Inspired by recent postings by Eve and Arnold Winkelreid, and by an interest in French culture in general, I’ve been reading up on the French revolution. I’ve never studied it before, and I’ve been clicking up text on the 'net and reading in encyclopedias. However, I always thought that when the last noble head rolled, democracy happened. What’s all this, then, with Robespierre, Napoleon, and who knows who else setting themselves up as dictators, emperors, etc., and continuing to execute any who might disagree with their ambitions? Just when did modern French democracy start?
Depending on who you talk to, they still haven’t got it right. 
In 1976, Premier Zhou En-Lai of China was asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing or a bad thing. His response? “Too early to say.”
Taking his cue, I don’t think we can answer the question in your OP.
V.
After the Bourbons, you have
- National Convention
- Directory
- Consulate (These first three are collectively the First Republic)
- First Empire
- Restoration
- Second Republic
- Second Empire
- Third Republic
- Vichy Government
- Provisional Government
- Fourth Republic
- Fifth Republic
French politics have been one huge mess since those idiots “revolted.” The 19th century was one damn overthrowing after another, and from minute to minute you didn’t know if you were living in a democracy, an empire, a republic or if Russia or Germany had just wooshed in and taken over again.
Then look at the 20th century, when much of France welcomed Hitler with open arms and set up a very friendly occupation government!
Those people were nuts to overthrow Louis and Marie; they didn’t know when they were well-off.
Pug, I implore you to read Stanley Loomis’ wonderful French Revolution trilogy. They’re nonfiction, but so well written they read like a good novel:
“Paris in the Terror” (overview of the Revolution)
“Madame DuBarry” (a bio of same)
“The Fatal Friendship” (dual bio of Marie Antoinette and Axel Ferson)
Simon Schama’s ‘Citizens’ is an excellent history of the Revolution. It’s a good read despite its length.
Andrew Warinner
National Convention – This was a revolutionary government, not unlike our Continental Congress. It’s primary goal was the management of the revolution. Lasted a few years, though the last year or so it was a government in name only, as the Committee of Public Safety (headed by Robespierre et. al.) had effective control over all of France.
Directory – France’s first attempt at a true constitutional government, and an abject failure. A true “burocracy” or government by committee, it had little if any power due to the complex organization and election criteria. The legislative was supposed to be popularly elected, but the voting process was so contrived as to defeat that purpose (imagine a multi-tiered electoral collage where each level elects the level above it for the sole purpose of electing the next level up until a few hundred people had been picked… plus to qualify for each level required higher property requirement, meaning that only a few thousand people could ever qualify for legislative office) as well as a rotating upper/lower house system that guaranteed little stability. The executive was picked by the legislative, by an equally weird process. The whole thing only lasted a few years, and so much time was spent in the elections that little else got done.
Consulate – An executive-heavy government that was essentially created as a vehicle to put Napoleon into power. Did little else but that. If I remember correctly (and its been a few years since my french history classes) during the 1790’s, France averaged a new constitution every 2 years or so. It was pretty nutty.
First Empire – Napoleon.
Restoration – Return to constitutional monarchy, when Louis XVIII is invited to be King, the ultimate end to the revolution. (Louis XVII was king in name only, having died with his family). Monarchy effectively ended with Louis-Phillipe (“The Citizen King”) and the return of republic
Second Republic – Established as a vehicle for Louis Napoleon Bonaparte to become emporer. It was around this time that the conservative revolutions of 1848 occured, firmly establishing Metternichian conservatism’s hold over Europe. This is when “Les Miserable” is set.
Second Empire – Napoleon III (Napoleon II was the son of Napoleon I, and never ruled).
Third Republic – Lasted until WWII, when France rolled over like a well tuned engine. Note sure of details here.
Vichy/provisional governments – Nazi and nationalistic governments of WWII. Former headed by Marshall Petain (hero of WWI), latter headed by General De Gaulle.
Fourth Republic – Attempt to re-establish republican government in France. Failed for some reason or another after only a few years.
