Were The Causes Of The French Revolution Mainly Short Term?

Related to the social problems in France was the political weakness and inadequate reforms of the Old Regime. Historians such as Taylor argue that the French revolution was essentially a political revolution with social consequences rather than a social revolution with political consequences The underlying reason why there was a revolution in France which lasted over ten years was that the monarchy had to be forced to abolish absolutism. The government was very reluctant to weaken its absolutist rule and opposed the creation of provincial assemblies. Revolutionary change became inevitable because the Crown ignored pleas to share its political authority. With the exception of Jacques Necker, Louis XVI’s finance minister who advocated the granting of greater local autonomy, there was very little inclination to share power even with the property-owning elite who were most likely to support the actions of the government. The wider interests of the nation were discarded and Albert Soboul argues ‘all attempts to reform this administrative stucture had failed because of the resistance of the aristocracy, a resistance which had been challenged through the institutions which the nobles firmly controlled, the parlements, the provincial estates, the clerical assemblies’. Court and aristocracy were united in defending the traditional social order and despite agreement on the abolition of fiscal priviledges and doubling the representation of the third estate the parlements refused to register the new edicts.. A further weakness of the political system under the Old Regime was that there had been a failure to introduce a more equitable land tax. The feudal social structures had meant that the main burden of taxation fell on those who could least afford it, the landowning peasantry, rather than the real wealth of the country such as the clergy. The various internal weaknesses of the government also established the fact that the government was incapable of providing rapid reform . For example the King’s council, which in theory was an indivisible institution actually functioned as several different bodies and political instabilty was created by inter-departmental tensions. Moreover the intendants, who were the direct representatives of the King in the thirty four generalities of the kingdom, did not have absolute or uniform authority. The intendencies were also under-staffed and this meant that there was a lack of efficiency with less urgent matters badly neglected. Therefore it is entirely credible to propose that it was political causes such as the inertia and internal weakness of the crown that were mainly responsible for preventing reform, collapsing the old regime and thus paving the way for revolution.

David Mornet does not deny the importance of political causes but states ‘political causes would doubtless not have been sufficient to determine the Revolution…it was intelligence that drew out and organised its consequences’. Mornet argues that the origins of the Revolution were based in philosophy and that the event would not have taken place when it did without the influence of a new enlightened, liberal ideology. It is true that from the mid 18th century a process began which was gradually tranforming European society into a society based increasingly on individuals and their personal opinion rather than on the institutional groups that they belonged to. This process was able to bring unity to a disintegrating society and there is an influx in the number of philosophical societies and Masonic lodges which were not in any way associated with the monarchy’s traditional institutions. Furthermore there was increased literary and artistic criticism, for example in the academies and newspapers and this supports the notion that by the late 18th century a new more autonomous public had been formed. Gwynne Lewis points to Pierre Diderot’s Encyclopedia which was mass published in the middle of the century, saying that it reflected the discovery of a new order based upon science and reason. Lefebvre argues that it was the ideals of the Enlightenment such as civil equality and religious toleration that fostered the revolutionary spirit of the bourgeosie. The influence of the Enlightenment should be considered as a long term cause as from as early as the 16th century philosophers introduced ideas on guaranteeing man certain natural rights and assigning to the authority of then state the sole purpose of upholding these rights. However it could instead be argued that it was not the intention of the philosophers to inspire a revolution, rather a change in outlook with less dependence on religion and tradition. It was only after the established order had collapsed that the ideas of the Enlightenment revolutionalised the French people. Although the ideas that stemmed from the Enlightenment are insufficient in explaining the revolution on their own, they did create a new more critical climate of thinking which may well have influenced the politcal events that took place.

