The Efficacy and Justification of the Committee of Public Safety

During the course of the French Revolution, there were many distinct phases that changed both the political and economic direction of the country. First, there was the political change of 1789, which included the desacralization of the monarchy and the creation of a constitutional monarchy, including elections to a newly formed National Assembly. However, as the Revolution progressed, radicalism became every more entrenched in French politics. This caused the National Assembly to disband, and a new Legislative Assembly formed, containing members of the Parisian Jacobin club, a younger and more radical group of politicians. Even later, however, an even more radical group of politicians, known as the Mountain, led by Maximilien Robespierre, controlled the newly formed National Convention, and employed dictatorial tactics to maintain control over the people. The Committee of Public Safety, set up by the National Convention and maintained by Robespierre and his compatriots, utilized effectively brutal techniques during a period known as the Reign of Terror, which eventually contradicted the fundamental principles on which the French Revolution began.

Robespierre's infamous Committee of Public Safety was a crude but impeccably effective political weapon that forever changed the course of the Revolution by instilling fear in the people and by dictatorially controlling them. Robespierre's Reign of Terror seemed to be blind to any class or political distinction. It broadly combatted any enemy of the state,

and was unhesitant in its arrest of hundreds of thousands of people during the radical phase of the Revolution (McKay, 698). It not only destroyed the political enemies to the new power structure, but also placed fear in the people. Such widespread terror worked "to solidify the home front" (McKay, 698). In essence, the Committee of Public Safety acted to control the people and place their focuses on the Revolution that Robespierre and his allies envisioned. Without such terror, negative sentiment which rose during this time period against war and tyranny might have formally arisen to oppose those in power; however, the implication of dictatorial tactics enabled the country to move forward in its war against Europe, without the worry of such an uprising. In your opinion, did Robespierre and his allies effectively control the populace during the Reign of Terror? Also, do you think that the Committee benefited France, or was it a bad influence to the French?

Even though Robespierre's famous Committee of Public Safety was effective in controlling the French populace, its extermination of thousands of men and women during the course of the Revolution severely repudiated the basic ideals of the Revolution on which Robespierre and other radicals like himself started the Revolution only four years prior. The original French Revolution of 1789, a time when moderate middle class businessmen rallied for individual liberties and republican government, embodied the heart and soul of the Revolution. They overthrew the tyrannical monarchy, established an elected legislative body that represented the people, and confirmed the individual liberties of the people with passage of such documents as the "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" (Sherman, 57-58). Contradictory to this was Robespierre's epic Reign of Terror over the people. Courts set up by the National Convention ignored legal procedure and swiftly executed thousands of people at the whims of a few dictatorial leaders (McKay, 698). Robespierre attempted to justify his terror in the "Speech to the National Convention" (Sherman, 60-61); however, he merely stated that terror was necessary for control, not for liberty. Not once did he maintain the core principles of the French Revolution through the employment of the Committee of Public Safety. Moreover, he stated the ideals of the Revolution, but only justified the terror only as necessity for Revolution, never justifying it as compliant with the ideals of the Revolution. He supported Revolution when it suited his ascendancy to power, yet fervently quelled it whenever it threatened his power. The Reign of Terror was a period of time when the original ideals of the Revolution were forgotten, and a new era of bloody dictatorial rule was employed, continuing from then through the fall of Napoleon. Do you think that the actions of the Committee of Public Safety were justified? Did they or did they not embody the ideals of the original French Revolution of 1789?

France's Crusade Against Tyranny

When the french National Assembly disbanded, a new representative body convened in October 1791. However, the members of the former National Assembly were not eligible for election to the new Legislative Assembly. Therefore the Legislative Assembly had different members and a distinctly "different character," (McKay, 695). Specifically, the individual members were younger and more radical than the members of the National Assembly. Subsequently, the new Legislative Assembly was extremely distrustful of monarchy, and thus became increasingly committed to eradicating tyranny from France. In fact, the Legislative Assembly spurred France to become passionately involved in a "war of people against kings," (Mckay, 696). In other words, France was encouraging its people to support a crusade against all European tyranny, and simultaneously declare war on almost all of Europe. In April 1792, France declared war on Francis II, the monarch of Habsburg.

