Crash Course: The French Revolution

Hi, my name is John Green. This is crash course world history. And today we're going to talk about the French Revolution admittedly, this wasn't the French flag until 1794, but we just felt like he looked good in stripes. As does this guy, huh? So while the American Revolution is considered a pretty good thing, the French Revolution is often seen as a bloody and Arctic mess. Mister Green, mister Green, I bet like always, it's way more complicated than that. I actually know it was pretty terrible. Also, like a lot of revolutions in the end, it exchanged an authoritarian regime for an authoritarian regime. But even if the revolution was a mess, its ideas changed human history far more, I will argue than the American Revolution. Right, so France in the 18th century was a rich and populous country, but it had a systemic problem collecting taxes because of the way its society was structured. They had a system with kings and nobles we now call the ancien regime. Thank you three years of high school French. And for most French people, it sucked because the people with the money, the nobles and the clergy never paid taxes. So by 1789, France was deeply in debt thanks to their funding the American Revolution. Thank you, France. We will get you back in world wars one and two. And king Louis the 16th was spending half of his national budget to service the federal debt. Louis tried to reform this system under various finance ministers even called for democracy on a local level, but all attempts to fix it failed and soon France basically declared bankruptcy. This nicely coincided with hailstorms that ruined a year's harvest thereby raising food prices and causing widespread hunger, which really made the people of France angry because they loved to eat. Meanwhile, the king certainly did not look broke as evidenced by his well fed physique and fancy footwear. He and his wife Marie Antoinette also got to live in the very nice palace at Versailles thanks to God's mandate, but enlightenment thinkers like Kant were challenging the whole idea of religion, writing things like the main point of enlightenment is of man's release from his self caused immaturity, primarily in matters of religion. So basically, the peasants were hungry, the intellectuals were beginning to wonder whether God could or should save the king and the nobility were dithering about eating foie GRAS and songbirds failing to make meaningful financial reform. In response to the crisis, Louis the 16th called a meeting of the estates general, the closest thing that France had to a national parliament, which hadn't met since 1614. The estates general was like a super parliament made up of representatives from the first estate the nobles, the second estate, the clergy, and the third estate everyone else. The third estate showed up with about 600 representatives, the first and second estates both had about 300 and after several votes, everything was deadlocked, and then the third estate was like, you know what? Forget you guys. We're going to leave and we're going to become our own National Assembly. This did not please king Louis the 16th. So when the new National Assembly left the room for a break, he locked the doors and he was like, sorry guys, you can't go in there. And if you can't assemble how you're going to be a National Assembly, shockingly, the third estate representatives were able to find a different room in France. This time an indoor tennis court where they swore the famous tennis court oath, and they agreed not to give up until a French constitution was established. So then Louis the 16th responded by sending troops to Paris primarily to quell uprisings over food shortages, but the revolutionaries saw this as a provocation. So they responded by seizing the Bastille prison on July 14th, which coincidentally is also Bastille day. The Bastille was stormed ostensibly to free prisoners, although there were only 7 in jail at the time, but mostly to get guns. But the really radical move in the National Assembly came on August 4th when they abolished most of the ancien regime, feudal rights, tithes, privileges for nobles, unequal taxation, they were all abolished in the name of writing a new constitution. And then on August 26th, the National Assembly proclaimed the declaration of rights of man and citizen, which laid out a system of rights that applied to every person and made those rights integral to the new constitution. That's quite different from the American Bill of rights, which was like begrudgingly tacked on at the end and only applied to non slaves. The doro Mack, as I called it in high school, declared that everyone had the right to liberty, property, and security writes that the French Revolution would do an exceptionally poor job of protecting. But as noted last week, the same could be argued for many other supposedly more successful revolutions. Okay, let's go to the Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, back at Versailles, Louis the 16th was still king of France, and it was looking like France might be a constitutional monarchy, which might have meant that the royal family could hang on to their awesome house, but then in October of 1789, a rumor started that Marie Antoinette was hoarding grain somewhere inside the palace, and in what became known as the women's March, a bunch of armed peasant women stormed the palace and demanded that Louis and Marie Antoinette move from Versailles to Paris, which they did because everyone is afraid of armed peasant women. And this is a nice reminder that to many people at the time, the French Revolution was not primarily about fancy enlightenment ideas. It was mostly about lack of food and a political system that made economic contractions hardest on the poor. Now, a good argument can be made that this first phase of the revolution wasn't all that revolutionary. The National Assembly wanted to create a constitutional monarchy, they believed that the king was necessary for a functioning state, and they were mainly concerned that the voters and office holders be men of property. Only the most radical wing the jacobins called for the creation of a republic. But things were about to get much more revolutionary and also worse for France. First, the jacobins had a huge petition drive that got a bit unruly, which led troops controlled not by the king, but by the National Assembly to fire on the crowd, killing 50 people, and that meant that the National Assembly, which had been the revolutionary voice of the people, had killed people in an attempt to reign in revolutionary fervor. You see this a lot throughout history during revolutions, what looked like radical hope and change suddenly becomes the man as increasingly radical ideas are embraced. