What does Liberty Equality and Fraternity mean?

Answer:
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is the French motto which came about around the time of the French revolution. Liberty represents freedom, a word that has many meanings; firstly it can stand for being able to make ones own decisions freely and having the opportunity to be able to express ones own beliefs without fear (I could continue thus for a while but I'm sure you get the idea). To be physically and/or legally free is different, and involves being free from confinement servitude or forced labor. Equality can stand for being equal in law and so to maintain a sameness of rules, status, rights, respect, opportunities and privileges, that must be applied to all. Fraternity is a word associated with the idea of community, which is a body of people that share a common interest or purpose, such as a guild. It is also associated with brother/sisterhood and having/working/fitting/producing something together as a group. Also, a fraternity can be recognized as a group viewed as a forming a distinct segment of society.

What are the differences between the three estates of the French Revolution?
Answer:
The First Estate was the Catholic Clergy representing about 2% of the population of France. That grouping included Bishops, Priests, Abbots, Monks and Nuns. They owned 10% of the land, which was usually held by Monasteries who rented out parcels for farmers, vintners and laborers. The Catholic Church collected a tithe (10%) on the income from each person in the Parrish, in addition to any taxation that was imposed by the State or the Nobles. They were tax-free as institutions and as individuals. The Monarchy had long ago granted that privilege to the Catholic Church knowing (or at least assuming) that such funds would care for the poor, lame, mad, widows and orphans within the Parish at no additional cost to the State. Also living tax-free were the Nobles of the Second Estate who owned about 80% of the land and represented only 1% of the population. Within their sphere of influence they raised taxes as needed and set the rental

rates on land as they saw fit. They ran the show subject only to the whim of the King. Paying the taxes were the 97% who were in the Third Estate, all of which were taxed based on their income and possessions. Some were street urchins and beggars, some were what today would be called billionaires, some were classed as very wealthy, a tiny element would have been called middle class, and the vast majority of which were poor. All paid taxes on essentials like bread and salt.

War Debt and Tax Avoidance: Causes of French Revolution

Tax Evasion: The major reason the French had to borrow for their wars was because they didnt pull in enough revenue through taxation. The French clergy and nobility, which were the wealthiest sections or Estates in French society, held 90% of the national wealth, but they were practically exempt from most forms of taxation, freedom from taxation being one of the chief legal distinctions and prerogatives of European feudal nobility since the collapse of the Roman Empire. As a result, taxation only fell on the peasants, middle class and the upper middle class, who together comprised 90% of French society, but only held 10% of its wealth. Of these three groups the upper-middle class, which was comprised of a small number of educated and influential doctors, lawyers and merchants, was singled out for the highest taxes. Since they comprised the principal economic engine, which propelled the French economy, they felt unfairly treated and this was one of the principal motives behind their rapid radicalization. Most hated among the taxes leveled upon the peasants, middle class and upper middle class, or Third Estate, as it was known, was the Taille, which was a property tax, applied to all non-noble and non-clergy landholdings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taille. As a result of this tax, the more land one held, the more one was taxed, unless one was noble or clergy. As such, the productive classes were being penalized for their success, while the unproductive leisure class of noblemen and clergymen had lives of luxury subsidized by the efforts of the middle classes. You can imagine the fully-justified hatred dwelling in the hearts of self-made lawyers and doctors, fisherman and farmers, who worked hard and did much, only to see the nobility squander their expropriated/extorted tax dollars in frivolous displays of ostentation at the royal palaces of Versailles and the Tuilleries.