Initially, consequences of such a war were apparent when French forces fled at their first encounter with the armies of the First Coalition. Luckily, the First Coalition did not counterattack France because of their internal conflict about the division of Poland, but if the First Coalition had immediately attacked France, they would have marched harmlessly into Paris. However, some good did come out of this "crusade", because by November 1792, French forces were occupying the entire Austrian Netherlands. Along the way, French forces "abolished feudalism" and attempted to establish republican governments. In a certain respect, France did achieve its goal of exterminating tyranny, although in the end, I believe that France hindered itself much more than aid its cause.

First of all, France was not strategic enough in its international affairs; French armies lived off of the very land that they were "liberating" (by demanding food and supplies from foreigners, and even plundering local treasures). This ultimately caused the French to appear as 'foreign invaders', instead of Liberators. Furthermore, by February 1793, Republican France was at war with Britain, Holland, Spain, Austria and Prussia. This war did not resolve itself until 1815. Secondly, France faced internal protest from peasants who revolted against being drafted into the national army. These peasants clearly wanted to maintain their freedom to choose whether or not to enlist in the army, instead France compromised its own ideals of freedom by creating a military draft. These peasants gained the support of devout Catholics, royalists and foreign agents. Over time, France was gaining more and more opposition. Lastly, the final way in that France hindered itself, was that it was facing an internal revolution at the time of this war against tyranny. Instead of devoting all of its attention towards resolving the internal issues, France engaged itself in a conflict that would not be resolved until 1815. Personally, France could have saved funds, manpower, and energy by not engaging itself in a continental war.

This is my opinion on France's war against tyranny, here are some questions to consider:
What was the purpose of attempting to eradicate all European monarchies? Is there any rational justification of this?
Do you think that this war resulted in success, or was it pointless?

A Speedy Revolution

After Louis XVI agreed to hold the Estates General for the first time since 1614, he established elections for delegates from each Estate. Within each state, members came together to discuss possible delegates and draft petition for change. Although they did not meet together, the three estates did reach a general consensus: the abolitionist government needed to become a constitutional monarchy where laws and taxes required the consent of Estate Generals. Even though the estates had agreed, the Parliament of Paris announced that the delegates of each estate would sit separately, thus leading to the alliance of the nobles and clergy, and excluding and demeaning the commoners. When the coalition of delegates gathered in May 1789, they met immediate opposition. The third estate refused to work with the clergy and the nobles, until the estates could sit together as a whole. After six weeks a few parish priests relented and joined the third estate. On June 17, the third estate voted to call itself the National Assembly. On June 20, the third estate moved from their hall because of repairs to a large indoor tennis court, where they swore the Oath of the Tennis Court, pledging not to disperse until they had written a new constitution. In the earlier part of Louis XVI reign he was very subdued, but in reaction to the tennis court situation, he ordered the three estates to move together, and resolved the Estates Generals all together.

In 1788, the state of the third estate worsened as a result of an inferior grain crop. The price of bread skyrocketed, thus causing many peasants to spend as much as half of their pay checks on bread. The crisis then lead to the collapse of the need for manufactured goods, which left thousands of people out of work. Further, it was rumored that the king’s troops were prepared to “sac” the city. On July 13, people seized weapons and gunpowder, and on July 14 they stormed to the Bastille tower in order to gather more supplies for the coming of the king’s army. The Bastille tower was a retired medieval fortress that had eighty-eight former retired soldiers and thirty Swiss mercenaries guarding it. When the governor saw the people approaching the tower, he ordered the guards to open fire; ninety eighty people were killed. Finally the governor surrendered (he was later hacked to death and his head was stuck on a pike and paraded through the city), thus causing the king to refute his previous order to the finance minister to disperse his troops. Still, the peasants continued to rebel against society. In the countryside, angry peasants plagued their lords with violence and refused to pay their taxes. The peasants’ uprising caused what is now known as the Great Fear. On August 4^th, 1787, a coalition of some liberal nobles and middle-class delegates at Versailles, rebuked all of the nobles’ privilege. The result was an astounding victory for peasants. Moreover, on August 27 1789, the National Assembly issued the Declaration of Rights. Like the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, the Declaration of Rights guaranteed equality before the law, among many other basic rights. Why did the National assembly relent to third estate aggression so easily? Why was this rebellion so much more successful than Shay’s rebellion of the American Revolution?