Fifth Republic – Current government, though the Paris-based Marxist revolutions of the late 60’s (which made Chicago at the same time seem like Eden) almost overthrew this one after a mere decade as well. Pretty much operates on the standard European republican model, with a popularly elected President serving as head of state and a legislatively appointed Prime Minister serving as head of government.
The U.S. got off pretty cheap. We won a relatively small war, set up a democracy, gave it a shove in the right direction, and lo and behold, the new type of government worked! We mustn’t overlook the fact that minorities, women, and non-property-holders in general got the short end of the stick, but think of the bloodbath that could have happened. And we accomplished this a few years before the French Revolution really got cooking. I suppose the pro-democracy forces in France were spurred on by observing our success, but I realize that political thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic were in communication before 1776.
Well, I suppose I may offend some by saying this, and I’m the first to admit that I’m a beginning student in French history, but it seems to me that folks who pitchforked, guillotined, shot, rabble-roused, sang the Marsellaise, etc. should have kicked up more of a fuss during the occupation in World War II. Any experts know how much of a resistance the Resistance put up?
Um, it took the United States a few years to get going with its government. You are forgetting the Articles of Confederation period (1777-1787). The country was not particularly well governed then and there were problems too numerous to detail in this forum.
Nope, BobT, wasn’t forgetting a thing. I just didn’t know squat in the first place. I guess those years of revisionist American history classes had something to do with it. Still, I believe that the American revolution was way less painful than France’s, and our style of government stabilized early. Thanks for the French governments timeline.
I’m surprised M. Winkelreid hasn’t weighed in yet. Maybe his moderator duties are keeping him too busy.
Hardly a French specialist but I did have some thoughts:
Context Context Context
(1) Recall that with the French revolution there were entrenched conservative interests with no interest at all in constitutional government. American elites had a habit of something like a democratic exercise of power, and in any case, American society was ‘young’ and fluid. In Europe, for the most part, absolutist monarchy and autocracy was the name of the game. America had the luxury of being insulated by Britain from European power politics whereas the French were in the midst of it. And virtually every conservative government (read every other government in Europe for practical purposes) saw the Revolution as a threat. And intervened, much as the US did in Latin American revolutions. Its not easy to set up stable government when serious armies are knocking at your door calling for your blood, the overthrow of your government and much of your elite is engaged in ‘treason’ (from the Republican POV. The extremism of the later stages of the Revolution did not happen in a vacuum. (Although I’d guess there were other choices, but what happened is understandable). Also let’s all recall our own gov had non-democratic aspects. Senate, not directly elected at all? Upper houses of many state legislatures?
(2) Eve, you’re tripping if you think the Monarchy was a good deal. So a little 19th century turbulence. Only American parochialism thinks that’s unusual. The monarchy was making an utter mess of things. Louis and the cake eating cow deserved to have their heads roll. Lack of reforms, deafness to popular discontent and endemic corruption set off the explosion of the Revolution.
(3) Fourth Republic failure: as I recall this is usually atrributed to a consitutional structure which tended to create unstable coalitions, a la Italy. Algerian crises didn’t help.
(4) French Resistance. Well let’s have some context again. The French were bled dry by WWI. It was their territory after all that saw much of the fighting. Collapse in 1940 was a big shock. Put yourself in the feet of a Frenchman in 1940. Your prior generation spent its blood, and you get Hitler. Your army came apart. Natural reaction might very well be to stay, screw it, let’s see what the Germans have… As for the Resistance, not much of it until the 1944 Allied landings in North Africa. Awoke hope. Still, most Gaullist troops were… Africans right up to 1945. Black and Brown guys conscripted to fight for liberty. Quite ironic. Escaped De Gaulle at the time, the irony.
All in all, I don’t think us Norte Americanos should be so smug. We had it lucky, and we tend to forget the inconvenient wrinkles in our own ‘democratic’ past.
One history book of mine equated the U.S. Adoption of the Constitution to be the equivalent of the French Thermidorian Reaction. After a leftward turn in a society, there is usually a corresponding rightward turn a few years later.
