The French Revolution: Causes, Effects, and Legacy

Introduction

No moment in history stands alone; each builds surely from the moments before it. The French Revolution and its aftermath were no exception. In many ways, the Revolution sprang from the undeniable and unstoppable forces of modernization, toppling a system that was dying under its own weight and was intrinsically unable to adapt and survive in the new economic and philosophical reality. One could argue that this violent overthrow of the old aristocracy was the inevitable outcome of modernization and the rise of the bourgeoisie. The Revolution was caused by the financial and social collapse of the old regime and the disappointed hopes of a people who had been inspired by the Enlightenment; its effects were far-reaching and terrible in their bloody implications, and its overall impact on the world remains difficult to judge, suspended between good and ill.

Three main issues may be identified as causing the Revolution—or, more precisely, as having created the conditions for it to take place. The first was the financial collapse of the monarchy and the degree to which feudalism had become economically untenable. The second was the widespread starvation among the poor and the oppression of the middle class, which arose from the extent to which the aristocracy pressed its aging weight downward upon the people. The final cause may seem slightly more unusual: the Revolution could be argued to have occurred because the people had been given reason to hope for change, and when that hope was disappointed they were far more enraged and embittered than they would have been had such change never been imagined.

At the risk of being simplistic, one might also identify three main results of the French Revolution. The first is the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon. The second is the restructuring of the world in the wake of the Napoleonic wars and the economic, legal, and social changes that endured after a return to normalcy. The final result was the turbulent birth of a revolutionary spirit that would afterwards wander restlessly across Europe, revisiting France on many more occasions and likewise spreading to her fellow European nations from time to time.

Whether the Revolution can ultimately be considered a success depends on one's understanding of the greater good. On the one hand, the struggling nation did not achieve all the freedoms it had fought for; yet on the other, it did create a lasting legacy of freedom for future generations. On the one hand, the Napoleonic wars shed more blood than many conflicts before or since, and left much of Europe in ruins—on the other, they produced things we now value, such as a common system of measurement and the Louisiana Purchase. On the one hand, the revolutions inspired by this one have consistently resulted in great bloodshed and disorder, and in some cases in worldwide conflict—on the other, revolution may be necessary to the evolution of human society, and in the long run this may constitute a profound benefit.

The Causes of the Revolution

The financial crisis that truly precipitated the Revolution began at the level of the monarchy. The French crown, and subsequently the French state, had accumulated an enormous amount of debt. The rising capitalist and banker class was loaning large sums to the crown, which consistently failed to repay them. Loans totaled approximately "one thousand six hundred and forty-six millions... and... there was an annual deficit... of a hundred and forty millions" (Mignet). Despite the king's effective bankruptcy, the court continued its lavish spending. Rather than cut expenditures, the king attempted to raise taxes—a move generally opposed by the nobility. The limits of his "absolute power" were quickly becoming apparent.

The king therefore convened the Estates—a body composed of three equal forces: the aristocracy, the clergy, and the common people, who included his principal creditors, the capitalists. His plan was to present a proposal for taxing the nobility in the hope of raising funds. The Third Estate of commoners, however, had other plans, and it was in this assembly that, in many ways, the Revolution began. Had the king been able to balance his budget or find ways of raising money without pressing down upon the aristocracy—and in turn causing them to increase pressure on serfs and commoners—the Revolution would no doubt have been postponed, if not prevented altogether. His policy of extracting as much as possible from the nation's finances to support his excessive lifestyle enraged the capitalists from whom he borrowed without repaying, the serfs and laborers whose noble landlords demanded ever-greater rents, and even the nobility itself. His subsequent refusal to compromise on financial matters only worsened the situation.

The economic pressure placed on the nobility led, in turn, to pressure on common workers. "Taxes were paid entirely by the agricultural population. But the peasants living in dreary hovels, no longer in intimate contact with their former landlords, but victims of cruel and incompetent land agents, were going from bad to worse.... Increased returns upon their land merely meant more taxes and nothing for themselves and therefore they neglected their fields as much as they dared" (Loon). Grain production was, during this period, stagnant. What was increasing was the population of the cities, where escaped serfs and capitalists mingled in a pre-industrial environment. Paris was becoming difficult to feed: "a disaster situation... In the 1780s a series of poor harvests in the area led to soaring bread prices, provoking food riots. Coastal cities could import supplies, but in Paris, a worker's daily bread took 97% of his income... In July 1789, with bread prices at record levels, hungry mobs attacked the gates of Paris where customs officials collected taxes on incoming grain convoys" (Invicta).

This was the same unrest that began the Revolution and led to the storming of the Bastille—so the link between hunger and rebellion is unmistakable. The oppression of starving workers was not the only force driving the Revolution. In many ways these mobs, though fighting for their own immediate needs, were "at the instigation and under the leadership of those middle-class professional men who used the hungry multitude as an efficient ally in their warfare upon the king and his court" (Loon). These bourgeois professionals were fighting not only against economic oppression but also against philosophical and political oppression. The ideals of the Enlightenment and the example of the American Revolution had persuaded the intellectuals of the era that absolute monarchy was a form of tyranny, and this philosophy was part of what propelled the conflict.

The final contributing issue was the raising and then dashing of popular hopes. As noted above, the king called the Estates together to decide on taxation. Traditionally, commoners were outvoted by the clergy and the aristocracy, being only one estate out of three. This time, however, the king had granted the Third Estate double representation, and it was widely believed this would allow commoners to guide debate in a way that might resolve some of their grievances with the governance of the country. It turned out, however, that this was a polite fiction: though the estate was larger, it would still receive only one vote. This infuriated the representatives, who called their own assembly and voted to grant themselves equal votes. Through a series of meetings, the Third Estate essentially paved the way for the revolution that continued in the streets every time the king and nobles attempted to suppress this elected body. Had the Third Estate never been granted double representation, or been allowed to vote by individual poll rather than by order from the outset, this sense of betrayal might never have arisen, and the Revolution might once again have been averted.

Conclusion

It is impossible to fully summarize all the motivations behind a revolution in a few paragraphs, let alone to assess quickly the full scope of its effect on history. As much as such a thing is possible, however, a brief account has been presented here. The Revolution was, in short, justified—a necessary response to the greed and dysfunction of a top-heavy and unsustainable system. The oppression of the common people demanded a response. The effects—both short-term and long-term—of the Revolution were so mixed primarily because its course was disrupted by hostile outside forces. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, it appears to have affected the world positively enough that its benefits weigh at least equally against the negative backlash it suffered.