While the Declaration of Rights was very progressive and beneficial, the wrath of the peasants continued. On October 5^th, some 7,000 women marched from Paris to Versailles demanding action. The women were armed with scythes, sticks, and pikes, and murdered many royal body guards. The women also desperately looked to kill the royal family (especially Marie Antoinette), but the family was saved. The nest day the royal family headed to Paris and for the next two years the National Assembly saw the consolidation of the liberal revolution. In July 1790, Louis XVI reluctantly agreed to a constitutional monarchy. Also, new laws broadened women’s rights to seek divorce, to inherit property, and to obtain financial support for illegitimate children from fathers. Why do you think the women of the French Revolution received rights following the revolution, but the women of the American Revolution did not? Was it because the women of France used violence, or did their violence limit their rights?

Although the National Assembly gave out many rights, they also made one grave mistake. They abolished all monasteries, and made all of Catholic Church’s property public. While doing this they also gave religious freedom to Jews and Protestants, thus bringing them into conflict with the Catholic Church. Then, they made all Catholic priests swear an oath to the new established national church, yet only half of the Catholic priests agreed to this. Why was establishing a national church, and abolishing past religious affiliations detrimental to France’s future?

The New Nation is Tested

After the ratification of the Constitution, the work of the government was not done. The French Revolution and polarization of the political parties brought about severe tests for the new government. The French Revolution and the Quasi- War that ensued, questioned whether the ideals of the American Revolution were at the heart of the new government. The French revolted with the same ideology as the Americans, although under much more oppressive conditions. The United States government owed an allegiance to France, yet broke their treaty. Did the United States make the right decision in declaring neutrality? Did the Americans not deserve the disdain of the French government after they betrayed them? It seems to the Federalists revolution was only alright when they were leading it, and all others were grotesque displays of violence. The dispute over who to give allegiance to only strengthened the divide between the parties. However, Federalist response to the Quasi-War was fairly popular, and they gained greater power in Congress. Their next step was to silence the Republicans. The two parties seemed to believe that one could not exist while the other did, which is partly why the conflict between them was so great. They didn't see that having the differing parties was a good thing for the nation, and instead tried to destroy one another.

The only sure way to retain a one party system, is to oppress or outlaw any opposition. Because of the First Amendment, the government of the United States has no right to discourage criticism or opinions differing from its own. The First Amendment made the existence of the two-party system possible and allowed it to thrive. The entire nation will never agree completely on any issue, and thus different parties are natural. Violence and punishment for opposing opinions are what normally keep alternate parties from forming, but the right to free speech makes this impossible in the United States. The closest the two-party system came to collapsing was with the Sedition Act. This Federalist bill was almost tyrannical in nature, and the conviction of 10 men, who were mostly Republican newspaper editors, could have brought an end to the free speech of the Republican party. The bill itself was entirely unconstitutional. However, the new government created by the constitution was an effective one, and it did it's job. Although there was a Federalist majority in Congress, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson managed to offer resistance to the new bills with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The resolutions had the ability to tear the Union apart, but at the same time they were the epitome of "checks and balances".

The power changed from the hands of the Federalists to the Republicans in the election of 1800. Although structure of checks and balances seems not to have worked during the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, changing the concentration of power served to ameliorate the turmoil. Because the government switches back and forth between parties, it is a further defense against the development of tyranny. However, it can also be argued that having a two-party system causes nothing to get done. In the case of the early Republicans and Federalists, this is exactly what happened. The two parties were so concerned with proving each other wrong, that the fighting ceased to be for the good of the nation and was simply a matter of self-interest. The Alien and Sedition acts were interpreted by the Republicans as an attack against them. They came about because there were two parties, but were also destroyed by the same fact. If the United States had a one party system, would the bills still have been repealed? Would they have come about in the first place?

Emergence of Political Parties in Early America

http://www.ts4.com/Quotes/AllQuotes.html http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/federal/pardon.html

In America after the American Revolution and after the ratifying of the first Constitution two political parties emerged. These parties emerged because of conflicting philosophical ideals amongst people of the nation. The two parties were the Federalists and the Republicans.

The Federalists were those who had the general belief in a strong central government and believed in a nation centered around trade and industry. The Republicans believed that the central government should be a not as predominant and America should be a country centered around agriculture and farming.

