Documents from Mason & Rizzo:
- Describe one of Montesquieu's justifications for slavery and explain why he has or has not made a rational argument.
- Rousseau's The Social Contract has been described as a blueprint for both democracy and totalitarianism. What passages from the excerpt you read might reveal the dark underbelly of The Social Contract? Why?
- Is the recounting of "The Noailles Affair" an effective condemnation of aristocratic privilege? Why or why not?
- Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?
Lucas article:
- Why does Lucas assert that there was more social tension within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie and the nobility?
- In the period before the French Revolution, how had the meaning of "elite" evolved in French society?
- If the Third Estate was not revolting against the nobility, what was the source of their frustration in 1789?
The Third Estate, particularly the upper and middle elite that were excluded from the second estate despite having the same wealth, more even, and status as the landed nobility and clergy were upset by the absolute power of the monarch. This was shared by the nobility but it was particularly true of the Third Estate who were in terms of wealth higher than most of the nobility. The exclusion of some of the elite from the second estate sealed the deal of the revolution by closing off avenues of promotion and forcing some of the elites to be in the same category as the vile commoners. The lesson of calling the Estates General is that it may help to alleviate the frustration of the lack of power but such an outdated institution only stirred the revolutionary pot by lowering the status of the powerful elite who were at that time more wealthy than many nobles who relied on their land, rents and annuities versus military, law, trade, and finance.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Straub
1- Description one of Montesquieu's justifications for slavery and why he has or not made a rational argument?
ReplyDeleteOne of Montesquieu's justifications for slavery are the belief that "culture and climate determined which sort of government is most suitable to a given people." This concept is the basis for his justifications for slavery. But one that stands out is "that religion gives its professors a right to enslave those who dissent from it, in order to render its propagation more easy." He rations this argument by the higher power of religion. He uses Louis XIII uneasiness of the law as an example of its difficulty, but elludes that there was no further escape in the action. His argument of religion is short and not supported very well. I wish he would have explained more of the effect religion had on the monarchy and its followers.
-Johanna Gotay
2- Why did Mercier think it impossible that the French would have a violent revolution?
ReplyDeleteMercier thought it impossible that the French would have a violent revolution because he believes that the days of violent political turbulence have passed. He speaks of the "eternally watchful police, two regiments of Guards, Swiss and French, in barracks near at hand, the King's bodyguard, the fortresses which ring the capital round, together with countless individuals whose interests link them to Versailles; all making these factors the change of any serious rising seem altogether remote." He compares Londoners to Parisians and gives examples of the Fronde to support his arguments. He believes that Parisians are supporters of the King who do as he pleases. With these vales, they would never form an uprising.
-Johanna Gotay
1. Why does Lucas assert that there was more social tension within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie and the nobility?
ReplyDeleteLucas asserts that there was more social tension within just the bourgeoisie because rivalry between nobles and the bourgeoisie was not seen as a necessary struggle. Instead, the increase in the number of families who joined the ranks of the bourgeoisie in the 18th century led to a rise in competition over a limited number of positions within society that the bourgeoisie relied upon to maintain their status. In addition to the number of families joining the bourgeoisie the vast fortunes that many brought with them allowed them to surpass those who had cut ties to trade in the less lucrative times, adding to rising tensions.
2. In the period before the French Revolution, how had the meaning of "elite" evolved in French society?
ReplyDeleteIn the period before the French Revolution the meaning of "elite" evolved in several ways in French society. Where once nobility was a hereditary right that few families held, a shift occurred allowing the title to become accessible to many who could not trace their roots to noble lines. The monarchy began to give out titles and estates to families that reached a certain level of wealth and influence within society. This bringing in of new families into the elite began to water down it's significance in that more and more families were able to reach the status of "elite". Lower class members could now aspire to reach a level that had once been reserved for only a certain few. This evolution and expansion of a once exclusive class broadened French society and added to rising social tensions.
