Civil War and Revolution in England and France: An Analysis - Term Paper Example

Civil War and Revolution in England and France: An Analysis 2007 Prior to 1640, there was a lot of disenchantment in England. Differences emerged between the aristocracy and religion, the golden age of Elizabethan theater and literature was drawing to an end, the religion of the nobility and the academic / informed circles seemed scattered, and science with all its apparent awe and aura had obtained any authorized appreciation. Meanwhile, control and suppression of art and literature became harsher and was left to the tastes of the jurisprudents to decide the quality. The English Civil War was part of a bigger tension and tussel in which along with England, even Wales, Scotland and Ireland got involved. It was mostly a manifestation of the effects of the Reformation that the way the growing middle classes reacted. Almost every section of the English society - from the nobility, the Legislative body to the middle classes, the commoners, and the armed forces - was involved. So the movement which initially sparked off from religious issue, soon spread all over the country to fuel the dissatisfied landed middle class, who with their natural hold over the poor and the deprived involved them into it and thus becoming socio-political in nature as well. It was an officially claimed clash between the king and his people as well. It started with the rift between the Puritans regarding the authority of the Church. The Reformation stirred by Henry VIII created the Anglican Church against the authority of Rome. A law endorsed in the Parliament made Henry Supreme Head of the Church in 1534, the country still remaining Catholic but with an end to Pope's authority. But how could the Church be improved? The Puritans focused on changing the administrative system of the Church. There were differences among the Puritans also (being Calvinists, they believed in pre-objective and considered it essential to cleanse the Church from the Papal influences). The Presbyterians, wanted a system of administration founded on a chain of command of Elders. The Independents or Congregationalists wanted each worshippers group to have official self-rule. And lastly, the Separatists wanted to break up from the traditional Church totally. In the end, the Puritans got divided into two break- away groups -- those who wanted reform and those who wanted autonomy. In almost the same time an uprising took place in Ireland against the English monarchy. In spite of the fact that king Charles I created an army to beat the revolt, it was feared that the King might use his forces against a targeted Parliamentarians (The English Civil War, historyguide.org). Under John Pym's (c.1583-1643), direction, the Legislative body embraced the Grand Remonstrance, a list of complaints of over 200 of the people against King Charles, depicting the sins of Charles's regime. They also wanted that the controlling authority of the Bishops should be limited, and that the Church changed by a congregation of Protestants. It also demanded that the legislative body to have a voice over the selection of the King's ministers (The Grand Remonstrance, theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk). Thus another rift was created in the parliament and consequently, Charles also won over several ``moderates'' to his side. In January 1642, Charles dared to detain John Pym and four other opponents making civil war foreseeable (The English Civil War, historyguide.org). All through the late 16th century, it was the monitory system that affected the social pattern of England. Gallantry and aristocracy was waning both in the armed force and in the political system. The House of Commons was becoming an almost equal authority as the House of Lords in the Legislative body. The aristocracy was giving way to the landed gentry. The gentry was a large group from the masses harassed by the authority in the early 16 th century - their purchased land seized by the order of the King, leading to the closure of a number of monasteries. The gentry were more involved in trade and commerce generally looked down upon by the aristocracy. Together with taking active roles in native Church management the gentry now claimed their voice to be heard in Parliament. Their intention was to have a share in the political system of a country to which they wealth-wise added value. But the gentry was not capable sufficiently to fuel a civil war. The factor that played significant role in the cause of Civil War was the rapport between the gentry and the Puritans who contended that the Anglican Church created by Elizabeth was very close to Roman Catholicism, and so they wanted to curb its authority inside the Church, which Elizabeth disregarded. So the conditions that gave rise to civil war had been taken root from the Elizabethan time. With the leadership of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), the whole situation turned like a revolution from internal strife and civil war. Cromwell was well educated in Cambridge and his