- What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
- According to the letters in document #16, what was the local response to rural unrest? How effective was that response?
- What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
- In the debate over the king's veto, who made a better argument? Don't just think about who actually "won" the debate -- cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
- In the introduction to the debate over the king's veto, the editors mention that Mounier's speech "suggest[s] the limits of reform for some of the early revolutionaries." What about his speech might prompt that observation?
- Mason and Rizzo include two documents about the Women's March to Versailles, noting that "the sequence of events suggests the degree to which established officials found themselves trying to catch up with popular initiative." How is that demonstrated during the October Days? Use both documents when forming your answer.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Reading questions for 2/16
Mason & Rizzo, ch. 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDeleteThe letters give us insight into the rural unrest of 1789. We see examples of the rumors of the notability conspiring to resist action of National Assembly, but more importantly we see the call for public peace. The major cause of the first letter was the Estates of Dauphiné province violently agitated for several days, chateauxs burned down or pillaged were prime examples of the violence. Likewise, there was a fear of bandits and violence across the province. Citizens volunteering to end the disorder while among the convicts were found consuls of the community and residents of the area.
Now the second letter from La Breaudiéve of Segondigny (Poitou) to the Commission of Twelve depicts a truthful account of what happened to his son and him on 7.23.1789. He was asked to retreat to the Third Estate and was a noble sentenced to death by the borgeois. The purpose of the entrapment was so sign himself to the Third Estate. As a consequence, in order to survive he resigned himself and sun to survive the threat and horror. Hence, the purpose of the letter was a cry for help to restore peace by his testimony of horror accounts.
-Johanna Gotay
What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteDuc d'Aiguillon's speech tells us that the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789 is a result of the enlightened century and the negative effects of feudalism. His proposal to remove feudalism and support equality seems appropriate to the rural uprisings. He basically supports the actions of the National Assembly and attempts to defend there actions and those of the Third Estate. He mentions that the government now accords with the public good and that citizens should be equal before the law.
4. In the debate over the king’s veto, who made a better argument? Don’t just think about who actually “won” the debate – cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
ReplyDeleteI think that Jean-Joseph Mounier made the better argument for the king’s veto. I feel this way because in the conclusion of his speech he stated “rules were adopted to distinguish an arbitrary will or impassioned movement form a reflective will directed but the light of reason; and no one has ever suggested a better means to privilege reason than to require that resolutions pass various obstacles which, at the risk of stopping those that might be advantageous, more often stop those that could be harmful.” In saying this he is pointing that there needs to be checks on the government and what they want to make into law. In making the king have absolute veto power it keeps the elected representatives from passing into laws things that would not help the country and those who live in it. He also stated that those who are put into power are not driven by the good of the people, but by their own “passions,” there is a need for a veto to keep them from only accomplishing what is best for them, and not what is best for the country and their constituents. If the people are able to choose those who will make the best decision for them, then there will not be a need for the king to use his veto power, but since the best choice in representative is not always made, the king needs the right to veto. I think that this argument was well laid out and that there were many different and well thought out examples to back up why the king needed to have the veto power.
Kate Sinrud
3. What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThe National Assembly was unaware that the peasants would become violent to gain their freedoms that they felt were deserved. In his speech, he asks the National Assembly to hurry to make changes in the government and society in order to keep the peasants from taking arms again to get their rights that they deserve. He proposes that they cannot deny the right to property, that lords must renounce financial exemptions, renounce privileges, they should make all taxes to be levied out based on ability to pay, and that there will be reimbursement for the lands purchased from them. The rural uprising was because people were unhappy with their rights and I feel that the proposals do meet many of the wants and needs of the public. In making taxation based on ability to pay and a universal obligation, there will be more money in the treasury. These were good proposals to fix the problems of rural unrest in France.
Kate Sinrud
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? The nature of the unrest is violent because bandits are looting and burning down houses, especially local châteaux to destroy the feudal obligations. This sort of activity is happening everywhere. As a result the citizens are participating in village night watches and are having meetings to get enough guns to arm anyone. In the meantime they are arming themselves with whatever weapons they have available such as pitchforks and scythes. In the case of the father and son, village people that have worked and lived together are turning on each other, and violently attacking the Segondigny as well for money.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the major causes of such unrest? It appears some of the unrest was from the spread of panic itself. In the first letter there were a supposed couple of bandits that were going to be chased down by the Lyon troops. But because of the letter written from Monferra to the lord of Voiron, giving him news of the arrival of the supposed 20,000 men and its spread to village to village and on to Grenoble all the people of the countryside quickly armed themselves ready to fight. The second letter illustrates the “mobs” desire to ensure that that everyone in the village is pledging to be part of the third estate, even if it is people they have work and lived with and who overseen and protected them. Cite examples from both letters.