Is the recounting of "The Noailles Affair" an effective condemnation of aristocratic privilege? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the author noted at the end of his article that the verdict was "loudly applauded" and "is a monument to the wisdom and enlightenment of the magistrates who delivered it", I do not believe the decision was an effective condemnation of aristocratic privilege. The chevalier clearly committed bigamy as he married Miss Noailles in 1781 in front of a priest and four witnesses, as well as another woman in 1782. However, he was found guilty of only "seduction" and forced to make restitution of 20,000 livres as opposed to the asked amount of 80,000. While a "not guilty" verdict would have been much worse, I think the final decision was very light and did little to change behavior from the aristrocratic population.
yvonne marteeny
to add on to what Johanna said Montesquieu is using loopholes in the law, religion, and his own word to justify enslaving a group of people. Also the point of the climate and culture is what is used to decided what style of government is used is nothing more than a sugar coated way of saying the king has the divine right to rule.
ReplyDeleteAdding on to what Samantha H said, the older group of the bourgeoisie which had over the years burned bridges and and cut off ties with certain trader and centers which makes trading that much harder. at the same time the newer younger group still has access to these centers which makes trade and making money easier for them. Because the newer group is making more money than the older group, the older group with naturally get a little jealous which causes more tension.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Yvonne's comment about "The Noailles Affair":
ReplyDeleteIt depends on your definition of "effective" as far as the condemnation went. At the time, I think it was lucky that the chevalier was found guilty of ANYTHING. While I agree that, in an ideal world, he should have been convicted of both charges, having him punished at all seems to be a plus in my book.
Mason & Rizzo Question 1:
ReplyDeleteMontesquieu argues that slavery is "more tolerable" in despotic countries because the people of that country are used to "political servitude." I think this is a completely misguided idea and an irrational argument. Regardless of what system of government a people has, slavery should either be tolerable or intolerable to Montesquieu. I could see if he said it was more UNDERSTANDABLE in a despotic country because people were used to being treated like that (which is a poor argument to begin with, in my opinion), but to say that it should be the exception to the rule because of their government really just discredits him to me.
Of the slavery of the Negroes Montesquieu justifies slavery of Africans through religion. He says that God wouldn't put a good soul into an ugly black body and that Africans are merely seen as creatures and to be equal among slaves is to be animal like and non-Christian. He uses Christianity to justify why Africans aren't equal because they seem to be savages and aren't considered human.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy McCain
Mercier thinks that because the French have had their efforts stopped so quickly before as a result of the police and security, long time of peace since the Fronde, that people wont riot again and certainly not violently because it hasn’t happened in such a long time. Mercier also thinks Parisians don’t care enough to ever get violent because “his instinct seems to have taught him that the little more liberty he might obtain is not worth fighting for; any such struggle would imply long effort, stern thinking, and these are not in his line” (48). For these reasons Mercier thinks it is improbably that the French would ever have a violent revolution.
ReplyDeleteTori Barnes
“Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over which he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.” - This passage kind could possible give someone the right to take away others possessions or lives in order for the greater good of what he believes to be for the people.
ReplyDelete“But the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions.” – This passage gives man the right to enforce a social order with aggression.
“If the State is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole. As nature gives each man absolute power over all his members, the social compact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members also; and it is this power which, under the direction of the general will, bears, as I have said, the name of Sovereignty.” – This body politic could be one man in which case one man could have soul power over the State.
-Steph Talarek
1. Describe one of Montesquieu justifications for slavery and explain why he has or has not made a rational argument.
ReplyDeleteMontesquieu uses religion as one justification for slavery. Religion gives the slavers a "right to enslave those who dissent from it, in order to render its propagation more easy" (33). Montesquieu is claiming that if a conquered individual does not give into to the religious principles that the conquering party imposes on the individuals, then the conquers have a right to enslave those people. This can be seen in the Americas when the Spanish captured the Natives and used them to mine gold out of the mines. I do not believe that Montesquieu made a rational argument because not everybody is going to like the same religion. Just because someone does not follow your religious code does not give you the right to enslave those people. Montesquieu obviously does not believe in freedom of religion.
Travis Jeffries
4. Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?
ReplyDeleteMercier believes that a violent revolution would be improbable because of the watchful eye of the police, the royal bodyguards, the military, etc. He states that in the last fifty years "there have only been two such attempts and both were quelled at once" (46). Whenever a French Parisian entertains the idea of rebellion, the fear of what the police or a magistrate would do to him will stop the individual from acting on these thoughts. Peasants will never riot because there are laws against peasant gatherings. Another reason is Parisians are not "practiced rioters" (47). If this is so, then the authorities in Paris could easily put down any riot, or so Mercier thought.