For a long time the Federalists, with their main leader Alexander Hamilton, dominated government because of the strong influence men of this party had there. Also given the fact that George Washington was president and tended to be more of a Federalist, this gave the Federalist party more influence in the government. Under the Federalist reign the national debt and the national bank were created as a part of Hamilton's plan. The Federalists truly created a nation in which the government is a part of both the political and financial aspects of life.

Naturally there was opposition to this way of running the country and Hamilton's plan. This is how the Republican party emerged and became stronger. Men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that the government was becoming too involved and was creating a dangerous governmental system.

This conflict then produced the two party system with the Republicans on one side and the Federalists on the other. In the end the Federalists had the hold on government for the early parts of America's history.

Which set of ideals is more correct the Federalists or the Republicans?

Although the Federalists made mistakes in how they handled issues of disagreements, the Federalists did what they needed to to get the country standing strong. The Federalists developed on the government outlined by the Constitution and aspects of this government withstood the the test of time.

With this being true, the Federalists also encountered many problems while in governmental power. The first major problem was the lack of control over the Western States. An example of this lack of control was the Whiskey Rebellion. As a part of Hamilton's plan he instituted a excise tax. Farmers in Pennsylvania refused to pay this tax and revolted this was called the Whiskey Rebellion. In order to stop this rebellion the Federalist government set the militia to overtake the people. The conflict never got to fighting but was this the best way to handle the rebellion? Was there a better way to deal with this uprising?

In addition to the struggle to control the outer territories, the Federalist government also faced international issues while George Washington was in office. During this time period, America faced two major problems with other countries . The first problem was the overwhelming conflict between the French and the British. In 1793 the French government went to war with the British. This presented problems among the British and America because due to the conflict with France, the British then began to seize American ships that were engaged in French trade. This problem between the Americans and the British was eventually resolved by Jay's Treaty. The other international problem that faced America was a dispute with Spain over the port of New Orleans and America's boundaries. This dispute was settled in 1795 by Pickney's Treaty.

Even though the Federalists did handle some events like the Whiskey Rebellion violently, and arguably incorrectly, they were smart in how they handled foreign relations. The Federalists made mistakes in office but they also developed a strong country and government that would last.

The Biggest Success of the Constitution

The Constitutional Convention of 1787

http://jdlong.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/constitutional-convention.jpg

The Constitution was written in an attempt by the Americans to solve many dilemmas that arose post-Articles of Confederation. Such solutions included giving more power to the national government (but not too much), finding a more effective way to tax the people, creating a national currency, creating a military, among many others. The most important idea that was resolved in the Constitution, though, was one that was debated and talked about many years before by a philosopher named Baron de Montesquieu. This idea was that of separation of powers and checks and balances. Americans, unlike the British or any other in Europe were able to effectively separate the powers of their government by making three branches - the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary that each had their own respective powers. Like and heavily influenced Montesquieu, Americans believed that too much power in one branch would eventually lead to corruption and failure to protect and serve the people. The Constitution's biggest success was the separation of powers by creating the three branches and the checks and balances that each branch had.

Americans, from their beginning until around 1790 had undergone and experienced two extremes of government - absolute and entire control in the national government under the rule of the British Empire, and later under the Articles of Confederation, a national government that had virtually no power. American politicians now saw it would be necessary to have a national government that would be in control of certain issues (military, currency, etc.) but left the state government (closer to the people) in charge of certain other powers. The national government and it's powers could not be given to just one house or person - there needed to be separation of powers. In other words, nation government needed to be split up into different branches, each with their own set of powers to avoid corruption and unfairness. It was decided that their would be and Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Even further Americans dissected the powers of those branches. In the executive, there would be departments, in the Legislative there would be two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and in the Judiciary there would be a Supreme Court and many courts of lesser importance below it. One of the biggest successes of the Constitution was to separate these powers and create a system that allowed each branch to have equal but different power.