Jeff smith
Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tells us that the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789 was a source of the new era of enlightenment. The people of France were more aware and confident to take a stand about their rights. His response to the National Assembly was to tax everyone within in their salary, strict justice, take away all privileges and exceptions from everyone and etc. The uprisings were because the people (especially in the Third Estate) were unhappy with the unequal treatment. As a result attacked the government as anyone else would. I feel that Duc d'Aiguillon's proposal to the National Assembly in order to resolve these matters was good because it touched on the basic hardcore issues which later would resolve the smaller ones.
ReplyDeleteRachel B.
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDelete"Our province has been most violently agitated for the last several days; bourgeois militia has been formed in all the cities, towns, and villages because the fear of bandits has spread everywhere;" (67). This is from the first letter which basically states the fear in the country side came from reports that bandits have raided and destroyed nearby villages and there's was going to be next. In the village of Dauphine, as stated in the first letter, "the watch is carried out with care and all suspicious-looking persons are stopped" (67). The people were so scared that "Mr. Dufort sadly agreed to allow arms to be placed in the people's hands" (68). This shows how desperate people were during the times because they were freaking out about a rumor that could not have been real. The second letter is an actual report of a bandit attack. "I struggle for more than a quarter of an hour between their hands to defend my gun, and I would have held out longer if, at that moment, I had not seen my dear child, weaker than I, between their hands and close to being torn to pieces by these madmen..." (71). This shows that some of the rumors were actually true.
Travis Jeffries
In the debate over the king's veto, who made a better argument? Don't just think about who actually "won" the debate -- cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Abbe Henri Gregoire debated the better argument with these few words. "One of the most deeply rooted in the human heart, one of the most ardent, is the thirst for power and the penchant for extending its empire." (77). History has shown these words right. A person who has too much power will always crave for more power like Napoleon when he is ruling France or Caesar in Rome even Hitler in Germany or the heads of oil companies in the US. It just a basic fact of human life, people with power wants more power.
Travis Jeffries
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDeleteThis document #16 tells us that people were desperate and scared. The third estate went on a riotous rampage due to a few rumors circulating the towns. They third setate was not only dangerous to the first and second estates, but they were also dangerous to themselves. Burning chateaus, assaulting nobles, looting your fellow man, these made enemies of everyone.
Major causes for this unrest was the rumors and the timing of those rumors, first theves are nearby then homes burned each rumor worse than the last, and when some turned out to be true, that made things all the worse." An alliance from the side of the uncultivated lands has spread a general terror throughout the province."p68
" about 4:30, I hear the sound of the drum and some gunshotsmingled with some sort of confused shouts; one of my sons and I run to Segondigny, believing for all the world that these were the enemies rumored since morning."p.70
According to the letters in document #16, what was the local response to rural unrest? How effective was that response?
Most citizens initially responded with a calm demenor protecting their towns with a neighborhood watch style of defense. This soon turned to mass hysteria with citizens arming themselves with anything they could as soon as they heard news of brigands roaming the nearby woods. Things only got worse as news from surrounding areas reached them. The news of the burning of the chateau of Vaux, looting and pillaging hastened their fears. Some of the looters were citizens of nearby towns turing neighbor against neighbor. Soldiers were dispatched to reclaim the peace. Thiers was a state of martial law. Their response to the unrest only made things go from bad to worse. What was uncomfortable and unfriendly between the social classes became riot and bloodshed.
Travis DeMay
Nationals Assembly's reaction to violence is that there's violence because people, espeically the third Estate, are not given equal rights as the rest of the other two Estates.They view it as being normal to get what they desire, equality socially and legally. His proposals seem like an appropiate response to rural uprisings because it puts an end to fuedualism and puts everyone an even keel.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy McCain
The nautre of rural unrest in 1789 was fear of foreign invasion and bandits taking up arms against the thrid Estate. The major causes of this unrest were rumors and false events stated in letters to heads of towns, which in turn got the townspeople and peasants to take up arms. Peasants, in some instances, thought it was the king who was sending troops to put down peasant revolts. IN the first letter, there was a rumor that 20,000 troops were headed to their town of Grenoble and citizens took up arms only to find out the next day it was a false alarm. IN the other letter, a gentleman and his family are gathered up by a mob of people and say anyone who refuses to allie with the thrid Estate will be killed and the only thing that saves him is that he states that he wants revenge against the king.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy McCain
What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteHis speech tells us that the National Assembly had to realize that they had to abolish all noble and clergy rights to help stop the uprisings in the countryside. He proposes getting rid of the feudal system and only taxing people in proportion to their pay.
