each day. The Third Estate sought to solve this inequality as well, for the benefit of all.
The Tennis Court Oath
The Estates General, a convention of the three estates in France, took place during Louis XVI reign on December 27th, 1778. The most recent Estates General meeting before this one occurred in 1614. Therefore, Louis XVI's Estates General convention was the first to happen in over 170 years. This significant time gap represents a lack of communication with the population of France in terms of politics and fair representation.
In June 1789, another Estates General assembly took place (the second one since December 1788). The 3rd estate renamed itself as the National Assembly, since they believed that they accounted for the vast majority of the French people. However, the 1st and 2nd estates locked the 3rd estate out of this Estates General meeting. Furious, the National Assembly met separately on June 20th, 1789, in an indoor tennis court to converse with one another. This event soon became known as the Tennis Court Oath, where the members National Assembly swore to meet at this tennis court until a just constitution was created.
The National Assembly's primary grievance was severe lack of representation. Unfair balance of representation files as both a personal and financial offense to the 3rd estate and the mass number people it represents. As a personal offense, it discards citizens politically and socially from the ring of government affairs, leaving "lower-class" with no say in making laws and decisions. Financially, the 3rd estate and its represented citizens generally have less money. Having minimal representation mostly correlates with one's lower place on the social ladder. This circumstance often leads to decrease in revenue and poverty. Due to these unfortunate instances of misrepresentation and poverty, unrest and tension is likely to develop within the French population. As this tension increases, the chances of rebellion (and eventually revolution) dramatically increase.
This important act of opposition towards the government triggered signs of the French Revolution, opening doors to eventual rebellion, violence, and overthrow of the monarchy.
The Tennis Court Oath
The grievances that spurred the French commoners of the third estate into action with the Tennis Court Oath were both financial and mental. The problem that set all other thoughts of revolution into motion was that of taxes. At the beginning of the French Revolution, there were, as we know, three estates. The clergy was the first, the nobility the second, and the remainder of the population constituted the third. Of these estates only the last was required to pay taxes; even worse, the commoners, with the least amount of money, were required to pay the highest percentage of their income to the King. This absence of financial equity allowed the people's mental state of mind to decline - they were unhappy and restricted. To resolve the issue, the third estate attempted to join with both the others to make decisions on a national scale, leading to another grievance: they were rebutted. In turn they refused to compromise until both the clergy and the Louis XVI gave in to their numerous demands. They required an assembly with all three estates to represent the French nation, which they were granted a date for alongside the presence of the king at the meeting. In the period of time between the third estate's original meetings (where it declared its intent to create a "National Assembly") and the congregation of the assembly with the King, Louis XVI closed the third estate's assembly room to be prepared for this large scale gathering. The revolutionaries took this as a decisive act from the King against them, preventing them from coming together. In defiance they gathered in a nearby tennis court where they took an oath not to leave until they had defined a new constitution for France. This action was in direct opposition to the King and so began the revolution. The picture above is a painting of the tennis court oath by Jacques-Louis David, a politically important artist of the time. The first grievance was, of course, the issue with taxes. This was purely an issue of financial fairness - why should those who worked the hardest and earned the least have to give the greatest percentage of their earnings? The importance of this grievance sowed doubt and belief in other areas. Unhappy financially, the commoners began to see and think about their position and power over their society. This ultimately led them to seek justice in the government, which they found wanting. As James said, their political grievance was that not each person was given a vote in the assemblage of the three estates. The estates voted amongst themselves and gave an overall vote which was then tallied alongside the cumulative vote for the other two estates. So it was that even if one estate had many more people and represented a greater amount of France (the third estate) it could still be voted into submission if the smaller nobility and clergy chose to back each other. The third estate, being the largest, felt itself unfairly represented and so sought to create a national assembly where all persons in the voting party (no matter which estate they belonged to) had the same amount of representation. This was not received at all kindly by the nobility, while the clergy were strangely sympathetic to the commoners' cause. In any case, they were all forced to listen when the revolution began and the people forcibly took the power that they had been refused before.