A highly condensed history of France:
Back in the good old day, France, like most European countries, was fuedal. All government was effectively run at the local level by the neighborhood noble. But in the first part of the 18th century, under King Louis XIV (The Sun King) France became the first monarchist state; assisted by his principal advisor, Cardinal Richelieu, Louis took power away from the nobility and kept it for himself. The nobility, however, was still around now essentially having kept most of their privileges while losing their duties and responsibilities. So by the last half of the 18th century, the First and Second Estates (the clergy and nobility) were essentially living off the work of the Third Estate (the peasants and businessmen).
In 1789 this fell apart. At first moderates attempted to fix the system but the size of the problems and the actions of extremists kept France in confusion. Eventually the extreme factions came to power because of their ability to rouse the mobs. King Louis XVI and Quenn Marie Antionette were among the thousands killed during this period. But executions didn’t lead to effective government and many extremist leaders (such as Robespierre and Marat) ended up becoming the victims of the violence themselves.
Meanwhile other European countries (whose kings were still ruling) were upset by the whole thing. These countries decided to restore order, suppress the revolutionary powers, and grab some French territory. The French people generally rallied together against the invaders and fought so well they were able to launch counter invasions into other countries. As a result of this combat, a young and sucessful officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, became famous. He established a military dictatorship in 1799 which finally restored effective government in France. He then went on to conquer most of Europe and named himself Emperor in 1804. He overreached himself and was defeated and forced from his throne. He made a brief comeback and was defeated again at Waterloo in 1815.
After Napoleon’s defeat, the monarchy was restored. King Charles X attempted to reassert all of the old monarchal powers as well but was unsuccessful and forced to abdicate in 1830. His cousin, Louis Phillippe, became King but he was also forced to abdicate in 1848. France was once again a Republic. The man who was elected president was Napoleon’s nephew Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who took over the government in 1851 and made himself Emperor Napoleon III the following year. In 1871, following a complete military defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleon III was forced to abdicate as well and the Third Republic was established.
This one actually lasted awhile. It survived Marxism, the Boulanger movement, the Dreyfuss affair, World War One, and the Great Depression, and Igor Stravinsky. But in 1939, Germany invaded Poland and France, along with England, reponded by declaring war. For several months it appeared this didn’t really mean much but in May of 1940 Germany attacked France and defeated it within a matter of weeks. Many conservatives and military men blamed this collapse on France’s liberal government. They formed a new government which signed a surrender treaty with Germany and relocated the capital to the city of Vichy (Paris and half of France was occupied by Germany under the terms of the treaty). Another government, Free France, was formed by those who, under the leadership of Charles de Gaulle, refused to accept the treaty and went overseas to continue fighting.
Germany, of course, lost World War Two and de Gaulle’s Free French government was restored to power in France as the Fourth Republic. In 1958, when the French government was again on the verge of collapse because of the aftermath of its defeats in Algeria and Vietnam, a new constitution was written which strengthened the power of the Presidency (to which de Gaulle was then elected) and this became the Fifth Republic.
“Louis and the cake eating cow deserved to have their heads roll.”
–As a member of the SDMB, I assume you KNOW the “let them eat cake” nonsense is an Urban Legend? One of the reasons that the Revolution succeeded was that the reign of Louis XVI was one of the more liberal, including freedom of the press and obviously giving MUCH too much freedom to his political enemies.
Like the Russian Revolution, this one went bottoms-up when a figurehead monarchy wasn’t good enough for the “masses” (by masses, I mean people who simply wanted to be dictators themselves). France and Russia might have enjoyed the relative calm of England had they known when to say “when.”
Eve: yes, the cake eating is empty abuse, but not the cow part. Besides, what better phrase. As far as liberalism of Louis… Well, genuine liberalism rather than a degree of liberalism undertaken in desperation as his regime looked more and more fragile might have saved the day. No, the absolutists signed their own death warrants, and bloody deserved it. Opening up only as a last resort was an act of desperation.
