After reading Augustine's post, I decided to do a little bit more research about the estate system and the taxing of different social classes: What sparked the revolution, and did the estate system help it, or hold it back? What happened to the estate system after the revolution ended?
I discovered that one of the problems in France (that eventually lead to the Revolution) was that the peasants were over-taxed, and the 1st estate and 2nd was (for the most part) immune from having to pay taxes. This was one of the reasons why France fell into bankruptcy. All of their income was being sucked out of the lower class, until the peasants barely had enough money to even survive. Throughout the 1700s, there were various propositions attempting to fix France's tax system, but none were successful. The attempts by various ministers, including Chrétien de Malesherbes, and Jacques Necker to tax the nobles, were constantly fought against by the courts. The lower class (despite representing 97-98% of the population) simply did not have enough political power to pass these kind of reforms. Attempts to tax the upper two estates continually failed, up until the 1780s when the revolution began.
After the revolution, it seemed like the estate system essentially ceased to exist (at the very least, it lost most of its relevance/significance). in 1789, the feudal system was abolished, and class distinctions (between the three estates) began to fade away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd have to say that I agree with most of your ideas. But I think there's something you may have overlooked or just not put enough thought into. When you say that "97-98%" of the population was made up of peasants, and they didn't have "political power" to change anything, you have to realize that it wasn't just a political issue. It was mostly based on fear. You have to see that when you are the majority, there is very little that stops you from taking control, but if you don't realize that you are the majority, that's when you feel you don't have the political power that you were mentioning earlier. I feel that it's because of the fact that the citizens had no idea that they had such strength in numbers because they had always lived a life of following the king. His word was the best, and even your class could not overthrow his army and superiority. But if they were to realize that they had much more strength before the problems with taxing and bread had presented themselves, I believe that they would have revolted sooner. Of course I'm just looking at this from a psychological standpoint. But I do think that the government uses fear to suppress the weaker classes, just as ours does today.
ReplyDeleteI was saying that the French peasents didn't have enough political power to pass political reforms (not just any kind of change). Sure, they could start a riot (as they did) and simply kill off the people in power, but what I was trying to say was that they didn't have the enough political representation to make any legal reforms. They could have used force (and they ended up doing so), but that's not the point I was trying to address here. I was simply trying to point out the lack of political control the people had, despite the fact that they represented the significant majority of the population.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to fear and lack of political power, I would add disorganization to the list of reasons why the French struggled to fix their crumbling nation. Despite the fact that they represented the significant majority of the population, they were (up until the revolution, and even then) extremely disorganized. As you said, the people were constantly in fear of their government. As such, there was a chilling effect over the peasants; they were suppressed by the government, afraid to even consider rebelling for the majority of French history.
Lastly, because of the difficulty that the French peasents had in terms of uniting themselves, they simply didn't realize the amount of power they had at the fingertips.
I'm not trying to fight you on anything, but were the peasants disorganized? Or was it really Louis XVI? Because I feel that it was the King who was disorganized, and he just kept the peasants in the dark. Or do you think it was actually the peasant's fault?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not it was the peasants' fault, I think that they were (for one reason or another) disorganized. They had no centralized power to organize them, in order to fight against the king. They were too busy stealing, and fighting amongst one another over limited resources, to really ever become unified. That was, until the late 1780s, when they turned their frustrations towards the king.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a good exchange, but don't forget to cite your sources!
ReplyDeleteAs to why the peasants didn't just rise up -- we should also consider their education. After all, Enlightenment ideas were very new. Before the Enlightenment, the kings were considered "divine rulers". (Look up Louis XIV)