Tennis Court Oath
The Tennis Court Oath was created in 1789 by members of the Third Estate. King Louis XIV, had originally held meetings with members from all three Estates. However, this was unfair, since they would often vote by party, rather than by person. The Third Party was usually outvoted by the other two parties. Members of the Third Party left, and created an assembly called the National Assembly. They invited members of the other two estates to join them, and many did. It was their goal to improve France. King Louis XIV did not let members of the National Assembly in to the estates meetings. The members then decided to meet up at a nearby indoor tennis court (actually a court for a game called the jeu de paume. The members refused to leave the court until they had come up with a constitution. And so, the Tennis Court Oath was born.
One of the National Assembly's main grievances was that the Third Estate made up most of the population, but had the least say in the state. The Third Party members were the ones who did all the manual labor, and the most physical work. The National Assembly members claimed that the nobility got the large majority of the money for hardly doing any work. It is a financial, mental, and physical complaint. The commoners received barely any money for the hard, physical labor they endured. They were at the bottom of the social ladder, even though they were the ones working extremely hard. The National Assembly believed that they should be recognized for their efforts.
Tennis Court Oath and Analysis of Grievances
Tennis Court Oath:
A term for when the delegates of the third estate in the Estates-General France in the 18th century swore an oath at an indoor tennis court that they would never separate until a Constitution had been written. They did this in order to put pressure on Louis XVI to give more power to the Third Estate, which made up 95% of the French population.
The main grievance of the third estate was that each delegate in the estates should receive a vote, instead of each estate receiving one vote. This is because the king allowed the third estate twice as many delegates because they made up the vast majority of France's population, and would give the third estate more power.
This is a purely political grievance, or call for reform, that the third estate brought up. In the past, the nobles and the clergy, who made up the other two estates, could outvote the third estate because each estate got one vote. This grievance led to the third estate declaring itself to be the National Assembly of France, which led to members of the other estates joining the National Assembly, which led to the third estate getting locked out of the meeting room, which led to the Tennis Court Oath, which led to Louis XVI relenting and giving the National Assembly control of France.
This grievance caused a major shift in political power and really shook up the way the country was run. In the past, the nobles and clergymen had always had the power, with the third estate and majority of the population voicing their opinions but constantly being outvoted 2-1. But now with the National Assembly running things in France the common people gained power, while the upper class people in society lost some of their power.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Joseph de Maistre
WRITE a blog post in which you explore the question: what 21st century issues would your philosophe find particularly intriguing? What ideas, dilemmas, and injustices (or, conversely, just fights) send them to cafés today?
The way the government is managed and arranged, Maistre would be very dissapointed because the Constitution and all of the laws are written, which he did not support. Maistre argues that constitutions are not artificial products but come from God, who slowly brings them to maturity. Therefore, God slowly brings out the rules that people have to follow, not humans on Earth. This is because he is a big supporter of Christianity and Catholicism. He highly supported Catholicism so he was obviously not a person who liked diversity. Since we now have a Democratic system, Maistre would feel obligated to rebut someway about it because he favored the hereditary monarchies. A hereditary monarchy is where the monarchs are all from the same blood and it is where the crown of the king is passed on from generation to generation. This is another example of how he would hate the type of government we live in even more.
The way the government is managed and arranged, Maistre would be very dissapointed because the Constitution and all of the laws are written, which he did not support. Maistre argues that constitutions are not artificial products but come from God, who slowly brings them to maturity. Therefore, God slowly brings out the rules that people have to follow, not humans on Earth. This is because he is a big supporter of Christianity and Catholicism. He highly supported Catholicism so he was obviously not a person who liked diversity. Since we now have a Democratic system, Maistre would feel obligated to rebut someway about it because he favored the hereditary monarchies. A hereditary monarchy is where the monarchs are all from the same blood and it is where the crown of the king is passed on from generation to generation. This is another example of how he would hate the type of government we live in even more.
Joseph-Marie de Maistre Questions
What is the most effective government system?
Is religion a necessary aspect to society? Any particular religion?
How does progressive scientific discovery effect society?
Have improvements been made in society since the 1700s?
Questions For Montesquieu
1. What do you think about the seperation of state and church?
2. What do you think is key to a well run government?
3. What do you think about the french government?
4. How does your Meteorological Climate Theory work?
5. What do you think about modern day atheist beliefs and do you agree with them?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Questions for Madame de Pompadour
How do you feel about the change from the middle class to nobility? Is your power a result of luck or skill?