Travis Jeffries
1. Why does Lucas assert that there was more social tension within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie and the nobility?
ReplyDeleteLucas asserts that there were more social tensions within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie because of many reasons. One of the distinctions was between those who depended on manual labor to live and those who did not. The division between those in the bourgeoisie class was not as clearly draw as the distinctions between the nobles and the rest of society. To be able to move up in bourgeoisie society, you just needed to obtain more money or capital and you were at a higher level, this made it a fight amongst the members of the class to stay in their positions of power. The competition for trade and between those who traded was large too. Your status depended on how much you made, what you were trading, and what money you had already. There was vast tension between the bourgeoisie who were trying to stay on top of the competition and come out as winners.
Kate Sinrud
4.Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?
ReplyDeleteMercier did not think that it was possible for the French to have a violent revolution because of the police force and other guards that keep an eye on everything make it “nearly impossible”(46). He stated that there have only been two attempts that were stopped right away making the past a time of relative peace. He spoke out on the fact that the peasants would be the ones who would revolt, but said that “they would have to reckon first with the police, then with regiments, and finally with an army or two” (46). Mercier felt that there was such a strong military and police force to keep a revolt from occurring. He did mention though that if one did occur it would “assume alarming proportions” (47), because the public does not riot often and therefore would not know what to do if the situation presented itself.
Kate Sinrud
Lucas Article Question 1
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lucas’s article there was no distinction between the privileged and the Third Estate; rather it was between those who relied on manual labor to prosper and those whom it did not. In reality the division between the privileged and the non-privileged was very ambiguous. For example, during the 18th century the King continued to issue Letters of Nobility to honorable, successful, and well connected individuals and certain noble offices could be purchased. In Lucas’s article he points out that that “pursuit of ennoblement remained a realistic enterprise for the bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century”. This article also points out that privilege which was the most tangible evidence of nobility had been penetrated by non-nobles for some time. In regard to taxes, nobles in the eighteenth century always paid some taxes. In some cases they actually paid more than some of the wealthier bourgeois of certain towns who entertained bargains with the monarchy. In some cases, rich commoners benefited as much as nobles when dealing with administrators who did not enforce their full extent of power when collecting taxes. Another example indicating there was no real distinction between the privileged and the non-privileged was seigneurial rights were not always restricted to the nobility. According to Lucas, these rights were at times more obtainable then venal office positions.
Written by: Kathryne Hardy
Describe one of Montesquieu's justifications for slavery and explain why he has or has not made a rational argument.
ReplyDeleteOne of Montesquieu’s justifications of slavery is that they “are obliged to make slaves of the Africans for clearing such vast tracts of land” (34). He justifies this by saying that no one else is able to do this but the African slaves, “Sugar would be too dear if the plants which produce it were cultivated by any other than black slaves” (34). He further down attacks the slave’s physical features saying that, “It is hard to believe that God, who is a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul, in such a black ugly body” (34). His point about slavery was not strong at all. In my opinion, he has not made a rational argument about slavery. He states that they are the only ones able to clear the land and tend to cultivate the plants that produce sugar but stops there and doesn’t give anymore support to his claim. His second point is just an attack on their physical feature and is basically saying that since they look “different” therefore are enslaved.
Kate Starnes
Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?
ReplyDeleteMercier thought it was improbable that the French would have a violent revolution because he believes that since the police are heavily watching their people then no one will try to start a riot. For example, on page 47, he says, “But if a Parisian in the same turmoil, flushed with some early slight successes, would get out of hand at once; it is only the thought of the police and magistrates at his back that keeps him quiet.” Here it takes a French person to only think about the police and magistrates at his back that makes him decide to not act in a violent manner.
Kate Starnes
Montesquieu justifies slavery by saying that the color of a person's skin can determine whether they are a slave or not. He asks why God would place a soul in such an "ugly black body". He cites the Egyptian's practice of putting all red-headed men to death. He also says that bad laws have made lazy men and that they have been reduced to slavery because of their laziness.
ReplyDeleteObviously, some of his ideas would be thought of as racist in today's world. The Egyptians' practice would seem wrong to us as well. To judge whether someone is enslaved or not by their skin color is not rational to me.