Separation of powers was a radical idea in terms of how other European countries ran themselves, but not necessarily a new one. Many years before the philosopher Baron de Montesquieu spoke and published about separation of powers. Something new, though, that the Americans created was "checks and balances". Checks and balances, in short, is the idea that each branch of the government has the ability to stop another branch from doing or passing (basically) anything. Passing laws is an example of this. First off, both houses of the legislative branch must agree and vote to pass a law. If one house does not vote in favor the law, the law cannot be passed. If the law is passed, the president (the executive branch) has the opportunity to veto a law he/she feels is unconstitutional or not right. The law, then, goes under reconsideration and must be proposed again and passed again for it to go under effect. If the law is passed, the Judiciary, if a case is brought to them, has the ability to declare a law unconstitutional and get rid of it. This just one example of checks and balances, but it is clear that this system is much more "fair", unlike the British system or any monarchy, where a king or queen's word is law and nothing can be done to stop him/her.

The Constitution was not solely about separation of powers and checks and balances. It resolved many issues previously not thought of or covered in the Articles of Confederation. It came up with reasonable ways to allow for taxation, the creation of a military and so on, but the most important issue was separation of powers and checks and balances. All other issues, indirectly, were caused by or the lack of separation of powers and checks and balances. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax states without their consent. This issue was resolved by the Constitution by clearly and thoroughly listing all the powers of the national government. With an organized system and clear powers for each part of the government, The United States of America was finally able to run smoothly. The system created was fair, each branch had a fair amount of, but not too much power. Checks and balances made sure that corruption cannot go on, as each branch can essentially prevent any other branch from doing something they see as unfit. The biggest success of the Constitution was creating a fair system of separation powers of the government, and the ability for each branch to check one another and create a balanced and fair system.

Shays' Rebellion: Was it Justified?

Brinkley p. 138-139/ Washington and Jefferson on Shays' Rebellion

In the late 1780s, a group of poor, New England famers rebelled against the new taxes states were issuing to pay the war debts. The uprising was led by a former captain of the Continental army, Daniel Shays. New England's farmers were already heavily burdened by debt and believed they were being unfairly taxed by the corrupt wealthy. Shays demanded that the government issue more paper currency to help them pay their debts. He wanted tax reliefs, postponement of the payment of debts, and for the government to stop imprisoning people on account of their debt. This became known as the Shays' Rebellion.

Just coming out of the American Revolution, the colonists were still holding on to their ideals of liberty, opportunity and freedom, but understood that they needed a new system of government to control the recently independent nation. The people, however, were used to getting their way, and revolting when they felt they were being treated unjustly. The farmers, like the radicals under British control, felt paranoid about the taxation, thinking the worst about the people enforcing the taxes. Their rebellion soon became violent as Shays' followers used force to prevent taxes from being collected and intended to seize weapons. Were the states’ taxes as unjust as the British taxes?

While the British taxes on the colonies helped the British pay their war debts, the state taxes were set in place to gain a better economical standing in the world as a new nation. The British only wanted the colonies as a source of revenue for the mother country, but the states were trying to get America out of debt for a future of prosperity. The farmers were still only thinking of themselves individually, not as a new nation– just as the states were still very separated. This was the idea of "independence" to the extreme, but it became clear that a national constitution was needed to unify the weak, disjointed America in order for it to become prosperous and hold true to its founding ideals.

The followers of Shays' Rebellion were first going to be put to death, but were spared, and some of their demands were met. Their overall goal was not achieved, but the revolt made the government rethink how it was currently structured. The mercy by which the rebellion was received coincides with Thomas Jefferson's belief about how an "unsuccessful rebellion" should be treated. He believed that a rebellion is "a medicine necessary for the sound health of government," meaning that societies need rebellions to question the existing government and affect change. He believed any rebellion justified. George Washington, on the other hand was appalled at the rebellion, and wrote, "They (Shays' Rebellion) exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted…" meaning that Britain might have been justified in controlling the colonies to an extent close to injustice–for people cannot be relied on to control themselves– evident by the rebellion. He also wrote, "If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once," meaning if what they are fighting for is beyond a petty problem, fix them. But if not, the rebellion should not be tolerated. Which point of view is more realistic? Jefferson's or Washington's?

Although Shays' Rebellion was one of the factors leading to the national constitution, the people revolting were over independent, bordering selfish, and were not justified to become violent. Jefferson’s idea of rebellion seemed a reasonable way for people to voice their opinions, but Washington knew the real damage a rebellion could cause (even though he thoroughly supported the American ideals of liberty and equal opportunity), and understood that there had to be some control over the people. He wanted to listen to the people’s opinions, but could not tolerate the violent way they were being presented.