Do you worry about your standing with the general public?
What are views on the Seven Years War?
What are your views on more modern art?
Do you worry about your standing with the general public?
What are views on the Seven Years War?
What are your views on more modern art?
Salon Questions for Voltaire
1. How do you feel about religious persecution?
2. What do you think about different types of governments?
3. What are your views on the credibility of the Church?
4. How do you feel about the human condition?
4 questions - Thomas Paine
1. When is revolution appropriate in a nation?
2. Do you think the French Revolution differed from the American Revolution, and in what ways?
3. How are your books The Rights of Man and Common Sense similar and different?
4. Have there been any recent "revolutions" in the 21st century? Why do or don't you consider these revolutions?
4 Questions for Madame de Pompadour
1. Why are you so supportive of the arts?
2. Coming from the 3rd pillar of society and rising up essentially to the class of nobility, do you think this large population of people should be given more power than they've had in the past?
3. How did you go about promoting women's rights during you time period?
4. Using the progressing African countries of Ghana and Botswana, what is your idea of a social contract?
My Salon Questions
Do you support the Catholic Church?/What are your views on religion?
What do you think of the current, collective political state of the world?
What do you believe about the state of man, or mankind in general?
What is your opinion on the idea of Gross National Happiness?
Questions for Thomas Paine
1. What inspired you to write Rights of Men?
2. Do you think that countries should be ruled by kings and royal families?
3. How do you feel about the success of Common Sense?
4. What do you think of the modern day technological advances, such as the internet?
2. Do you think that countries should be ruled by kings and royal families?
3. How do you feel about the success of Common Sense?
4. What do you think of the modern day technological advances, such as the internet?
Questions for Diderot
1. What do you actually think about religion? Are you a true atheist?
2. What are your views on man?
3. What do you believe/like about art?
4. What do think about the ethnic/religious/political intolerance nowadays?
Mary Wollstonecraft Questions
1. What made you so passionate about feminism?
2. Which one of your writings would you say best expresses your views?
3. Which other philosophe would you say you disagree with the most
4. What do you think of the newest chief justice Sotomayor?
2. Which one of your writings would you say best expresses your views?
3. Which other philosophe would you say you disagree with the most
4. What do you think of the newest chief justice Sotomayor?
Questions for Montesquieu
1- What did you think about the government in England?
2- What about the religion in France?
3- How did you feel about the estate system in France?
4- What is the most efficient form of government today?
Salon Quetsions
1. What are your views on the Enlightenment on Europe? Why do you disagree with it?
2. What major work or book that you wrote are you most proud of?
3. What are your views on conservatism?
4. What does the government in China plan to do about the boys being kidnapped?
2. What major work or book that you wrote are you most proud of?
3. What are your views on conservatism?
4. What does the government in China plan to do about the boys being kidnapped?
Salon Questions
1. What are your views about negro slavery?
2. Why should the death penalty not be allowed to be used on criminals?
3. I hear that you have done a lot of work in math. What discoveries have you made?
4. In countries like Afghanistan women are not allowed to vote, or even leave their house alone. What do you think of this?
Questions for Edmund Burke
What do you think about the balance between Church and State?
What are your thoughts on the French Revolution (its legitimacy and efficiency)?
How do you feel about the Scientific Revolution?
How do you feel about the recent voting process/scandal in Iran?
What are your thoughts on the French Revolution (its legitimacy and efficiency)?
How do you feel about the Scientific Revolution?
How do you feel about the recent voting process/scandal in Iran?
Questions for the Marquis de Condorcet
Why do you think the abolition of slavery is needed?
Do you believe all people are equal? Should everyone be exactly the same?
What do you think is the best approach to governing? Why?
Do you think the world as a whole has improved since the 18th century? Have any of your ideas been changed by seeing how they are implemented in the future?
Do you believe all people are equal? Should everyone be exactly the same?
What do you think is the best approach to governing? Why?
Do you think the world as a whole has improved since the 18th century? Have any of your ideas been changed by seeing how they are implemented in the future?
