Most people in here believe the French Revolution was just a blood bath. According to some of you, it changed France into a despotic country in which has emerged a monster named Napoleon. To summarize, 1789 is like 1933 in Germany. And Napoleon is just Hitler.

The point of this thread is only to prove that the French Revolution has been a positive step in Europe's History. And to prove it to you, I just wanted you to know where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights come from :

DECLARATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS


Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

- PREAMBLE -
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the Human Rights are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred Human Rights, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Human Rights :

Article 1 : Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Article 2 : The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible Human Rights. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

Article 3 : The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

Article 4 : Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

Article 5 : Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

Article 6 : 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. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

Article 7 : No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

Article 8 : The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

Article 9 : As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

Article 10 : No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

Article 11 : The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the Human Rights. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Article 12 : The security of the Human Rights and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

Article 13 : A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

Article 14 : All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

Article 15 : Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

Article 16 : A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

Article 17 : Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Now before you'll bash me, I just wanted to add that, of course, the Human Rights are directly inspired from the American Bill of Rights. And I also wanted to add that the first declaration of Individual Freedoms is indeed the Magna Carta.

My purpose isn't to hijack previous improvements, my purpose is simply to prove you the French Revolution isn't just a bad event and that some good things did happen during it. :)

Now go on Lions ! Bon Appétit ! ;)

Of course it does.
It's not a coincidence if the Declaration of 1948 was signed in Paris.

You could also add that the Magna Carta comes from the ideas of Ancient Greece.
And the Bill of Rights was also HEAVILY inspired by the French thinkers of the XVIIIth century.

Our modern "human rights democracy" has three main sources imho with each source contributing a roughly equal share. First there's the American colonies - they developed "self-government" and autonomy because they were so far away from Europe. The English are important in their development of the "rule of law", not men, ie the Magna Carta and the unwritten constitution, and also for the "parliamentary system" which spreads power among representatives simultaneous with a centralized state. And France had Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Montesqieu, the Revolutionaries, etc, who developed the idea of "universal rights and freedoms".

Without any of these three components, what we call "human rights democracy" today would not exist.

Good ideas came out of France at that time but the revolution was a total bloodbath. Makes it hard to think of it in good terms really.

The real Reign of Terror in France took place between 789-1789 AD.

The bloodbath was unnecessary, but the French were about as used to democracy back then as Iran is today. In any case, the Revolution overall was good.

As long as you werent one of the people being thrown into the river in a sack tied to a loved one, or simply decapitated under Madame Guillotine of course. :)

Every nation has its Cromwells ;)

Some good things happened during it, not many of those rights were in reality upheld by those that followed on from the people who drew up the document though.

Moved to History...

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The real Reign of Terror in France took place between 789-1789 AD.


Napoleon killed more civilians then the kings then did.

The French revolution spawned a lot of similar ideas and declarations, IIRC (although I could be wrong - it is a long time since I read this) Benjamin Franklin visited France before the American Declaration of Independance and much of the American constituion was based on the ideals of the French Revolution. (confirm anyone?)

The American Constition was written as the French Revolution was starting, so that would be a no.

According to some of you, it changed France into a despotic country in which has emerged a monster named Napoleon. To summarize, 1789 is like 1933 in Germany. And Napoleon is just Hitler.

Way do people always compair him to Hitler!?!?

Originally posted by Hawkster
The French revolution spawned a lot of similar ideas and declarations, IIRC (although I could be wrong - it is a long time since I read this) Benjamin Franklin visited France before the American Declaration of Independance and much of the American constituion was based on the ideals of the French Revolution. (confirm anyone?)
Both the American constitution and the French philosophers and revolutionary ideals were inspired by the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (in addition to the Magna Charta already mentioned). Benjamin Franklin spent a lot of time with them.

The Iroquois influence was low. The key parts were from Enlightment philosophy.

Originally posted by Chauliodus


Way do people always compair him to Hitler!?!?

Because he was a dictator who emphasised the personality cult and set out on a mass conquest of Europe? Oh and they both invaded Russia. :D

Originally posted by Kentonio

Because he was a dictator who emphasised the personality cult and set out on a mass conquest of Europe? Oh and they both invaded Russia. :D Yeah... and actually, both failed to invade Europe exactly because of their attempt to invade Russia ;)

I don't want to start a debate on Napoleon but he was an ambiguous leader. Actually, when I'm asking to everyone around me, their opinion on him is also ambiguous. Thanx to him, France has built solid pillars to its model of Democracy (Code Civile, etc...) ; however, Napoleon rejected some of major Revolutionary improvements (the worst coming in my mind was to come back on the abolishment of slavery from 1794). Napoleon was definitly ambiguous... but Hitler was definitly not. I must also add that I don't consider Hitler as a german monster but more as a european monster or as the result of a European perverted vision of Nationalism.