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, Frances monarchical neighbors were getting a little nervous about all this republic business, especially Leopold the second, who in addition to being the not wholly not Roman and not imperial Holy Roman Emperor, was Marie Antoinette's brother. I should note, by the way, that at this point, the Holy Roman Empire was basically just Austria. Also, like a lot of monarchs, Leopold, the second liked the idea of monarchies and he wanted to keep his job as a person who gets to stand around wearing a dress pointing at nothing owning winged lion monkeys made out of gold. And who can blame him? So he and king William Frederick the second of Prussia together issued the declaration of pillnitz, which promised to restore the French monarchy. At this point, Louis in the National Assembly developed a plan. Let's invade Austria. The idea was to plunder Austria's wealth and maybe steal some Austrian grain to shore up French food supplies, and also, you know, spread revolutionary zeal. But what actually happened is that Prussia joined Austria in fighting the French. And then Louis encouraged the Prussians, which made him look like an enemy of the revolution, which of course he was, and as a result, the assembly voted to suspend the monarchy, have new elections in which everyone could vote as long as they were men, and create a new Republican constitution. Soon, this convention decided to have a trial for Louis the 16th who was found guilty, and by one vote sentenced to die via guillotine. Which made it difficult for Austria and Prussia to restore him to the throne. Oh, it's time for the open letter? An open letter to the guillotine. But first, let's see what's in the secret compartment today. Oh, there's nothing. Oh my God, damn. That's not funny. Dear guillotine, I can think of no better example of enlightenment thinking run amok. Doctor Joseph guillotin, the inventor of the guillotine, envisioned it as an egalitarian way of dying. They said the guillotine was humane, and it also made no distinction between rich or poor, noble, or peasant, it killed equally. You were also celebrated for taking the torture out of execution, but I will remind you, you did not take the dying out of execution. Unfortunately for you France has an executed anyone since 1977, but you'll be happy to know that the last legal execution in France was via guillotine. Plus you always got a future in horror movies. Best wishes, John Green. The death of Louis the 16th marks the beginning of the terror, the best known, or at least the most sensational phase of the revolution. I mean, if you can kill the king, you can kill pretty much anyone, which is what the government did under the leadership of the committee of public safety motto, we suck at protecting public safety, led by Maximilian robespierre. The terrorists are the guillotining of 16,000 enemies of the revolution, including Marie, I never actually said let them eat cake Antoinette and Maximilian robespierre himself who was guillotined in the month of thermidor in the year two. All right, so while France was broke and fighting like 9 wars, the committee of public safety changed the measurements of time because, you know, the traditional measurements are so irrational and religion. So they renamed all the months and decided that each day would have ten hours and each hour, 100 minutes. And then after the terror, the revolution pulled back a bit and another new constitution was put into place. This one giving a lot more power to wealthy people. At this point, France was still at war with Austria and Britain wars that France ended up winning largely thanks to a little Corporal named Napoleon Bonaparte. The war was backdrop to a bunch of coups and counter coups that I won't get into right now because they were very complicated, but the last coup that we'll talk about in 1799 established Napoleon Bonaparte as the first consul of France. And it granted him almost unlimited executive power under yet another constitution. And when he was declared first consul of France, Napoleon proclaimed citizens, the revolution is established on the principles with which it began. It is over. By which he presumably meant that France's government had gone all the way from here to here. To here. As with the American Revolution, it's easy to conclude that France's revolution wasn't all that revolutionary. I mean, Napoleon was basically an emperor, and in some ways he was even more of an absolute monarch than Louis the 16th had been. Gradually, the nobles came back to France, although they had mostly lost their special privileges. The Catholic Church returned to, although much weaker because it had lost land and the ability to collect tides. And when Napoleon himself fell, France restored the monarchy and except for a four year period between 1815 and 1870, France had a king who was either a bourbon or a Bonaparte. Now these were no longer absolute monarchs who claimed that their right to rule came from God. They were constitutional monarchs of the kind that the revolutionaries of 1789 had originally envisioned. But the fact remains that France had a king again and a nobility and an established religion and it was definitely not a democracy or a republic. And perhaps this is why the French Revolution is so controversial and open to interpretation. Some argue the revolution succeeded in spreading enlightenment ideals, even if it didn't bring democracy to France. Others argue that the real legacy of the revolution wasn't the enhancement of liberty, but of state power. Regardless, I'd argue that the French Revolution was ultimately far more revolutionary than its American counterpart. I mean, in some ways, America never had an aristocracy, but in other ways, it continued to have one. The French enlightenment thinker diderot felt that Americans should fear a two unequal division of wealth, resulting in a small number of opulent citizens and a multitude of citizens living in misery. And the American Revolution did nothing to change that polarization of wealth. What made the French Revolution so radical was its insistence upon the universality of its ideals. I mean, look at article 6 of the declaration of rights of man and citizen. Law is the expression of the general will every citizen has a right to participate personally or through his representative in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. Those are radical ideas that laws come from citizens, not from kings or gods, and that those laws should apply to everyone equally. That's a long way from Hamburg, and in truth it's a long way from the slaveholding Thomas Jefferson. In the 1970s, Chinese president zhao in lai was asked what he thought the effects of the French Revolution had been, and he said, it's too soon to say. And in a way, it's still is. The French Revolution asked new questions about the nature of people's rights and the derivation of those rights. And we're still answering those questions and sorting through how our answers should shape society today. Must government be of the people to be for the people? Do our rights derive from nature or from God or from neither? And what are those rights? As William Faulkner said, the past is never dead. It's not even past. Thanks for watching. I'll see you