Mary Wollstonecraft Questions
1. Which of your works would you say defines you as a philosophe?
2. Where did you find the motivation to write so passionately about the rights of women?
3. What do you think of Hillary Clinton running for President of the United States?
4. What were your feelings towards the French Revolution?
2. Where did you find the motivation to write so passionately about the rights of women?
3. What do you think of Hillary Clinton running for President of the United States?
4. What were your feelings towards the French Revolution?
Questions for Edmund Burke
1.) What is your opinion on gender equality and where would you place yourself in this?
2.) How would you describe yourself socially among other philosophes ?
3.) For what reason do you believe in capitalism?
4.) What is your belief about the government system?
Questions for Diderot
- What is your position on religion? (Are you a believer? What do you think about religion becoming involved in government?)
- What is your opinion of the government system in terms of the people's power and rights?
- Explain the purpose of one of your fictional works. (Rameau's nephew, d'Alembert's Dream, etc.).
- What is your opinion on the United States' government?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thomas Paine in the 21st Century
Thomas Paine was possibly one of the biggest proponents of revolution and independence in history. He worked hard to help free America from Brittin, and was also very involved with the French Revolution. However, the strange thing was, almost immediately after the country had accomplished independence and was successful in the revolution, instead of involving himself in the politics of managing a new nation, Paine would more to another country and become immersed in another revolution. Because of what he did during his lifetime, it makes sense to infer that Paine didn't really care what type of revolution he was a part, he just wanted to be a part of upending the current government situation. For these reasons, I think Paine would be happy about "revolutionary" things such as a the quickly-improving technology like the Internet and cell phones, and a recently elected black president. Because Paine essentially liked to upend a current government, I think he would be happy to see several countries in the 21st century standing up against bad government situations, for example, Afghanistan and the Taliban.
Mary Wollstonecraft on 21st century issues
I think she would be very enthusiastic about today's society because Women all over the world have many rights and they have the oppurtunities to go to colleges and be apart of the government, she would be enthusiastic because she was a feminist that wrote many because about how men and women are treated differently. She would not be happy about how science is the more common belief of our origins rather that religion these days in some areas because she was very religious. She was also very passionate with both her feminist beliefs and her religious beliefs so in this society she would be anti-science and would try to stop it if that were possible and possibly go after go after some of the worlds top atheists and scientists so as to rid the world 0f science and anti-religious people to make a world with only religion, politics, and men and women with equal rights.
Mary Wollstonecraft on 21st Century Issues
If Mary Wollstonecraft were to see the 21st century, she would of been ecstatic. The rights of women across the globe have been exponentially increased in comparison to the lack of rigths that women had during Wollstonecraft's life. The majority of countries give women equal rights as men; something which Mary fought for in her day. Though she would of been ecstatic with the rising of women's rights, she would not be so pleased with the numerous new inventions that disprove god's existence. I know for fact, a fiery woman like Wollstonecraft would put Richard Dawkins as number one on her hit list. She would be intrigued and angered by new sciences like stem cell research, and the theory evolution; she would relentlessly argue against them if she were to find herself in the 21st century.
Marquis de Condorcet + 21st Century Issues
There are many issues in the 21st century that Marquis de Condorcet would find interesting. First, there is the death penalty and capital punishment. Marquis de Condorcet was a human rights activist and was largely opposed to the death penalty. Condorcet would passionately argue against the death penalty. Another issue is the rights of Muslim women in countries like Afghanistan. The Taliban did not allow any rights for women, and they did not even let women leave the house without a male escort and that male could only be their father, husband, or brother. Condorcet opposed slavery and he would be happy in this time period that slavery was abolished, (though not completely in some countries). He probably would also advocate for equal rights to minorities like Latinos, African-Americans, and Homosexuals. He believed that everyone deserved to have equal rights.
Diderot in the 21st Century
Diderot was greatly interested in the morals and ethics of human. He believed that everything, politics, government, and other affairs, must be based off of one's moral. A good government, he said, must be one that focuses more on the benefit of all, not the few individuals that control. Following his ideas, if he had seen the modern day, he would be deeply involved in resolving the corruption of politics nowadays. Diderot also declared that everyone must be have a chance to be educated, so the mandatory education system would appeal to him as well. He would work for the rights and profits of the poor and in need, and for the enhancement of their lives. Major issues that would have caught his attention would be the religious clashes all over the world. Diderot himself was an atheist, and also highly skeptical of religion. He did not think that religion was essential in achieving virtue, and that forcing a specific religion on an individual was wrong, also inefficient because one had his own beliefs that derived from his education, tradition, and customs that he lived in. Thus, the idea of religions fighting against each other and pushing their thoughts on another would have provoked him intensely.