Now about the links between America and France. I'm actually truely proud of it. Of course everything started at the 17th century with John Locke and the birth of a true philosophy of the individualism in England, but still.

The thing is that French philosophers (with Kant) from the 18th century deeply inspired most of american founding fathers and especially Franklin and Jefferson. After that, France (when it was still a kingdom and for reasons that has no link with democracy) helped America to get its independance. The 1780's years were great years of political debates in America. And actually, now I think it has influenced a lot more the French Revolution than I expected it at the beginning. Thus, even if the 1789 declaration of the Human Rights is of course inspired of the French previous philosophers, it is also inspired from the American Bill of Rights. French revolutionaries wanted a text as strong as the american one and that was the spirit of them when they've written those rights. So yes, I consider there was indeed a mutual exchange between France and America in the building of modern Democracy. And of course, 17th century british thinkers were the basis of both of them. :)

I'm afraid I'm still going to take a lot of convincing before I agree that Napoleon helped found democracy in France. IMO he did as much if not more to damage the revoltionary ideals as he ever did to further or sustain them. He also was mostly responsible through his despotic and unrealistic attitude for the deaths of a fair few hundred thousand french soldiers with little cause such as in Russia and Spain, neither of which he should ever have invaded or attempted to control.

Oh and he was a hypocrite, anyone proclaiming to be the son of, and defender of the revolution should not have put his brothers on two thrones, his son on a third and his marshals on others, all as Kings. I personally find that he did some good, but at the end of the day he was a meglomaniac and a hypocrite, not a good advertisement for the revolution.

Originally posted by archer_007
The key parts were from Enlightment philosophy.
Enlightenment came forth from Humanism and Naturalism. The first was rooted in Greek philosophy, the second in Amerind philosophy.

I think I'll start by saying there really wasn't a French Revolution, but several, often simultaneous revolutions and we need to separate them.

The problem for me is I grew up in a tradition that very heavily romanticized the French Revolution, but as usual the worst aspects of it - Robespierre, Danton, etc. The real Revolution, the one that would have a lasting impact on how Europeans lived, was indeed the Declaration on the Rights of Man (http://members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/mancitizen.html). Yes, the Americans had said it first in their Declaration of Independence but theirs was a faraway country with little impact on Europe then and wasn't expected - even by some Americans - to last very long. It was seen as an interesting experiment, but not a model for governance. When a European nation however issued similar statements, declaring that humans had inherant rights and that states should be modeled around their citizenry (and not the other way around) - this was a philosophical earthquake for Europe and led to the huge groundswell of support the French armies received from civilians all over the Continent throughout the wars until 1815, and also ignited the revolutions of the 19th century in Europe. This document simply said that the way things have been organized for centuries is not a natural order, nor is it pre-ordained, and worse yet it is unjust. From a beggar-monk on the street corner such words have been bellowing for centuries and could be brushed aside as the mad ravings of a lunatic, but from an assembly representing a nation, one of Europe's foremost nations at that - the impact of these words could not be denied.

I've mentioned in other threads how the Russians in 1945 and beyond forced many Polish and Hungarian towns to remove or destroy old monuments to Napoleon. It became official policy that Napoleon was a Hitler, a mad conquerer and bloodthirsty tyrant. And to a certain extent he was these things - he unleashed terrible destruction in the Peninsular war (see Goya's Los Fusilamientos del 3 de Mayo) and in Russia during the 1812 invasion, and even in Eastern Europe his imperial bent began to sow discontent to the extent that Napoleon had to station extra troops there in the latter stages of the wars to keep the civilian populations submissive. But Napoleon's victories and conquests also brought hope to conquered peoples because it was the first ray of light, the first tangible possibility for change that these dispirited peoples saw. The old empires were vulnerable, they could be defeated. This is the lesson Napoleon taught the downtrodden peoples of Europe, even if he himself eventually came to be seen as just as bad as the emperors he replaced.