Costly Wars: The French nation was bankrupted by three highly costly, successive wars, namely, the War of the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War and the American War for Independence. In 1739, the French had just managed to come out from the debts and extravagant spending of the late Sun King, Louis XIV, such that they just started to run a modest budget surplus. This was not to last. The War of the Austrian Succession, from 1740-1748 cost the French 1 billion livres, most of this borrowed from wealthy noblemen at high interest rates, as the French didnt pull in enough revenue from taxation to pay for the war. As such, the country began to run a sizeable national debt. By 1753, the principal of the national debt was 1.2 billion livres and the annual interest paid on this debt was 85 million livres, which was 20% of Frances annual revenue. (Citizen: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, Simon Schama at 65). The Seven Years War, or French and Indian War, as it is called in the US, lasted from 1756 to 1763. This war cost 1.8 billion livres, again, most of it borrowed from noblemen at high interest rates, pushing the country further into debt. (Schama, at 65). Immediately after this war, in 1763, the principal on the French national debt was 2.324 billion livres, or 7.3 times annual revenue, with interest payments amounting to 160 million livres a year, which was almost half of the countrys annual budget. (Id.) (See also, Public Debt and the Birth of the Democratic State, David Stasavage, 93-95). One would think the French would temporarily give up their appetite for war and glory since it was bankrupting them. However, France had grown accustomed to being, along with Britain, the 18th centurys version of a superpower, and viewed war and geopolitical intrigue as the chief function of state. As such, when the American colonies broke away from Britain and asked for French assistance, the French jumped at the opportunity to play chess on the world stage and avenge their humiliations from the prior war, regardless of the financial costs and domestic political consequences. During the American War for Independence (1775-1783), the French spent 1.3 billion livres, again, almost all of it borrowed from wealthy noblemen. As a result of these enormous war expenditures and the high-interest debts accrued, by 1785, France was on the verge of total bankruptcy and few noblemen, nations or bankers would lend to them. France had become a sub-prime nation. Since the 1760s, the French government had consistently tried to inflate its way out debt. This was, and still is, an important debtfighting instrument at the disposal of all national governments and is employed simply by printing or minting more money and devaluing the currency. As such, single livre was worth a certain amount of gold, and while at a nominally fixed rate, this rate was often changed arbitrarily by

the state. When more money is minted and/or printed, a single livre would thus be worth far less gold. As a result, if the national debt is denominated in a specific currency, such as a livre (rather than a precious metal, like gold) by printing/minting more money, you can spend far less gold getting out of your debt, then you would be able to do, prior to the state enacting said inflationary measures. To aid in this inflationary attempt, the French adopted paper currency in 1776, because it was easier to print paper money, then mint metallic coins. An unintended or perhaps flagrantly disregarded result of this monetary inflation, which happens with most inflation, is that the common people suffer because they can no longer afford staple products they once afforded with ease. As inflation creeps into the economy, the prices of goods go up. A single loaf of bread is still priced in terms of its equivalent value in silver or gold. However, wages are often not linked to inflation, because employers tend to be greedy and hold workers to their specific monetary-linked, rather than precious metal-linked, wage contracts. As such, if the price of a four pound loaf of bread (what an average French family ate in a day) goes up from 8 sous to 12 sous, but you only make 10 sous a day, then you will barely be able afford food. Forget about rent, firewood for keeping warm, etc. When heavy taxes were added into the equation, as well as the knowledge that those most capable of paying it didn't have to, the situation became volatile, especially as people started to borrow money at high interest rates just to meet the demands of daily living. This would have deadly and perhaps, even, justifiable consequences for the aristocracy. Closing Thoughts: The French Revolution and its contributing factors have been much discussed and written about in the 200 years following in its fiery wake. The issues I discuss above are not new, but they have been forgotten. We would do well to re-learn the lessons of the past. As such, I serve not as a novel thinker with new ideas, but a reminder, somebody retelling old tales that we should keep telling, lest we forget and be doomed to repeat the past mistakes of those who have gone before us. This is the principle value of history, I believe. The most interesting lesson from the French Revolution, I believe, is how quickly a great power/superpower can fall from the heights of preeminence, how quickly bad state finances can erode into a political crisis, how rapidly the domestic order can erode and even dissolve, due to the economic costs of continuous wars, an ever-increasing national debt, an aristocracy that refuses to pay its fair share of taxes, and a tightlysqueezed middle class that carries the majority of the financial burdens of state upon its shoulders, while dealing with the consequences of a horrendous, state-induced inflation.

We also shouldnt forget the sad cultural results of this fall. Before the Revolution, French was the international language of business, science, culture and politics. The Czar spoke French in the Kremlin. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wrote many scientific and philosophical essays in French (even if translated with the help of others). The greatest scientific journals of the age were published in French. Frederick the Great of Prussia, the greatest of all German monarchs and military heroes, surprisingly refused to speak German (which he regarded as too guttural and barbaric for his refined, sensitive tastes) and only spoke French at his French-named palace in Potsdam, Sanssouci. After the Revolution and the 20 years of world war that followed in its wake, French fell by the wayside and was seen as the language of a failed empire and people. In the 100 years that followed, the 19th century world was without a leading culture, without a common language/lingua Franca and the world would be divided as countless new powers struggled with each other as they tried to acquire the lost mantle of global supremacy. By 1945 a new language emerged and picked up the fallen mantle of French--English, the language of the ancient foe. Forgotten are the days of the Sun King, our strongest memories today are of Dien Bien Phu and the summer of 1940. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said: From the sublime to the absurd, tis but one step.