American Revolution: Fight for Freedom?

In the small section, Debating the Past, the book discusses that many believe that the American Revolution was not as much a fight for freedom as it was a clash between social classes. This idea connects the Revolutionary War and the economic tensions it caused to social problems, claiming that mobs and rebellions broke out due to the war. In addition, the debate about slaves, minorities, and women became a growing controversy against the Declaration of Independence and its signers. Representatives from all 13 colonies signed the declaration and many of these men had clashing beliefs that questioned their principles.
While studying the Revolutionary War, many historians believed that the war was more social than it was an actual fight for independence from Britain. In the reading Carl Becker says on the revolution, "The first was the question of home rule; the second was the question...of who should rule at home." This suggests that the 13 colonies were not only fighting the British, but having political and economical problems as well. Also, these historians say that the economic pressures is what caused the colonists to be so rebellious, so in a way the new taxes Britain put on the colonies to raise revenue, hurt the British because these taxes are what created the economic pressures.
Although the Revolution was not caused solely on the conflicts between social classes, the Revolution had a major impact on the social classes and society in general. The war brought up huge debates with Native Americans, slaves, and women. Britain's Proclamation of 1763 forbade the colonists from settling past the Appalachian Mountains, however during and after the war, the colonists started settling in Native American territory. During the war, most Native Americans stayed out of the war, but some tribes joined Britain and attacked the colonies. Once America had won the war, the demand for more land rose and Native Americans were forced to give up their land. The Patriots treated the Native Americans as conquered, so they had no regard for their land. Native Americans were given less land and less power, but the idea of slavery became a huge controversy. Some of the same signers of the Declaration of Independence, that said that all men are created equal, also owned slaves. These men justified their actions saying that slaves are not men, but property. After the war, many northern states abolished slavery, but the South continued to believe that African-Americans were inferior and not citizens. Ultimately, the Revolution helped slaves gain freedom, but for a while, slavery existed. The colonies had slaves and fought for freedom, but they eventually abolished slavery, so do you think that slavery and the fight for freedom could exist together?
In addition to slavery, women's rights became a new topic of conversation. Before the Revolution, women had no rights at all. They could not vote, had no legal authority over her children, or could not issue a divorce. The Revolution helped give women more rights and it helped people change the way they thought about women's roles in society and in family. Do you think that if the Revolution never happened, would the ideas about slavery and women have changed? Or would slavery and rights of women stayed the same?

Would the Conciliatory Propositions Stop the Revolution?

In last night's reading, our Brinkley's textbook mentioned Lord North's answer to the Continental Congress' issues, the 'Conciliatory Propositions' pg. (110-111). These propositions were supposed to resolve the conflicts between Britain and the colonists. However, this offer never reached America. During its voyage to the colonies, the "shot heard 'round' the world" was fired, signaling the birth of war. Being denied by the beginnings of war, the Conciliatory Propositions were never enable to act. However, what if these new resolutions beat the start of the war and were introduced to the colonists? I believe that the propositions would have been an accepted and an effective resolution at first, but would not be the ultimate solution to the apprehension between the colonies and Britain.

The Conciliatory Proposition's main goal was to soothe the tension between the colonies and Britain. To do this, Parliament would allow the colonies tax themselves, but only at Parliament's orders. Continental Congress would most definitely settle with this law. It would prevent further gratuitous taxes; one of the colonists's most pressing issues. Even though extraneous taxes that were just profit schemes for Britain would be eradicated, the colonies would still be under British power. If the colonists accepted this proposal, Lord North hoped it would, "Separate the American moderates, whom he believed represented the views of the majority from the extremist minority," Brinkley pg. (111). Lord North felt that if it was quintessential to get the majority of the colonial population to accept the proposition. If they did, then the colonies would be content with British rule, and would out weigh the rebellious minority. Since the Conciliatory Propositions would have been appealing to the majority, then most likely British authority would remain in control.