You can see how this set the stage for the 19th century's revolutions and upheavals. And that's where I become a bit wary about the romanticized version of the French Revolution. A Hungarian professor of mine once said that she viewed the French Revolution as a disaster for Eastern Europe; it romanticized the concepts of revolution and created a very exaggerated and unrealistic vision of what a revolution could achieve. Because of this, many of Eastern Europe's peoples spent the 19th century in revolutionary ferment, with extremely bloody results. And even if we are to forget the price in blood paid for these constant insurrections - and nationalists often would rather we did forget that part - we also paid through our common social and economic development. The oppressors retaliated by destroying our academic institutions, slaughtering our middle classes or driving them abroad to exile and emigration, stripping our few industrial or commercial regions bare, and carting off the remaining wealth of our former states. A cycle of violence developed in Eastern Europe that fed on this romanticization of the French Revolution that did little but push already rock-bottom living standards even lower and pushing national cultural awareness to the most base levels, which created wonderful conditions for the extremist ideologies of the 20th century. So today we have nations brimming with wonderful romantic sculptures, monuments and paintings of the desperate and repeated uprisings of the 19th century, with ceremonies in every town and village about this or that massacre or battle, but in the end only a few are willing to ask if it really achieved anything, if it was worth it at all.

So there you have it, two competing historical strands streaming out of the events of the French Revolution, one proclaiming universal human rights and the other so willing to sacrifice them in the name of higher ideals. There are others as well, but for the thread's question I think these two are the most pertinent. Most of Continental Europe had to struggle with these two contradictory sibling legacies, which is why I find the Anglo-American reactions to be the most interesting. They also found great inspiration and horror in these events but were able to psychologically distance themselves from them in a way that most Europeans could not. Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution or Jefferson's repeated defence of the French revolutionaries make for interesting reading indeed. I suppose if I have to reach a conclusion, I could only observe that over the short term the latter aspect of the Revolution - the glorified violence - seems to have been the pre-eminent influence in Europe and the West, but finally with the 1948 charter on Human Rights - and for us Eastern Europeans, the equally critical Helsinki Accords of 1975 - it seems that for the long term the philosophical revolution born of that critical document issued by the French National Assembly in August 1789 will win out.

BTW, I completely agree that the French and American Revolutions - both philosophical and material - are very intertwined, perhaps moreso than either party would like to admit nowadays. It is indeed a one-could-not-have-happened-without-the-other situation, and the combination did have a significant impact on Europe - witness the Polish Consititution of 3. May, 1791; a near verbatim copy of the American Constitution but drawn in arrangement and organization from the French model. That this document died under Russian soldiers' boots is not important; echoes of the American and French revolutions had penetrated and permeated Europe's eastern-most boundaries.

This is a very interesting analysis Vrylakas and I think very true. Thanx for that :).

Originally posted by Kentonio


Because he was a dictator who emphasised the personality cult and set out on a mass conquest of Europe? Oh and they both invaded Russia. :D

the last time i checked napoleon just conwquered, he didnt do the horrible things that hiter's reich did to europe.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Now before you'll bash me, I just wanted to add that, of course, the Human Rights are directly inspired from the American Bill of Rights. And I also wanted to add that the first declaration of Individual Freedoms is indeed the Magna Carta.

My purpose isn't to hijack previous improvements, my purpose is simply to prove you the French Revolution isn't just a bad event and that some good things did happen during it. :)

Now go on Lions ! Bon Appétit ! ;)

I am not sure where all of you are from since few people are actually filling in their location, but as a Quebecois (officially a descendant of the French) we had a lot of French history classes at school. What I remember of the French Revolution is about this (I did a quick search on Google to check for dates and verify the events, but please do further research before you use this information as is, and remember those are just key events are are not *the* revolution):

The Revolution started in 1793 when King Louis XVI and his wife Marie-Antoinette were arrested in 1792, and both killed on the guillotine the next year (not the same day thou). Than the Napoleon I, II and III stuff happenned which I do not know much. After the fail of Napoleon III the monarchy was restablished with with King Louis XVIII (Louis XVII has never been a king I think, he died before he had that 'chance') but he wasn't really strong, the monarchy started to fail and France became a Republic (probably with a 3-4-turn interval in between).

From what I know Marie-Antoinette was trying to fix the system and economy, and to this end she removed several positions which were useless and which were there only on priviledge. The nobles didn't like that, and started a kind of propaganda against her. She's been accused of a lot of stuff which she didn't actually do, and King Louis XVI been accused of some different stuff for no reason either (it was probably better to remove them both). I am not sure what were those nobles idea, they probably wanted to replace them with others but things probably did not go how they wanted.

Anyway, those events would have been the key events which lead to the French Revolution, according to what I know of the history.