What Is Edmund Burke's View Of The French Revolution

The identity of a society is verified through the rights which are given to the citizens. The rights of man have been at many different standards throughout time. Often being very one sided, and at times striving for a median between the two sides. In Edmund Burke's essay Reflections on the Revolution in France Burke states that a king is in one sense a servant but in everyday situations they are above every individual. All persons under him owe him a legal agreement to serve his hopes. This essay will demonstrate why Thomas Paine's essay The Rights of Man is more convincing than Edmund Burke's through examination of a heredity government, the nature of rights and the uselessness of the monarchy.

← Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2001

Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine were two of the several strongly-opinionated individuals writing back-and-forth in response to what the others were saying about the French Revolution. Burke, a critic, writes first. Paine, a supporter, responds.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

The French Revolution was a period of social and political turmoil in France from 1789 to 1799 that greatly affected modern and French history. It marked the decline of powerful monarchies and the rise of democracy, individual rights and nationalism. This revolution came with many consequences because of the strive for power and wealth, but also had many influential leaders attempting to initiate change in the French government and the economy. In 1789 the people of France dismissed King Louis XVI of his title, took apart his monarchy and executed him, his wife Marie Antoinette and thousands of nobles. The French set up a new system of government with specific revolutionary ideals, including liberty, equality and fraternity. This was a

The history of mankind reflects that without the clear rights of people being written down to reference back to, destruction would incur (An Old Whig V, 1787). An Old Whig V additionally added, for example, if the nation were to come across future leaders who allow the replacement of officers just so they could side with them there is not a statement refusing the government otherwise (An Old Whig V, 1787). Without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to clarify the boundaries of which government must not cross then oppression would be the road we are calling unto our future (An Old Whig, 1787).It is essential for future generations to express their “liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and writing and publishing their thoughts on public matters, a trial by jury, holding themselves, their houses and papers free from seizures and search upon general suspicion or general warrants” through the security of ratifying the Bill of Rights (An Old Whig V,

In the quest to live in America, many Englishmen risked their lives to make the journey, which proved their desire to live a life of comfort and assurance of posterity for their future generations. In the book, The Birth of the Republic, the fears of the colonist’s property and livelihood being threatened is brought to life by Edmund Burke’s comment on British tax laws as “a sure symptom of an ill conducted state;" which signifies the idea that “liberty rested on property, and when Great Britain threatened the security of property, it threatened their liberty.” As a result, large groups of men “In towns and villages everywhere formed themselves into associations which they called “Sons of Liberty” and declared their intention to resist the Stamp Act, as they usually put it,” “to the last extremity.” Like many people in Colonial America, the Sons of Liberty were colonists who believed strongly in the extermination of all British taxes including the Stamp Act, which made “almost anything formally written or printed would have to be on special stamped paper (for it to be taxed).” People feared an overpowering rule from King George iii would soon come if they let the Stamp Act remain active. If the colonists failed to protest the acts, the belief of the Republican Ideology that

In his piece, “Ideologies and Social Revolutions”, William Sewell Jr. makes an argument that the 1789 revolution in France has as much to do about ideology than anything. Sewell makes his argument by looking at two central ideologies, the corporate monarchial and the Enlightenment ideologies. These two competing ideologies were key to the reasons behind the French Revolution.

Many philosophers and theorists have spoken on the value, or lack thereof, of revolution. In Second Treatise of Government, John Locke builds the concept of a “social contract,” which outlines responsibilities of the government and what can be done if the state fails to uphold its duties.  Edmund Burke views political rebellion in a different light. He writes in Reflections on the Revolution in France that upheaval does excessive harm to the state, and, by extension, the people. While both Locke and Burke agree that rebellion is useful to the growth of a state, they differ on a few main points. First, they disagree in terms of what circumstances warrant revolution. Second, they each believe it should take different forms and work to different extents. Finally, Locke and Burke believe revolution tends to have positive or negative effects, respectively. Their views on each of these points will be discussed in turn.

For my book review, I have read and evaluated Sylvia Neely’s history book entitled A Concise History of the French Revolution published in 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Neely’s purpose is to gives an overview of the French revolution with the most important events, the most prominent people and the essential terms. We can see that the author proved her thesis by explaining the background causes of the revolution such as the ancient regime with Louis XVI. Also she described all important events in chronological orders which made it easier for the reader to understand. Neely’s book is at the same time an history book, but also an kind of encyclopedia because she included all essentials terms which were use during that time period, such as “dérogeance”, which means the loss of nobility.

During the Enlightenment, many western political and economic philosophers attempted to describe the transition of mankind towards modernity. Specifically, Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were both heavily influenced by the American Revolution (1775-1783) and French Revolution (1789-1799), which compelled each to write about the existence of inequalities in society and transformations that aim to address these inequalities. Burke and Rousseau differed in their interpretations of why inequalities exist within society and had diverging views on radical transformation within society. These differences stem from their conflicting ideology pertaining to the role

to get all the power of France. It should also be said that not all the nobles

Burke also argued against natural rights and explained a custom and practice that develops relation between the government and people. Paine believed in equality and criticised the monarch being chosen by the hereditary succession and by the choice of the people. He wanted the British Constitution to be written because he saw it as not right, and it was brought in during the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

The French Revolution (1789-1814) was a period that affected the outcome of world history tremendously. This is considered a major turning point in European history which has led to dramatic changes in France and other regions of the world. Various social and political issues led to the start of the revolution. Politically, France suffered under the rule of Louis XVI, who ruled by absolute monarchy. Many people had their natural rights renounced and weren’t able to have a political voice. Socially, France had divided its population within 3 estates (classes). French citizens took it upon themselves to remodel their country 's’ political structure. The French Revolution had encountered both positive and negative effects. However, many Europeans viewed the Revolution as much more than just a bloody massacre. The French Revolution was used to demonstrate new ideology that would emphasize the principles of liberty and equality throughout Europe.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité was the cry of freedom that countless people used to propel them through, and to the end of the French Revolution. This long period of social, political and economic change in France lasted 10 years, starting in 1798 and ended with Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Revolution greatly affected all of Europe at the time and continues to represent the embodiment of revolution to this day. This constant struggle between the heavily taxed, burdened, and unrepresented third estate and those higher created an environment of monumental change for everyone. In the years leading up to the French Revolution, new beliefs and ideas were reaching every corner of Europe creating the thought that men should live free of oppression. However, in France the leader Louis XVI lead like a tyrant leaving the people impoverish and angry. Through the analysation of numerous circumstance present during the Ancien Régime, such as an inferior fiscal leadership, massive debt, and the forthcoming of new ideas during the Enlightened period, it can be concluded that the means for this revolution were justified as it is in our essence to revolt for a change.