Now as to “knowing when to stop” re either Revolution: see my comments on American smugness and the differences between either English (fairly protected themselves) and American situations (sheltered) and continental. Analyzed in a larger context, “knowing when to stop” is not simple at all. All well and good to say in comfortable retrospect, without the bayonets around, to say: oh if only they had been more reasonable. The ‘counter-revolutionaries’ weren’t laying down, no compromises a la English tradition were open between the parties. All in all, when one lets a situation fester until regime rot sets in, bad things have to come. The intransigeant signed their own death warrants. Cleverer, more flexible regimes did a better job (e.g. Germany).
Well, that’s all I have to say about monarchist nostalgia.
Little Nemo: Not bad summary but give the Revolution a little credit, revolutionary extremism was fed by the extremist conservative opposition both at home and among the neighboring states. I’d call it a psychology of desperation. Not to excuse it, but to understand the larger context. Say the same thing in many respects about Russia in '17.
All this French political history and no one’s mentioned the Paris Commune? (There, I just did.) Are there no other good Anarchists here?
Well, Collouns, if what you’re saying is the French and Russians were a bunch of hysterical, power- and blood-thirsty maniacs, I can’t say as I disagree. They certainly pissed away good chances for constitutional governments, and suffered royally (ha!) for it for the next 100 years.
By the way, Marie Antoinette has been very unfairly abused by history. When you read biographies of her, she really was a rather sweet and harmless sort, if not exactly a political genuis.
Ike, I might have known you were one of those beret-wearing, goatee’d anarchists! Why aren’t you in a coffee house drinking absinthe, snapping your fingers and listening to fusion?
Just as a note, Richelieu was an advisor (actually more like a puppet master) to Louis XIII, the father of Louis XIV, and the Cardinal-Duke was dead before le Roi Soleil’s still-infantile tush landed on the throne of France. The boss during XIV’s minority (and for several years thereafter) was Cardinal Mazarin, Richelieu’s understudy (although XIII’s relict, Anna of Austria, was nominally guardian, she and Mazarin were close, as she had not been with Richelieu, and it rumored that she and Mazarin were secretly married, although there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of this).
My two yen on the dispute between Eve and Collounsbury: the Revolution was never led by peasants baying, “A la lanterne!” It was led, rather, by the minor nobility and the bourgeousie, the latter in particular barred from politics by the peculiar French laws on the bureaucracy and judiciary. As with essentially all revolutions, it was led, not by those with nothing, but by those with something who were seeking more.
Americans and American experience with self-government, it should be remembered, descended from the English parliamentary and legal tradition…a tradition that did not prevent the English Civil War, the execution of “that man of blood”, Charles I (brother-in-law of Louis XIII, FTR), and the dictatorship of Cromwell, arguably more bloody and certainly longer-lasting than that of Robespierre (although the little Corsican had a better run than either of them). Unfortunately, academics and thugs, both home-grown and imported, have not yet acknowledged, more than two centuries, that democracy cannot emerged full-grown from atucracy, as did Athene from the forehead of Zeus.
Lol…they were busy getting their asses kicked by the Prussians.
Seriously the French had a tough time with government until the last 20 years or so.
As to the French in WWII, the didn’t welcome the Germans by any means, they just got their asses kicked. True some formed the Vichy government (if you can’t beat them join them) but must French were not happy with occupation.
A quick check confirms that I may have overemphasized Cardinal Richelieu’s role in the administration of King Louis XIV in light of the fact that he died a year before it began. As we French history scholars often say in these situations: “Merde”.
In my defense, I’d like to add the following:
- France had eighteen frickin’ Kings named Louis. Couldn’t someone have given them a book of baby names?
- You try summarizing three hundred years of history at 1:30 AM. I’m amazed I didn’t make more mistakes than I did. (What the hell’s a “Quenn”?)
- And, in the finest tradition of The Straight Dope, I’m going to claim that any mistakes I apparently made were all Ed Zotti’s fault.