In contrast, the calling of the Estate’s General in 1788 is actually a political consequence, but it is a political consequence of a social consequence. The monarchy’s attempt to introduce reform, which the 3rd Estate had wanted in a long time, resulted in its own destruction, started by the 2nd Estate who felt threatened, and finished by the 3rd Estate who felt ignored and abused. But the very structure of the French Ancien régime is of vital importance to this question. An absolutist state such as France was then is, by it's very nature, bound to exclude the mass of the people from taking an active role in government and it will dominate and control their lives. The absolutist state, although strong with a standing army loyal to the King, is very weak when that same standing army turns its back on the state and joins with the revolutionaries. But politically the King was supposed to only be answerable to God. However in reality his power was limited by the interests of other people, mainly the nobility and the Clergy. And this is clearly seen as King Louis XVI becomes completely powerless when the nobility turns against him and forces him to call the Estate’s General in 1788, and then the forced acceptance of the Tennis Court Oath (20th June 1789) where he declared that he has limited power and a new constitution. Absolute monarchy had now become a Constitutional monarchy. And then during the anarchy of the 3rd stage of the revolution-the revolt of the masses, this constitution passed some very radical and revolutionary bills/laws & events. The 1st of these to happen was on the 4th of August – St. Bartholomew of Privilege – a famous day where privilege was ‘massacred’. In 1 night the Ancien Régime was destroyed by a series of laws called the ‘August Decrees’. Among many other things, these laws totally destroyed the principle/system of privilege, and introduced the revolutionary principles of equality. These principles were stated in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (26th August 1789).
So it is true to say that there would be no widespread change without political consequences – ironically, none of this would have happened without the power of the nobility. But it then has to be said that in all the laws passed since the creation of the constitution, the principles directly stem from the Enlightened thinking of the philosophes, even the constitution itself came from the Enlightened idea that a Constitutional monarchy should be present.
Although it may seem that the Clergy may be seen as helpless victims of the Revolution, they also had much to be guilty of. 1st they were the most privileged, being exempt from direct & indirect taxes and even collecting their own tax – the ‘tithe’ – to the 3rd Estate which amounted to 10% of their income. They had their own court system which led to leniency towards themselves. Whatever education there was in France was dominated by the Church. Finally they could easily manipulate the King with their voluntary financial ‘gift’ that they gave him – the ‘Don gratuit’. It was this tax they charged and their own legal system that eventually turned the people against them. They did not cause the destruction of privilege, but indirectly destroyed their own privilege by indulging in it and not helping the needy 3rd Estate. The 3rd Estate weren’t against the Catholic faith (it was probably the only faith they knew about), but were against the Church as an institution. So the ‘Civil Constitution of the Clergy’ was passed in 1790. This destroyed the old ways of the Church in more ways than 1. Apart from the obvious destruction of their privileges, the main law passed was to split the Church in 2. The Clergy had to take an Oath of loyalty to the government. The government further made sure that they were to control the Clergy by being the only ones to pay them; also that the Clergy would be open to talent and finally that the structure of the Church would be linked to the structure of the local government. Freedom of Conscience was also introduced.
The Church’s role in the destruction of privilege was somewhat less extraordinary than others. The simple answer is that they, as well as many other things, fuelled the anger, jealousy/envy and resentment of the 3rd Estate and so became a target when the 3rd Estate had the power of change. However the Clergy themselves were also guilty of some of the 7 deadly sins. Apart from that the division after the Civil Constitution of the Clergy would help create counter-revolutionary ideas in the near future – 1 of which was the attempt to introduce the worship of the Supreme Being (which was a total failure).
The Clergy had 1 thing the monarchy needed, money. And this was given in the form of the voluntary ‘Don gratuit’, in exchange for power and privilege. The monarchy was nearly constantly in debt throughout the years. These debts being incurred in the pursuit of, primarily wars against other European powers. The money was owed to renters, merchants, manufacturers, businessmen and financiers. These groups of people belonged to the bourgeoisie, so it can be argued that the bourgeoisie 'bailed out' the state and kept it solvent. It can be seen, therefore, that because of the resentment of the bourgeoisie against the privileged position of the nobility and the fact that the state was financially indebted to the bourgeoisie that they were dissatisfied with the way in which the country was being run. This was because of the very illogical (and idiotic) system at the time. The fact that the richest people of France, being the Clergy and the nobility, were not taxed at all was stupid. But because of this over-dependence of money, the monarchy was being drained of its power to the 1st & 2nd Estates. Eventually it seemed that the monarchy became a figurehead monarchy, identical to the British monarchy today, rather than an autocratic monarchy, as it was supposed to be. This wasn’t helped by the rising population of France, the general bad economy, inflation, and finally several financial crises in the 1780s. The most significant one being in 1786, where on 20th August, Caronne – King Louis XVI’s finance minister said that the government faced bankruptcy unless the King performs radical economical reform. The financial crisis provided the chance for political reform in France and can be seen to have brought about the revolution. France was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt. Expenditure was over twenty percent higher than revenue and in 1788 three quarters of expenditure went on to the armed forces and the servicing of the existing debt. The French had been fighting with the Americans against the British and won but, as a result, built up a huge debt. However there was also the fact that there had been bad harvests in 1788 and another one was expected in 1789. This put prices up to almost famine levels and while this was good for the large landowners who could make a lot of money from selling their grain, it put the prices up for the ordinary people this, it can be argued, reinforced the perception of the nobles as a privileged section of society. This is combined with the fact that bad harvests create rural poverty, which means the rural population has less disposable income. When the rural population has less money to spend on non-essential items there is less call for manufactured goods and, therefore, as a result there is a depression in urban industrial areas, which would, in turn, cause poverty.