I agree with that. It seems that all the peasants wanted was equal rights under the law, so to stop the violence, they were given what they wanted.
Lindsay Berreth
According to the letters in document #16, what was the local response to rural unrest? How effective was that response?
ReplyDeleteLocals in the areas listed formed bourgeois militia and stopped all suspicious looking people. Some people volunteered to help stop the burning of chateaux in the area. The militia seemed somewhat effective. They were able to capture some people and either kill them or take them as prisoners.
Lindsay Berreth
What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThe Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tells us that the National Assembly was almost too willing to oblige the demands of the revolting peasants. The Duc admits that these peasants are indeed guilty of a crime but that they should be excused because they are reacting to oppression that has spanned such a long period of time. The proposals presented by the Duc from the National Assembly seem entirely reasonable. These proposals follow are consistent with the direction that the National Assembly has been following. It stands to reason that they would institute these reforms. This type of drastic change was imminent at this point in the revolution the revolting peasants in the countryside just helped to speed up the process.
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDeleteThe two letters show that the rural unrest in 1789 was very intense and full of rage. The peasants who participated were frustrated and angry and had come to their breaking point. The first letter details several instances of great property damage. "A troop of these bandits went to the chateau of Cesarges...Cesarges has been looted and stripped with the help of carts; everything was taken, right down to the hinges of the doors; there was money there that did not escape the thieves foraging, the inhabitants of the neighboring village were themselves accomplices to the looting, mingling with bandits; only some papers were saved." The violence escalated to the point that arms were placed in the hands of the people in the countryside. The second letter details the events that befell a man and his son. These individuals barely escaped with their lives and were forced to sign a document that they would pay amends to avoid being "torn to pieces." This shows the increasing brutality of the revolt.
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the two letters the rural unrest in 1789 was caused by rumors of bandits and the nobles resisting the National Assembly. In the first letter from the Commissioners of the Estates of Dauphine, the province was "violently agitated" because of the threat of bandits. In addition to the news of chateaus being burned down and everything being stolen and destroyed in surrounding areas, people were beginning to arm themselves with guns and pitchforks to prepare for the apparent military or bandit invasion. The La Breaudiere of Segondigny (Poitou) of the Committee of Twelve is the story written by a man who was violently forced to sign saying that he was of the Third Estate in order to save his life and his son's life. In this account, bandits were also going around burning and destroying everything, and saying that they "had orders to kill all gentlemen who refused to ally themselves with the Third Estate." The man writing this account believed that the forest workers were going to help him protect the village from the threats and they turn out to be the people who attack him. Document #16 shows us that one cause of unrest was the panic created from rumors and also from the experiences of targeted individuals whose own people turn on them.
According to the letters in document #16, what was the local response to rural unrest? How effective was that response?
The local response was to arm themselves and send out warnings for people to be prepared to protect themselves. Considering that in the first letter, the initial warnings turned out to be false and no one even came to the village, the response mostly contributed to more panic, rumors, unrest.
Tori Barnes
Mason and Rizzo include two documents about the Women's March to Versailles, noting that "the sequence of events suggests the degree to which established officials found themselves trying to catch up with popular initiative." How is that demonstrated during the October Days? Use both documents when forming your answer.
ReplyDeleteIn the first document titled, "Women of Cheret, The Event of Paris...Assembly", the account of the "citizenesses, clothed in glory, were returned byi carriage, at the majesty's expense" is an example of the officials rushing to catch up to popular initiative. In the second document titled, "Testimony...Faucherets", the account of a woman having "a private audience with the king who...embraced her" serves as another example. I doubt that monarch officials, several months prior, would have responded so graciously to a confrontation from an angry mob of women. I believe these examples represent examples of where officials acquiesced due to public/popular opinion.
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDeleteWhat do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
Document 16 cites specific examples of unrest in certain territories of France. The nature of rural unrest was citizens hearing rumors about the Nobility refusing to submit to the desires of the Estates-General and also that the Nobles were by use of force making their way town to town suppressing any support for the Estates-General. This lead to the rumor that bandits were forming all around France causing Chaos by burning down and looting villages on their destructive path. Citizens would form groups and keep watch for bandits while gathering arms to defend themselves. Also, in the second letter in Document 16, a man reminisces about his account of him and his son as they struggled to survive as a group of bandits took them and made them denounce their nobility and swear themselves into the third estate. The man recounts how he was struggling for "a quarter of an hour" and how his boy was almost "torn to pieces." Recollections such as this prove how bandits actually did form out of fear of the nobles and caused serious damage and harm throughout rural France.