Though it would have been a great resolution, the Conciliatory Propositions would have only been a quick but momentary answer. Eventually, as discussed in Ed's post, the colonists would feel denied of freedom and revolt would be inevitable. The propositions would have only fixed a small space of time, and only delay the anticipated revolution, rather than stop it. Do you think that Britain could have made any set of laws, at the colonists' consent, that would eliminate total rebellion? What could the British have done to find mutual ground with the colonies? Also, do you agree that the Conciliatory Propositions would have only been a momentary solution?

The inevitable fall of british authority

During last night’s reading the book talks about the Coercive acts of 1774 and how the actual intention of these acts was to make an example out of Boston for the incident known as the Tea party. The true irony is that these acts actually provoked rebellion and revolution rather than subdue the threatening concepts. This unfortunate result for British authority brings up the argument of being loved in power and being feared in power and in turn, this argument brings around the idea that perhaps the fall of the British control of the colonies was inevitable.
First the Coercive acts of 1774, established by Parliament, they were; the closing of the port of Boston, drastically reducing the powers of self government in Massachusetts, permitting royal officers in America to be tried in other colonies or in England and providing for the quartering of troops by the colonists. The pure intention of these acts were to make an example out of Boston for it’s little act of rebellion. Parliament clearly thought that no more acts would follow if they demonstrated how powerful and dominant they could be. However, instead of the colonists being subdued, they were actually inspired and looked at Boston as a martyr for revolution. As a result colonial legislatures passed a series of resolves that supported Boston, so the acts completely backfired on the British. Basically any act of punishment upon a part of the colonies was looked at not in fear, but rather served as inspiration, fuel for the fire of revolution. Clearly Brittan could not punish the entire colonies otherwise it would eventually hurt their own commerce, so what exactly could they do?
What if Brittan had tried to reason with America, what if they had tried to explain their situation. What if they tried to make the colonies love them as authority instead of fear and despise them? My personal belief is that America would have seen it as a sign of weakness, a complete shift in the way Brittan tried to treat America. I think it would have built upon the already present ideas of rebellion and served as a real opportunity for revolution.
So in the grand scheme of things, was the fall of British control of the colonies inevitable, was there anything Brittan could do to keep the mutual relationship between the two powers? It is my personal belief that they could not, if they tried to enforce harsh laws they simply fueled rebellion and if they tried reason, they would be perceived as weak, there was simply nothing they could do.

A new reading revolution?

So I had this thought over the weekend, and thought I would throw it out, and see if anyone wanted to respond. We read about the reading revolution during the last unit, and its effects on society and ideas. Is the internet producing a new reading revolution, by changing the way people read, and therefore think? And if so, what effects will it have? Will they be as far reaching as the Enlightenment?

Some relevant links:

• The author Nicholas Carr has written extensively on the way the internet is changing the way we read, most famously in an article called "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and most recently in a book called The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. Nicholas Carr's blog/website is here, and you can read some reviews/summaries of his book here, here, and here.
• "Ten Reading Revolutions Before E-Books"
• A critique of the reading revolution idea

Dr. K

Poor Choices by English Government

In the 1760's America was facing Civil challenges such as disagreements with the Paxton Boys and the revolt of North Carolina "Regulators." Controversies like these weakened and further disorganized the Colonies, making difficult for them to make coordinated attacks against British authority. In this era of American dispute, divided local governments had less power than they would united, and the British had much more control over a divided 'nation' than a united one. Instead of utilizing this key advantage, the unstable British government did one of the worst things they could possibly do: unite and empower the people of America. By putting in place legislation such as the Sugar and Stamp Acts, the British only further angered the American population. Colonists thought these acts were taxing not only their businesses and property, but their freedom and as a result, were able to put aside their differences and recognize the need to unite and stand up to the current injustice. This anger only led to further outcry against the British government. The strongly voiced disapproval of the Stamp Act forced parliament to repeal it in 1766, but this was only a small, first step in the direction of freedom. From then on, Americans began to challenge and reject the English laws, and eventually English government, which led to the ultimate rebellion: the Declaration of Independence (1776). The poor choices made by leaders such as King George III and George Grenville to unreasonably tax and anger Americans gave the colonists power and desire to rebel against British. It was these decisions that ultimately brought about American Revolution, and the eventual declaration of independence from England.