Madame de Pompadour views on Modern Day
As the king’s mistress, most of Madame de Pompadour’s thought and energy was put into entertaining him or increasing her standing with him. She would have abhorred the more modern and abstract pieces of art or sculpture that we have now. She heavily supported the “rococo” art form, a kind of painting that depicts people in a too-good-to-be-true way. The paintings are very defined and have intricate details filled with rosy cheeked nobles having fun. Madame de Pompadour would have hated the darker art that we have more commonly today. Art that was more abstract and meant to send a message or convey a dark meaning would have been looked at with disdain. Art was meant as something fun and something that entertained and pleased the king, not as a true means of self expression. Looking at art should make the viewers happy, not just the painter.
Her views on the American government system would have been mixed. She would have been confused about the concept of voting and choosing a president rather than having one born in. Having three different branches of the government that share the power would have been an alien concept. In her life, politics was so interwoven with pleasing the King, that they practically became inseparable. To move up in the world, you would have had to be loved by the king and good in social situations. Politics was much more outwardly socially driven than it is now. Now, making the president happy is certainly part of politics, but the decisions that are made for the country are much less dependant on moods. However, I think she would have been drawn to the freedom of America. Social class matters so much less in the present day US than it did in the 1700 of France. There is so much more social mobility. Although she was able to move from middle class to nobility in her life, it was a hard road and she would have certainly been intrigued by so much social freedom.
Her views on the American government system would have been mixed. She would have been confused about the concept of voting and choosing a president rather than having one born in. Having three different branches of the government that share the power would have been an alien concept. In her life, politics was so interwoven with pleasing the King, that they practically became inseparable. To move up in the world, you would have had to be loved by the king and good in social situations. Politics was much more outwardly socially driven than it is now. Now, making the president happy is certainly part of politics, but the decisions that are made for the country are much less dependant on moods. However, I think she would have been drawn to the freedom of America. Social class matters so much less in the present day US than it did in the 1700 of France. There is so much more social mobility. Although she was able to move from middle class to nobility in her life, it was a hard road and she would have certainly been intrigued by so much social freedom.
Voltaire in the 21st Century
While I can't say for sure, I believe that Voltaire would be much happier seeing how far society has progressed as far as freedom goes, but he would definitely find his share of problems with the modern world. I think that he would appreciate that the internet makes it easier for the public to voice their opinions, and it promoted the growth of society by allowing people to communicate more easily. In addition, it allows each person to have a voice so that no one's opinion has to be isolated because of class. While I think he would appreciate the rise of democracy, I think that he would be outraged at the proceedings of the recent Iranian presidential election. If the suspicions of fraud were true, Voltaire might argue that it was a huge injustice to the Iranian people, not only that they were cheated out of their vote, but that their voices were being suppressed. As far as religious progress, while there is no singular, notable religious event that has occurred recently, I'm going to use Nicole's idea of Voltaire's opinion of Richard Dawkins. Voltaire may also have enjoyed Dawkins' discussion but not for the same reasons relating to scientific proof. While there is evidence that he often contradicted himself, it seems like he was against the Catholic Church, or possibly the establishment of religion in general, with a similar passion to Dawkins. (Voltaire wrote about religion often in a satirical light, but he is also famous for saying, "If God did not exist, he would need to be invented." Following my interpretation, I'm not entirely sure that Voltaire would agree with Dawkins' somewhat blind rejection of all aspects of religion.)