Regarding important short term causes of the revolution it is essential to mention the situation of the French economy and the economic crisis of 1788. The state had accrued a massive financial deficit through Necker’s borrowing at very high rates of interest and the cost of debt service was claiming a large chunk of expenditure. French support of the American war which cost over one billion livres was largely responsible for this and ruined efforts to rehabilitate the monarchy’s finances. However the crucial moment in the economic crisis was the terrible harvest failure of 1788 because agriculture was the most important economic activity in the kingdom. This caused a steep rise in the price of bread at a time when there was ready and increase in demand due to population growth. The agricultural crisis in turn led to an industrial crisis with a fall in demand for goods due to the purchasing power of the masses being badly affected. High prices caused numerous riots, an example being the riot that took place against Reveillon, a wallpaper manufacturer which sought to lower wages. In the five years before revolution, prices had risen by 65 per cent and yet wages only 22 per cent. Brienne’s renewal of the Anglo-French free-trade Eden treaty in 1786 came at the wrong time and damaged the economy further by giving the English a tariff reduction on certain manufactures when it was essential to maximise revenue. It also opened the French market to British hardware and textiles such as cotton which were cheaper and of a much better quality than their French equivalents, therefore weakening the French textile industry significantly. Turkey’s war with Russia and Austria and the unsettled conditions in Poland after Russian withdrawal augmented French industrial depression as it reduced exports to Eastern Europe and Levant. Historians such as Crouzet believe the French economy was faltering because it was stagnant, underdeveloped and in need of a technological revolution which other countries such as Britain were experiencing at the time. All these factors combined to cause France to experience its worst economic difficulties for generations on the eve of revolution and it is reasonable to pronounce the economic crisis as the decisive short term catalyst cause which compounded the political crisis and finally triggered the revolution.

The economic crisis must also be given considerable importance due to the impact it has in popularising the revolutionary movement by rousing the French peasantry. Peasant opposition had grown from the middle of the eighteenth century and resentment was based on the encroachment of their collective rights. For example, the peasants disagreed with the Crown’s enclosure and break up of common lands which benefited the aristocracy. They also criticised the system due to the burdens they faced in the form of payments in kind, tithes and feudal dues. The unfair treatment of the peasantry and the inaction of the Estates-General helped to develop the idea of an aristocratic conspiracy. Nevertheless it was not until the agricultural and economic crisis on 1788 that the peasantry decided to radicalise and take up arms. The weak economy and the bad harvest of 1788 had a terrible impact on the peasantry, the majority of who were landless and not self-sufficient and therefore suffered from scarcity and high prices. In the spring of 1789 they drew up a list of ‘cahiers’ or grievances and this created an expectation that something would be done to help them. It was the inaction of the government that led to a nation-wide tax revolt with refusal to pay dues. The lack of reform in the midst of the economic problems had created popular hysteria and insecurity or what historians call the Great Fear where it was believed that brigands had come to murder and destroy crops. Across the country this fear strengthened sentiments against the aristocracy and Lefebvre believes that it did stimulate the insurrection of the peasants. It was the rebellion of the peasantry who accounted for roughly 67 per cent of the population that transformed opposition to the state into a mass movement, one which the Crown could no longer put down. Tim Blanning states ‘if the bourgeois had had their way, the Revolution would have been closed down by 1791 at the latest. It was only persistent pressure from below which drove them on to destroy feudalism in its entirety’. The rise of the peasantry was the final blow which sparked the revolution and initiated real transformation with the abolition of most of the central social institutions of the Old Regime on the night of August 4th.

When considering the origins of the French Revolution one cannot simply claim that short term causes alone explain the revolution. The development of Enlightenment ideology over the course of the century was important in that people began to think in new ways and question the state they lived in. The liberal democratic ideology of the Enlightenment became widespread and its principles were at odds with the absolutist French monarchy. The ideas of enlightened philosophers did, in the long term, influence society and provide the intellectual impetus for revolution. Furthermore internal weaknesses and the political structure of the state contributed in building up social tension and the frustrations of the people, especially the third estate. There was a refusal to reform the French system in the face of growing demands for civil equality and this forced the French people to eventually take matters into their own hands. Despite this, short term causes such as the economic crisis and the peasant revolt can be deemed more important in actually setting off the revolution. The agricultural crisis and economic decline affected the lives of a vast proportion of the French people and it was this that made revolution unavoidable. Although there was socio-political problems before 1788 and demand for reform under the influence of liberal enlightened ideology, the economic crisis was the trigger cause which finally made social tensions unbearable. It would be unfair to say that the causes of the revolution were mainly short term as the longer term factors mentioned were very important in creating the foundation for opposition and increasing pressure for reform Nevertheless although the revolution was a political event it was the immediate effects of a crisis of economy and agriculture that actually provoked the masses to join together and revolt in 1789.

Bibliography

• T.Blanning, ‘The French Revolution’, 1989 
• W.Doyle, ‘Origins of the French Revolution’, 1980
• G.Lefebvre, ‘The Coming of the French Revolution’, 1971
• G.Lewis ‘The French Revolution Rethinking the Debate’, 1993
• R. Schechter, ‘The French Revolution’, 2001
• G. Taylor, 'Non-Capitalist Wealth and the Origins of the French Revolution', 1967
• N. Temple, ‘The Road to 1789: From Reform To Revolution in France’,  1992

     

           

---