Summary Of A Reflection On The Revolution In France

A revolution, by definition, is the overthrow of one government followed by replacement with another. The American Revolution against the British during 1775 to 1783 and the French Revolution pitting the French people against their own government during 1789 to 1799 were both very important political and social turnovers. This movement towards the establishment of a constitutional government influenced political thought throughout the world. By closely examining three of the main causes of these revolutions, it is clear that although the two revolutions have their differences, the basis of cause for the revolutions have, overall, much stronger similarities.

The identity of a society is verified through the rights which are given to the citizens. The rights of man have been at many different standards throughout time. Often being very one sided, and at times striving for a median between the two sides. In Edmund Burke's essay Reflections on the Revolution in France Burke states that a king is in one sense a servant but in everyday situations they are above every individual. All persons under him owe him a legal agreement to serve his hopes. This essay will demonstrate why Thomas Paine's essay The Rights of Man is more convincing than Edmund Burke's through examination of a heredity government, the nature of rights and the uselessness of the monarchy.

In contrast to Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke has his sights set on a monarchy rather than a republic because it’s not as easy to replace the old customs of a society. Thomas Burke had a very traditional view point that

Burke frames the French Revolution as a conflict between the people and Louis XVI. Paine argues that the revolution is better characterized as the people versus the despotism of the French hereditary monarchy. The argument continues, with Paine stating that the French revolutionaries are not opposing the king as a person, but rather the more general idea of the monarchy. This argument would later be overshadowed with the execution of Louis XVI.

Many philosophers and theorists have spoken on the value, or lack thereof, of revolution. In Second Treatise of Government, John Locke builds the concept of a “social contract,” which outlines responsibilities of the government and what can be done if the state fails to uphold its duties.  Edmund Burke views political rebellion in a different light. He writes in Reflections on the Revolution in France that upheaval does excessive harm to the state, and, by extension, the people. While both Locke and Burke agree that rebellion is useful to the growth of a state, they differ on a few main points. First, they disagree in terms of what circumstances warrant revolution. Second, they each believe it should take different forms and work to different extents. Finally, Locke and Burke believe revolution tends to have positive or negative effects, respectively. Their views on each of these points will be discussed in turn.

For my book review, I have read and evaluated Sylvia Neely’s history book entitled A Concise History of the French Revolution published in 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Neely’s purpose is to gives an overview of the French revolution with the most important events, the most prominent people and the essential terms. We can see that the author proved her thesis by explaining the background causes of the revolution such as the ancient regime with Louis XVI. Also she described all important events in chronological orders which made it easier for the reader to understand. Neely’s book is at the same time an history book, but also an kind of encyclopedia because she included all essentials terms which were use during that time period, such as “dérogeance”, which means the loss of nobility.

Louis XVI held the title of an absolute monarch in France and due to various decisions, which made the country sink deeper into debt, he became less popular to the citizens. The political structure of the country underwent many transformations which included a change in power and ideology. The country experienced an un-peaceful transition of power from a monarchy into a republic. The ideologies of the men who were ruling the country were different from the monarch and their ideologies were shaped by their public and individual interest. During the period of the French revolution, a conservative writer, Edmond Burke wrote a book titled Reflections on the Revolution in France, which critiqued various elements of the revolution, which were contrasted to the outcomes of the English revolution (this is also known as the English Civil

The French Revolution influenced Burke in many way, we can see how his life evolved by his opposition to the revolution. In the text he says “The French Revolution is the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world.” (Punchner) We later see that true, he thought that the revolution was monumental, he also opposed it. He spoke so plainly and openly about his thoughts on how government should work that he was seen as a visionary in his time. Even though he lived in England he had no problem with speaking out about the French Revolution. He was moved by the idea that social change was not only inevitable but desirable.

As one can expect from the very nature of political and social revolutions, there were some very unhappy people during the French revolution. The question here is why the French citizens of this time so upset were and was their discontent so great that a revolution could be justified? Furthermore, who and what will be the ultimate vehicle to bring the necessary political, social and economic dreams to realization?

“Our freedom is not up for negotiation.”(Mohamed ElBaradei). The Egyptian Revolution was a battle to take back rights that had been taken away for nearly thirty years.Socially, the main causes were a lack of human rights, and poor living conditions.Economic changes also promoted the development of protests. Political leaders were unjust, provoking citizens to create an uproar of resistance. The Egyptian Revolution has had many harsh social, destructive economic, yet promising political impacts on the Egyptian people while the prospect for peace remains uncertain.

In Tunisia, A man purposely set himself on fire to express his rights. Little did the government know this was just the foreshadowing of major uprising in Egypt. In the Middle East, the dissatisfied youth started a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that began December 18, 2010. Known as the “Arab Spring”, the young adults protested all through the Arab world because of their anger with unemployment, inflation, and the regulations of the government. The young adults, who received message of the protest via social media, were hungry for political change, more voice, and economic stimulus. However, this is not the first time we have seen citizens revolt like this. In 1972, society revolted due to raised taxes, lack of freedom, and poverty, ultimately causing the French revolution. In comparing Egypt and the French revolution, although the causes are the same through changes in government, dire financial situation, and significant events, the results demonstrate differences.

Two revolutions, 250 years apart, were both started for noble causes in an effort to right human wrongs. The results of these two revolts that appear in the History books will be sadly different. Economically and politically, the causes that resulted in the Colonial Revolution and the Egyptian Revolution appear to be similar; however, further study reveals that the Egyptian Revolution stands in stark and dreadful contrast to the Colonial Revolution both in preparedness and outcome.

The French Revolution began as an expression of rebellion against centuries of absolute rule in France. After an interim of experimental liberalism under the rule of Jacobins and Girondins and then the infamous reign of terror, the people of French were drawn to a man who promised them a return to stability, and  honor through the expansion of empire. France and it’s people had long yearned for this sens eof honour, it had seemed, and could finally sens eit in a lasting rpesence under the rule of their prodigious, unbeatable general, Napoleon Bonaparte. He would soon take the reigns of civil government as well and become yet another Absolutist ruler, yet this

​Burke’s opposition to the French Revolution is a reflection of the connection between his views and Hobbes Leviathan regarding how to organize and rule a society to maintain peace and security. In his view of the Revolution, Burke argues that the system that had been in place prior to the mutiny was the outcome of profound reflection. In other words, sovereigns had used the same laws to govern, and France remained peaceful throughout the period. Burke emphasizes that the revolution left indelible scars on the France’s social fabric and occasioned “undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased” (Burke 54). Starting with the raiding of Bastille, the

This essay investigates the question ‘was the revolution of 1952 in Egypt more beneficial or consequential?’