Marquis de Condorcet + 21st century issues
The Marquis de Condorcet would have liked many of the changes that have occurred in the world since he died during the French Revolution. He believed that humans are slowly moving towards perfection, by increasing equality between nations and people, and attempting to perfect ethics. Because of his views that equality was right for all, he advocated strongly for things like the abolition of slavery, increased women's rights, and democracy. He would find that many of the things he advocated for have come true, or nearly so. For instance, slave trade has been abolished completely in Europe, unlike during most of his life (slavery was abolished shortly before he died, but then brought back by Napoleon later). Women have far more rights in many countries, and in places like Europe are considered equal to men. He would not like how many Islamic religious states do not allow women to have equal status to men, especially since it is for merely religious purposes, of which he would probably not approve. Democracy has also taken a huge step, which he would be very pleased to know. Many countries now use democracy as their sole method of governing, which he would have thought helped equality immensely. However, in our time there have been many instances showing how democracy can be corrupted, such as in the Middle East where people risk their lives by voting. The Marquis de Condorcet would really wish to change that, although it would be more difficult for him to change the world using papers and philosophy now than it was back then, partly because more equality means that status does not give you the same respect, and so you are less likely to be taken seriously. However, the issues the Marquis de Condorcet focused on are definitely not the only controversial arguments in our world today.
I personally believe that people of different sexualities should have equal rights, just as people of different races, do, although I cannot be sure of how the Marquis de Condorcet would have reacted to that major argument. He was for equality, however, sexuality is a very touchy subject, probably even among philosophers used to being considered radical, but I am sure that being homosexual was not accepted in 18th century France, and no matter how liberal he was or his day, I am sure that his views were partly influenced by society, especially his parents.
The Marquis de Condorcet would be proud of the steps towards equality the world has taken, although there are more to be made.
I personally believe that people of different sexualities should have equal rights, just as people of different races, do, although I cannot be sure of how the Marquis de Condorcet would have reacted to that major argument. He was for equality, however, sexuality is a very touchy subject, probably even among philosophers used to being considered radical, but I am sure that being homosexual was not accepted in 18th century France, and no matter how liberal he was or his day, I am sure that his views were partly influenced by society, especially his parents.
The Marquis de Condorcet would be proud of the steps towards equality the world has taken, although there are more to be made.
Mary Wollstonecraft
Mary Wollstonecraft was a determined philosophe and fiery feminist leader during and just before the French Revolution. She was born in 1759 and lived under the tyranny of an abusive father; at the age of nineteen she escaped from home to pursue a writing career. After many stunts writing for a paper of radical thought, she wrote her most famous work titled, A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Her novel brought her fame and infamy because it attacked men for not allowing women the same oppurtunites and freedoms that they possessed. This work was important because it labeled Mary Wollstonecraft as a strong feminist and brought her into the public eye. She was very opinionated about politics and combined her devout christian morals into the way government was run. Despite her greatness as an activist she was very troubled; she married, was abandoned, attempted suicide, had children, and then remarried but only a couple of years before her death in 1798.
Thomas Paine and the World Today
Thomas Paine was a very radical man. He was fond of the idea revolution is almost every situation. If he were stuck in today's world he would probably feel the same way as he did in the 18th century. Wherever he could find a potential revolution, he would probably latch on to the idea and help it build until it finally game true. Because of this, I think that Paine would really enjoy the idea of the internet. He would probably feel strongly about the internet being used to help the elections and be very strongly against some internet sites being banned in China.
Given that Paine was around for the American Revolution and helped it happen, he would probably be in awe and very proud of the way things were now. He'd be happy that all men have equal rights and would probably push for everything to be even more equal (though I'm not quite sure how this would be achieved).
Given that Paine was around for the American Revolution and helped it happen, he would probably be in awe and very proud of the way things were now. He'd be happy that all men have equal rights and would probably push for everything to be even more equal (though I'm not quite sure how this would be achieved).
Madame de Pompadour's View on 21st Century Issues
Pompadour, being at the forefront of intellectually stimulating salons would be a big fan of blogs. The exchange of analytical cultural information has shifted from salons and coffee shops to the online world of blogs. No matter what the setting, so long as there was intelligent conversation being exchanged, she would be happy.
Pompadour would have mixed feelings about the status of women around the world. On one hand women's rights have increased in general and now share either equal or almost as equal status as men. Pompadour wouldn't be pleased at the lack of many prominent political figures that are women. In her time Madame de Pompadour advised the king closely and handled a lot of exchanges with people the king did not know well. There are not many women that nowadays share such an important political, and cultural, don't forget her influence on the arts, status.