Racism in the Age of Enlightenment

The age of enlightenment was not only the age scientific progress, but was also the age that defined racial differences and the battle of the sexes.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that since women are naturally passive, they should assume a passive role in society.  Immanuel Kant and David Hume used scientific reasoning to propagate the idea that the white race is superior.  They analyzed the way that the white society had always been superior in advancements in science, arts and literature.  They assumed that other races must have been incapable of achieving the same level of advancements as the whites because of their inferior race.  Do you think that modern day racist individuals use the same rationale as Hume and Kant to justify their racism?  Or do you believe that society has always put another race below theirs to justify their actions?

Bernard de Fontenelle

Many great accomplishments and people were mentioned in the reading about the Enlightenment, however what one man did really stuck out to me. I thought it was enticing how Bernard de Fontenelle incorporated science with witty and entertaining pieces of literature. Nowadays, I know that I, as well as many others, do not keep up with the latest scientific accomplishments because they are confusing, hard to understand, and rather boring. I feel that if information was presented in this way for just about any topic, science included, the information would be received and absorbed with much more enthusiasm, and thus effectiveness. This had a similar effect on people of Fontenelle's time.
However, after rethinking this, I felt as if some information presented in Fontenelle's style might be slightly skewed in order to provide a more entertaining plot. This is especially relevant in the play Galileo, that we just read. While basic concepts and theories were presented factually in the play, much of what actually happened in real life was changed to make the play more entertaining, as stated in the introduction. Also, works of literature can often be tainted to fit the views of the person who created it, in order to promote the authors ideas. Do you think the way Fontenelle presented information was positive or negative? Nowadays, do you think it would be okay if someone were to present information in a similar fashion?

Edward Bozik's Post

Learning that Newton was very religious may have surprised most but it did not come as much of a shock to me. Most people see science and religion being polar opposites and both of them can not strongly co-exisit within one person but I disagree. I feel that it is quite possible for one of the greatest scientist to also be very religious but what do you think, do you think religion and science can co-exisit within a person, what about a society?

One of the causes of the Scientific revolution was the development of the medieval university. Within the university there was a small but independent study of philosophy ( or science) that stood right alongside law, medicine and theology. I feel that this was a big step for science to start to be independent from theology. Being independent would mean that science could come up with its own ideas and not be influenced by religion. Also this created a way for scientists to share their ideas to large groups of people and be able to answer questions. What do you think the most important part of the development of the university was?

Towards the end of the reading it talks about the scientific community. The scientific community allowed knowledge to be shared and for people of like interests in science to work together. But now the government often gets involved and tells scientist what to research. This can restrict the freedom of the scientists. This is even going in todays world. President Obama issued an order for more fuel efficient cars. I think this was a good way to use the scientific community. This provided incentive to research something but did not require all scientist to research something. What do you think? Do you think the government should be involved in the scientific community?

Corruption in the Catholic Church

During class a few people mentioned how the Catholic Church during the 15-1600's was extremely corrupt. I also believe that to be true. It is hard to disagree that the church, at the time, held complete power over the public. The appeal of the Catholic Church had to do with the fact that everyone was a part of it and everyone openly believed in what the clergymen said, because there were no other options. When Copernicus flagrantly admitted his contradicting views in 1543 (on the day of his death), the Catholic Church did not immediately proclaim his ideas as false. The church waited until 1616 to openly denounce the ideas of Copernicus. In my opinion, they waited those 73 years for a reason... When the people of the Catholic Church found out about Copernicus' new theory they realized that it conflicted with their beliefs. Most likely, it took 73 years for a scientist with loyalty to the Church to find out that Copernicus' ideas are valid and consequently proved the notion of divine creation to be false. I know that sounds far fetched... so what do you guys think? I am a Roman Catholic and I have heard about confirmed corruption in a Westfield Parish five years ago. Last summer I closely followed the articles regarding the Catholic Church rape scandals and other serious allegations surrounding the Church. If we think of the Catholic Church as a profitable company with the priceless Vatican collections, it is difficult to comprehend why the Church does not spend more money on feeding the poor and educating our youth. They should embrace progress and science represents progress.

This is an article I found this summer—what are your takes on it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sister%20margaret’s%20choice&st=cse

Welcome to Revolutions Honors

Welcome! This is the class blog for Revolutions Honors, block 7. You should use this blog to post your thought piece on the night's reading (when it's your turn) and to comment on others' thought pieces. I look forward to some stimulating conversation. Enjoy!