empathy for the commoner including the ordinary made him the role model for his “New Model Army” which an initially high-handed Charles wanted to crush down but had to ultimately give in to. The New Model Army stressed more on a soldier's aptitude than on his social rank, something which was considered essential to the Royal Forces till then Cromwell hailed from a family of reputed Puritans, well placed in English society of those days. He was pro-authority and believed that class differences were the basis of society. With such a conviction and background why then he took the initiative of going against Charles? Historians say, Cromwell despised the way the subjects were to pay taxes - something that was ominous of personal property not in all safety. And maybe as a definite Independent, Cromwell had faith in religious autonomy. He honestly believed that he was God's chosen person to act as a savior of the people and he ascribed his war victories to God and not to his deft. Charles was accused by the Grand Remonstrance as “tyrant, traitor and murderer” on First January 1649. He was also indicted as an enemy of the people, the nation and to “Commonwealth of England”. The issue subsequently divided the House into the two differing splinter groups - Parliamentarians and Royalists. Of course half out of the 135 judges who were called for hearing the charge, did not turn up and Charles, certainly, never admitted his guilt and thundered that the "Princes are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone." A charge against him, however was made-- A charge of guilt (on January 20). A week later, Charles I was sentenced death penalty by the ‘jury’ for treasons he committed against the nation, killings and assassinations and arbitrarily wielding power. Christopher Hill, the noted historian, was emphatic when he said that “the English Revolution was a great social movement like the French Revolution of 1789” (in an article first published in 1940). It is interesting to note that from the very beginning (the Introduction) of his essay he deliberately used the word ``Revolution'', to depict the civil strife that took place n England in the mid-17th century and matched it with the French Revolution of 1789. Written in a Marxist fashion, the essay starts depicting the character of the English state of those days as fundamentally feud -a state deposed by force and which changed its character to the landed/mercantile middle class. This, according to Hill, ousted the ``reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords''. Hill considers that the confusing conventional outlook is to read the revolution as anarchy since it went below the surface only. But people know that the seventeenth century England went though a radical change in social system. He regretfully admitted the about the excessive killing and violence that was unleashed during these times. But as a believer of historical materialism he considers that these were necessary preconditions. He eulogizes the dedication and the sacrifices that such a revolution generated. He says that while the orthodox section disapproved most of it. The leaders of the Whig and others admitted that the “Parliamentary armies” were contesting for the freedom of the human being and his legal rights against an autocratic rule that detained people without reason, seized their belongings, randomly gathering taxes, locked then in prison without trial The Stuarts tried their utmost to prevent people assembling and arguing about politics, punishing them bodily. The Parliament of those days did not sufficiently stood for the commoner. Yet its triumph marked a new era -one of autonomy, even though for the new riches (Hill, The English Revolution 1640). In case of France it was the other way round. It was hunger, fear, hatred, oppression and tyranny that set the stage of Revolution reaching its zenith in 1789 and subsequently giving rise to another reign of terror that devoured is own children, as Danton said cynically. On August 8, 1788, Louis XVI and his team of counselors conceded to people's pressure to call the old Parliament, the Estates General, which was lying defunct since 1614. Going through a convoluted and contentious route to select representatives, it ultimately opened at Versailles on May 5, 1789. After much funny debates and hullabaloo, the Parliament took in some insignificant changes and ratifications with some hundred commoners as delegates. Delegates pressure the unwilling king to affirm the National Assembly a reality. A on July 14, a month later, Parisians, mostly artisans, outburst and obliterated the notorious prison Bastille, apparently as a warning to the king about the shape of things that might emerge if the new National Assembly was disbanded. After their triumphing destruction the `` revolutionaries'' clubbed together to indicate Bastille to be the symbol of their road to freedom. Bastille day, 14th July, still remains a ruse to the French and has been irregularly it was not always celebrated. Scholars and critics find it complicated enough to symbolize it