Joseph-Marie de Maistre
Begin RESEARCHING your assigned character. COMPILE biographical data and POST a summary of the milestones in your character's life.
Joseph-Marie de Maistre was born in April 1, 1753 in Savoy, France and died in 1821. He was a French political philosopher considered teh leading philosophical opponent of the Enlightenment on Europe. He wrote at least 13 volumes of collected works; letters, diplomatic correspondence. It was designed to refute the principles of the French Revolution. His first major work was Considerations on France (1706) which argues that paper constitutions never will or have established rights for people. Also, most of his views were in "The Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions" (1809). His basic views were the constitution should not be written and the people should receive the rules over a large span of time.
Joseph-Marie de Maistre was born in April 1, 1753 in Savoy, France and died in 1821. He was a French political philosopher considered teh leading philosophical opponent of the Enlightenment on Europe. He wrote at least 13 volumes of collected works; letters, diplomatic correspondence. It was designed to refute the principles of the French Revolution. His first major work was Considerations on France (1706) which argues that paper constitutions never will or have established rights for people. Also, most of his views were in "The Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions" (1809). His basic views were the constitution should not be written and the people should receive the rules over a large span of time.
A Philosophe is any of the literary men, scientists, and thinkers of 18th-century France who were united, in spite of divergent personal views, in their conviction of the supremacy and efficacy of human reason.
A Philosophe is any of the leading philosophical, political, and social writers of the 18th-century French Enlightenment.
The Philosophes are the skeptical thinkers of the 18th‐century Enlightenment in France, who subjected the established institutions and beliefs of their time to rational criticism.
Overall, a Philosophe is a thinker in the 18th century who doubted the Enlightenment in France and were usually literary men, scientists, or other thinkers in that time period.
A Philosophe is any of the leading philosophical, political, and social writers of the 18th-century French Enlightenment.
The Philosophes are the skeptical thinkers of the 18th‐century Enlightenment in France, who subjected the established institutions and beliefs of their time to rational criticism.
Overall, a Philosophe is a thinker in the 18th century who doubted the Enlightenment in France and were usually literary men, scientists, or other thinkers in that time period.
Voltaire's Opinions on Current Issues
I believe that one current, controversial topic Voltaire would be very interested in would be stem-cell research. I am not positive what his view on this would be, but I think that he would have been for it.
Voltaire was always very interested in science and believed firmly in experimenting and questioning everything. He was also very cynical and critical of religion. I don't know what his personal moral codes governing the value of life were, but based off of his scientific zeal and dislike of religion I think he would have loved to see where stem-cell research may take us. Voltaire typically loved to do anything that might cause trouble or be provocative, and if he could do this while making huge scientific advances I think he might have been ecstatic. He was also very opposed to religious persecution, and I think he would have advocated the limits in religion's control over our lives. The Church was frequently upset with him and his radical ideas and uncensored essays, and I think that he would have no problems offending religious leaders again.
Voltaire was always very interested in science and believed firmly in experimenting and questioning everything. He was also very cynical and critical of religion. I don't know what his personal moral codes governing the value of life were, but based off of his scientific zeal and dislike of religion I think he would have loved to see where stem-cell research may take us. Voltaire typically loved to do anything that might cause trouble or be provocative, and if he could do this while making huge scientific advances I think he might have been ecstatic. He was also very opposed to religious persecution, and I think he would have advocated the limits in religion's control over our lives. The Church was frequently upset with him and his radical ideas and uncensored essays, and I think that he would have no problems offending religious leaders again.
Maistre in the 21st Century
If Maistre lived in today's world, he would be very disappointed with modern society. Joseph de Maistre is very supportive of old, traditional practices. For one, he would dislike the way that we elect our president. He would have trouble dealing with a democratic political system. Maistre prefers to be in a hereditary monarchy. If we lived it his way for the last 250 years in the US, we would have something like a "King George Washingon VIII."
Maistre also supported Christianity (particularly Catholicism), so he would be making sure that everyone follows Catholic religion. There would be very little religious diversity, if any, if it were up to Maistre. Also, Maistre would be against the constitution and all other written laws around the world. In his eyes, written laws are not the best way to get people to have good values. He would think that by today, we should have good values just from the skills gradually being instilled in everyone over the last few centuries. Maistre's ideas are much different from those of today's society, as he is quite traditional while today we live in a very progressive world. We are changing exponentially from year to year, which is something Joseph-Marie de Maistre would be against.