Elliot Grimm
In the debate over the king's veto, who made a better argument? Don't just think about who actually "won" the debate -- cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
ReplyDeleteWhile both arguments were very interesting, I think Mounier made the better argument due to a couple reasons:
1 - he continually stressed the importance of "separation of powers" and the advocation for branches of government (he was obviously a reader of Montesquieu?).
2 - his point that the ability to suspend legislation is not really the same as having royal sanction; it just suspends and defers to the masses.
3 - his point about the dangers of having to subordinate everything to the decisions of the masses.
It appears that Mounier believed in a checks and balance system. I enjoyed Gregoire's argument, but personally believe that Mounier's made more reasonable assertions.
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
ReplyDeleteWith all the emphasis on the urban unrest within Paris, it is easy to overlook the chaos that had begun to transpire in rural France. The panic that gripped the country, was most readily due to banditry, and rumors. Bandits were pillaging, destroying documents, and burning down nobles' estates. One of the rumors mentioned in Letter A, consisted of an invading army of 20,000 troops. Furthermore, Letter B gives the perspective of the nobles who found themselves the target of banditry and arson. All of which, prompted armed militias to spring up across France to defend themselves, their property, and others from danger.
~James Scutari
What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest?
ReplyDeleteCite examples from both letters.
The two letters that make up document #16 shows us how nervous and scared those in the country side were. They keep hearing all of these rumors of bandits looting and destroying nearby villages so they believed that the only way to protect themselves was to arm themselves. They basically picked up anything which could be used as a weapon. They could not trust anyone as we see in the first letter when the Commissioners of the Estates of Dauphine mentions that "all suspicious-looking persons arestopped". In the second letter we see a desperation and actual accounts from a father. He writes that they shouted "Give up, you are dead if you don't sign that you are of the Third Estate. He had no other choice but to join the Third estate in order to spare his life as well as his son. We are given an actual glmipse, aside from the rumors of the first letter , of what is happening and the desperation of the people.
Irania E
What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIt seems as the National Assembly had no idea that things would be taken to this level. He noted that it is just not these bandits who are causing this chaos but the people in general. His proposals seem appropraite because it is what the people want, EQUALITY. Removing this feudalism, charging everyone taxes and taxing people according to what they can actually pay sounded pretty great. Things would certainly die down once word of these new ideas began to spread.
Irania E.
3. What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThe Duc d’Aiguillon’s speech tells us that the National Assembly’s reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789 was one of shock and fear. I feel that his proposals seemed like an appropriate response to rural uprisings because he is in support of equality among the citizens. For example, he says, “…I hope that the National Assembly will decree that taxes shall be levied equally on all citizens, in proportion to their ability to pay…” (74). He makes it known that they need to take action fast in order to calm the crowd, “…prove to all citizens that our aim and aspiration is to exceed their desires, to establish as quickly as possible this equality of rights…” (74).
4. In the debate over the king's veto, who made a better argument? Don't just think about who actually "won" the debate -- cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
I thought that Jean-Joseph Mounier’s made the better argument for the king’s veto. I feel this way because he states that, “the branches of government must be organized in such a way that they never be united in the same hands.” (79). He goes on to claim that if they were, then Despotism would occur. He does believe that the king deserves to have “royal sanction” in order to maintain his authority. He states that, “The most obvious means is to make the king an integral part of the legislative body and to require that the representatives’ decisions be invested with the royal sanction in order to become laws” (80).
Kate Starnes
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDeleteWhat does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
The Duc d'Aigillon's speech informs us that the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789 was a significant one. The violence forced this speech from the Duc and henceforth guaranteed rights to all peoples of France. He speaks of the new era of enlightenment in that all men have equal rights, and compares these rights to being like their property, property that surely can not be taken away from them. He urges that men who may have before had special privileges with taxes or penalties will now face them as equals to all citizens of France. He urges especially for the eradication of feudalism, since it simply can not exist any longer as seen by the recent violent uprisings. I think that his response to those uprisings was the correct one. When witnessing the atrocities committed in Document 16, it is impossible not to encounter the need for change throughout France. The duc D'Aigillion's speech is a testimony to the recognition that the times in France are changing, and so must the policies and governing of its citizens as well.
Elliot Grimm