as the victory of freedom or the deadly outcome of a rabble unchained. Yet it is true, that Bastille fueled countryside strife all through France. The irregular uprising that followed, broadly depicted as the ``Great Fear'', has been generally named as a revolt against feudal social system. The revolution boosted the cravings of the people to re-structure their rights and hence caused the much known “Declaration of the Rights of Man”, approved by the National Assembly on August 26, 1789 modeled after American “Declaration of Independence” in 1776. The revolution among other things initially gave importance to the image of the woman as the brave and daring one. Many women activists and nameless women took positive roles in the early phase of the French revolution. On October 5 and 6, 1789, women of lower social rank of Paris pushed many other women from all social classes to walk with them to Versailles to arrest the King and they eventually made it thus earning the repute of as compelling symbol of the force of the Revolution. The new French Republic was characterizes as a woman, "Marianne". As Maurice Agulhon (1981) has depicted, whatever the image was, once created and then subsequently multiplied, changed re-fashioned or whatever else was done with it - all those images it ultimately combined into an idyllic one. Marianne stood for that - the image of a string woman, re-fashioned a hundred years later was made a brand in the late Twentieth Century, matching her with Brigitte Bardot, the belle of the silver screen. Cynical critics have their doubt as to how much this image could a woman use for her share of profits out of the revolution in tangible terms. On June 20, 1791, Louis Capet, King of France, escaped Paris with his family, in expectation to gather with Austrian forces, seeking their support to re-establish the his dominion. He was soon detained at Varennes, while on the way on January 21, 1793 and was taken back to Paris, tried and condemned to death. Financial another forms of turmoil in home front and war out of the country pushed, the French Revolution to the second stage after the King's death that stressed equality and fraternity and liberty to begin with. Undoubtedly the working class, irrespective of their gender largely profited out of it and stated to demand more including adult franchise and democracy. A lawyer named Maximilien Robespierre, soon occupied the center stage of French politics by becoming the head of the Jacobins and this man slowly but steadily turned into the blood-hounding dictator who made a mess with the later stage of French revolution. Frequently misrepresented as a follower of Jean-Jacques Rousseau owing to his early attachments to the philosophy of democracy, Robespierre later started to associate the interests of the people with those of the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety to which he was the leader. Robespierre tried to dictate "in the name of the people", keeping rigid control of the financial system through cost controls and by letting revolutionary courts to decide on the destiny of a person, whether to be put to death or not. Many were treated as collaborators, including old associates, brothers of the revolution like Danton and Marat. His year of rule has therefore been called "the Reign of Terror," - a revolution that gave birth to a terror which spared none - not even Robespierre himself. This was a revolution in which around 50,000 were killed in France, many losing their heads to the guillotine, a killing machine of the revolution. Women activists were captured as well, and the Jacobins started to behave in the same chauvinistic way to deal with the women, keeping then in private domain of their lives, banning their assembly, clubs. In this phase women became associated with hostility and belligerence - images of women depicted a fuming mood. For about a year Paris and elsewhere in France was turned into slaughterhouse, a killing field. Now came the turn for Robespierre too - and he then was denounced as a traitor. Robespierre too had his head finally chopped off by the Thermidors in 1794 with the very same guillotine he so much loved to obliterate the aristocracy. That was the end of the reign of terror or civil strife. Should one say in the beginning there was the end - a revolution that devoured its own children, And as the Revolution flopped rose Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), making a coup d'A(c) tat in 1799, and became an Emperor in 1802 (The French Revolution, fullerton.edu). Works Cited The English Civil War. Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html. The Grand Remonstrance, retrieved from http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/ecivil/grand_remonstrance.htm Christopher Hill, The English Revolution 1640, Lawrence and Wishart, 2002. The French Revolution, http://faculty.fullerton.edu/nfitch/history110b/rev.html Agulhon, Maurice, Marianne into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France, 1789-1880, translated Janet Lloyd, Cambridge University Press, 1981 Read More