The French exchequer needed to find a way to raise more funds and they had to raise tax in order to do this. The area where most tax could be raised was from the nobility, who had been, up until this time largely untouched by taxation. The aristocracy and the parlements refused to pay taxes without an extension of their privileges. Hobsbawm writes, "The first breach in the front of absolutism", was in 1787 when the Assembly of Notables met to pass the governments wishes. Jones goes even further than that to say that the Assembly of Notables was seen by some as the first stages of a national assembly, but also writes of the fact that there were few members of the third estate in it, this would limit the wider appeal of the Assembly.
The summoning of the Estates general in May 1789 was the final action which brought the end of the old regime in France. It seems curious that the Estates General which was the old style of feudal representation should bring about the end of the autocracy. The last time that the Estates General had met was in 1614, so in bringing up an old feudal system the French autocracy was undoing its own dominance. It was therefore an old system of government which caused the revolution, not a new idea brought to fruition. The Estates General was summoned because of the need for extended taxation and from this the national assembly was born.
It was this financial crisis that had triggered the revolt of the nobility, which is considered to be the first wave of the revolution. And therefore the financial state of France is a valid consequence of the destruction of the principle of privilege. But again it was the enlightened ideas of the philosophes that provoked the attempted reforms by Calonne and the King – the ideas of free trade & a uniform system of taxation instead of customs’ barriers and privileged tax exemption, were all Enlightened ideas.
Vast amounts of money were spent on the military, fighting against England, and then all of her neighbours. Their morale was very low as they went into battles unprepared and unequipped, and suffered many losses. However the French felt it was their right to expand to their ‘natural frontiers’ – the Rhine, The Pyrenees, and the Ocean. It was this belief that keeps them going – the belief of their rights and their determination to gain them.
To give a reason as to why there was a French revolution, there has to be a consideration of the underlying causes as well as the short term 'catalysts'. The long-term causes of the revolution are that the French people had had enough of the divisions and privileges which characterised the feudal system. The lower orders of France created the most wealth through farming, commerce and industry and were taxed to a great extent. The nobility and clergy, both holding great amounts of land and capacity for wealth paid virtually no tax. So the majority of the people paid for the country but had only limited representation in government due to the autocratic nature of the French monarchy. The run of poor harvests in the period before the revolution meant that the rural and urban population was becoming poorer and progressively hungrier as time went on. This would, it can be argued, only exacerbate the perception of privilege and division.
There was also the fact that the educated classes, leading the third order, for example the lawyers, merchants and writers had taken on board the ideas of the Enlightenment. These ideas about government, based on civil rights, reason and equality, gave them a coherent basis for their constitutional reforms.
These long term factors however were not enough to bring about the revolution in France. The French revolution, just like the Russian revolution over a century later, was dependant on there being certain conditions at the right time to bring about change. These reasons were, it can be argued the short term economic crisis and the calling of the Estates General. France, just prior to the revolution, was to all intents and purposes bankrupt. Expenditure on war debts and loan repayments meant that new taxes had to be raised. To do this the old style feudal Estates General had to be called. This gave a forum for the third order, represented by the bourgeoisie to demand more representation. They formed a National Assembly and set up the new constitution (as described above). It was only when the threat of counter-revolution was brought to the fore that the people of Paris took to the streets and sacked the Bastille.
It is easy to think of the French revolution only in this sense, of the crowds rampaging through the streets, beheading the monarch and the aristocracy. But it is important to remember that these images came later, after the revolution had had a chance to develop and get a momentum of its own. The revolution in its early stages was, primarily, a peaceful, transfer of power from the King to the National Assembly. This was brought on by the deep inequalities of wealth and privilege in France at this time and the fact that in the Estates General the bourgeoisie found an outlet for their grievances.
But in spite of all this the Revolution originates from the ideas perceived by the philosophes of the Enlightenment – although ideas are nothing without action from society and politics, nonetheless without them, none of this would have happened. This may seem a superficial statement but it is ultimately true. Without the ideas of the Enlightenment, the attempted economic reforms by Calonne wouldn’t have been thought of, and so there would be no revolt by the nobility; the monarchy would have continued to go into debt and probably raise taxes even more on the helpless 3rd Estate, whilst the 1st & 2nd Estates would increase and power.
Eventually the destruction of the principle of privilege couldn’t have happened without any of these consequences – they are all interlinked, all a knock-on effect of the other, significantly starting from the somewhat ‘revolutionary’ ideas of the Enlightenment.