Edmund Burke and the 21st Century
The 21st contains countless new additions to society and everyday life. Edmund Burke, considered a conservative, would have certain opinions about these new social trends and technological advancements.
As a conservative, Edmund Burke would probably have mixed feelings about the internet. Since the internet allows all people to communicate under the radar, citizens could speak negatively about their government and perhaps start uprisings. Burke, having disapproved of the French revolution, would most likely question the safety and legitimacy of the internet. However, Burke always enjoyed thinking outside the box in a hypothetical fashion, so the internet would fascinate him a certain extent.
Since Burke was not fond of the concepts of spontaneous rebellion and revolution, he would perhaps also express his opinion about early rock music. Early rock/punk music created a large scene of "music rebels," whose attitudes are aimed towards "fighting the system," including education and government authority. Burke would probably speak/write out against the new genre because he believes in the general dominance of the government. Burke also realizes the line between fair power and corruption, so his points (if he had any) would be fairly reasonable and considerate.
The feeling of entire freedom and democracy in the United States today would amaze Burke. burke had always supported the American revolution, yet today's democracy and diversity is way beyond the fantasies of early philosophes in general. Again, Burke would certainly be fascinated by such a governmental structure, yet he would not necessarily back it up with his own conservative beliefs.
(To)Day's Dilemmas for Diderot
Before it is possible to asses which current day issues would be of interest to Diderot, it is necessary to first investigate what interested him in his own lifetime. As did all philosophes, Diderot had a variety of interests; skimming the list of subjects that he wrote about in his Encyclopedia, the most interesting were philosophy, ethics, intolerance, geography, political sciences, law, religion, and the human condition. Some of these are connected topics and so might be made broader - the human condition, religion, ethics, and intolerance are all interconnected things and must be looked on as such. Political sciences, law, and geography could work together in a category as well. Generally, this helps us to see what he might want to discuss in today's world.
Diderot might be fascinated by our issues with religious intolerance of the type that I addressed not too long ago in my paper about misconceptions of Muslims. Rather than the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the motivating emotions might have held more import for him. The creation of madrases and the conflict in the middle east would for him have been significant both religiously and politically.
The ideas that Richard Dawkins brought up in his talk would have been of special consequence to Diderot, especially because in many ways they both rivaled and supported his own ideas. (Though Diderot was ultimately atheist, he was a long time in becoming so. There was no sudden transformation from Roman Catholicism, but a gradual change.) Diderot would have been interested also by Dawkins' thoughts on the scientific method and the need for evidence to prove points. As we all know, this especially was a novel idea at the time, one that was taken up gladly by many great thinkers.
The voting system or Supreme Court of the United States might draw him because of his own thoughts on the creation of laws. "There is no true sovereign but the nation; there can be no true legislator but the people." Though the United States was only just being created in his time, Diderot's ideas here reflect those of our founding principles. Addressing religion in politics, he says, "...disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs." Generally, the policies of the United States would have appealed to Diderot.
Diderot might be fascinated by our issues with religious intolerance of the type that I addressed not too long ago in my paper about misconceptions of Muslims. Rather than the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the motivating emotions might have held more import for him. The creation of madrases and the conflict in the middle east would for him have been significant both religiously and politically.
The ideas that Richard Dawkins brought up in his talk would have been of special consequence to Diderot, especially because in many ways they both rivaled and supported his own ideas. (Though Diderot was ultimately atheist, he was a long time in becoming so. There was no sudden transformation from Roman Catholicism, but a gradual change.) Diderot would have been interested also by Dawkins' thoughts on the scientific method and the need for evidence to prove points. As we all know, this especially was a novel idea at the time, one that was taken up gladly by many great thinkers.
The voting system or Supreme Court of the United States might draw him because of his own thoughts on the creation of laws. "There is no true sovereign but the nation; there can be no true legislator but the people." Though the United States was only just being created in his time, Diderot's ideas here reflect those of our founding principles. Addressing religion in politics, he says, "...disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs." Generally, the policies of the United States would have appealed to Diderot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)