Lindsay Berreth
The Justification of Slaver by Montesquieu
ReplyDeleteIn the section of "inutility of slavery among us" i dont really know if he justifies slavery however i do agree with what he is trying to point out about slavery. Montesquieu is saying that some slavery has come about due to the laziness of man. This in my mind makes perfect since because when people have something they have to do and they dont want to do it they will find a way around it and in this case it is slavery. Just as Montesquieu points out with his example of working in the mines, in past times working in the mines were considered bad and therefore people didnt want to do it and therefore they got slaves to do it for them. Now people who do these work get to live a comfortable life due to the work they must do. Montesquieu says "they have been reduced to their slavery because of their laziness.
Daniel Gitlin
Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?
ReplyDeleteMercier thought that it was improbable to have a violent resolution because there were watchful police, guards and fortresses around the city of Paris. He says that the peasants would have a difficult time rioting because of guards and laws saying they are not allowed. If a Parisian tried, he would be denied food long enough for him to give in.
He also thinks a Parisian would not be as level-headed as a Londoner during an act of violence or outrage. He says Londoner's have a "political sanity". He thinks Parisian's lack control over their violence.
Lindsay Berreth
Lucas 2: The New "Elite"
ReplyDeletePrior to the revolution, France had for centuries a strict social structure that allowed for little if any form of upward mobility. The nobles were of royal blood, and that was the only way to attain the rank of nobility. However, this time honored tradition began to lax, as members of the other classes were able to rise due to their own wealth/skills, or by appointment by the King. The practice was frowned upon by the traditional noble bloodlines, as they saw their once sole privileges being granted to the undeserving.
~James Scutari
Mason & Rizzo 4: A Violent Revolution
ReplyDeleteMontesquieu's doubt regarding the possibility of a violent revolution had a great deal to do with the vigilance of French authorities. He was of the belief that French law enforcement had in the past been able to prevent riots solely by their presence, or were able to quell any such assemblies. This justification is similar to the type of fear/anxiety generated by today's concept of "big brother."
~James Scutari
Why does Lucas assert that there was more social tension within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie and the nobility?
ReplyDeleteThe Lucas article explains that there was very little difference between the upper levels of the bourgeoisie and the nobility. Before reading this article, I had understood that there was a large gap between these two societal groups. However Lucas explains that, in actuality, there was no clear division between the two. The wealthy bourgeoisie had been able to "infiltrate" noble society via letters of Nobility conferred by the King and purchase of key offices. In addition, seigneurial rights and fiefs had become obtainable. Lucas pointed out that the bourgeoisie "had not developed a class consciousness" and that they, "believed in the intrinsic value of a nobility..." We know that many in the bourgeoisie class had aspired to the noble "level" in society (many years previous, Moliere's play, "The Bourgeois Gentilhomme", captured this sentiment). But, again, the Lucas article was interesting as it clearly outlines how the lines between the bourgeoisie and the nobility had blurred.
If the Third Estate was not revolting against the nobility, what was the source of their frustration in 1789?
ReplyDeleteA great source of frustration for the Third Estate in 1789 had to do with representation in the Estates General. The Lucas article references an interesting quote by Mallet du Pan, "the nature of the debate has completely changed. King, despotism, and Constitution are now very secondary questions; the war is between the Third Estate and the other two orders". I apologize for citing such a long text, but I found this particular piece fascinating. The King had initiated a meeting of the Estates General whose representatives would meet on behalf of the country to discuss solutions for state-wide issues, as well as review grievances from each province. At first glimpse this might be viewed as a positive step. However, as the Lucas article points out, the use of a 17th century process (the Estates General had not convened since the 1600's) spiraled into a massive issue for the Third Estate. Issues of representation (should the number of representatives be a function of percentage of the population?), as well as the process for counting votes (by head or by group?) arose. Much debate ensued and, no matter the outcome for the Estates General meeting, a large rift had been created.
Mercier question.
ReplyDeleteMercier believed that a rebellion of sorts was out of the question because he didnt think that the people of france would have the guts to try to rebel. What i mean by this is that there are so many obstacles for a rebellion to succeed in france as stated by Mercier. The police, the regiments of gaurds, kings bodygaurds and more. There are just to many obsticles to overcome for a rebellion to occur and therefore mercier believes that the French people wouldnt bother themselves with the idea.
Daniel Gitlin