What was the role of French philosophers in the French Revolution?

Answer:
The French philosophers of the Enlightenment Era didn't play an active role in the events of the revolution, but their ideas inspired the revolutionary movement. The main philosophers were Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and Montesquieu. Diderot was the editor of a groundbreaking Encyclopedia, which brought awareness to the inequality in France by describing some of the injustices of the ancient rgime (the system of monarchy). Its promotion of individual rights influenced the revolutionaries. Montesquieu proposed the idea of a system of checks and balances, whereby a monarch should not operate with absolute power, but limits (e.g. a constitution, parliamentary bodies). There should be a separation of powers, he believed, into 3 branches: legislative (they make the laws), executive (they enforce the law) and judicial (the court system). This

inspired revolutionaries to demand this form of government in France, and to act in outrage against the absolute monarchy at the time. Voltaire's main ideas revolved around individual liberties. He believed that people should have freedom of expression, religion, movement, the press, etc. He spoke out against the financial inequality and the government oppression in France. His ideas inspired revolutionaries to seek greater liberal rights and liberty. Rousseau was the most radical of the philosophers. He believed in a rudimentary form of socialism. He believed that the ideal society would exist where there was no class distinction, no inequality, and everyone would work together towards ensuring the common good. He believed that the current monarchical system in France reduced people's liberties. He also believed that in a state of nature, a man untouched by civilization would act morally, this idea is sometimes confused with the idea of the "noble savage" a native who seemed to share the morality of the then current Europe. He believed that the French aristocracy was the embodiment of the corruption created by societal structure. Source: Century of Change: Europe from 1789 to 1918 by E. Alyn Mitchner and R. Joanne Tuffs There are two schools of thought on this matter regarding the French Revolution. The first is that they had No Role. This holds true if it is seen as a popular or grass roots revolt by the man on the street seeking bread and hope for an improved life for his family. (Call this the Bastille Revolt). The peasant could not read or write and had little knowledge of or interest in philosophy or enlightenment theory. He also had no time to indulge in such frivolity. His life was drudgery. He worked a twelve-hour day and could still not feed his family. The alternative is that it was the Guiding Light and focus (Call this the Tennis Court Oath Revolt). The people representing the Third Estate at the meeting of the Estates General were not illiterate peasants, but learned men and politically savvy. They were bright and articulate public leaders and they were familiar with the works of Locke, Voltaire and Rousseau. These were Doctors, Lawyers, Merchants and Bankers with as little knowledge of the plight and problems that faced the peasant as did the King. They were well aware of world affairs and they were in a position to act. They seized the revolt as their cause.

A Comparison of the French Revolution and American Revolution

Both the American Revolution and French Revolution were the products of Enlightenment ideals that emphasized the idea of natural rights and equality. With such an ideological basis, it becomes clear when one sets out to compare the French Revolution and American Revolution that people felt the need to be free from oppressive or tyrannical rule of absolute monarchs and have the ability to live independent from such forces. The leadership in both countries at the time of their revolutions was certainly repressive, especially in terms of taxation. Both areas suffered social and economic hardships that led to the realization that something must be done to topple the hierarchy and put power back into the hands of the people. While there are several similarities in these revolutions, there are also a few key differences. This comparison essay on the French and American Revolutions seeks to explore the parallels as well as the divisions that are present in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The political climate in France during its revolution was quite different than that in America simply because there was not a large war that had just ended in America (while in France the Seven Years War had nearly devastated the French monarchys coffers). Furthermore, although the lower and middle classes were generally the majority of the rebelling populace, there was far more upper class support for the revolution in France versus the participation of loyalists in America. One of the most important similarities between both the American Revolution and French Revolutions was that there was a growing dissent among the people aimed at the monarchy and its associated elite and aristocrats. Even though they were powerful in both France and America at the start of each revolution, their strangleholds on both the people and economies of each nation were weakening. For instance, In 1763 Britain was on the very pinnacle of worldwide power and her old enemies were seemingly prostrate. At the same time, however, the nation was beset with political instability and was stumbling on the edge of bankruptcy (Jensen 4). The reaction against the British monarchy in America only served to further weaken it and although it may have been strong in other parts of the world, the continued resistance exemplified by events such as the Boston Tea party and other revolutionary acts against the crown were taking their toll.

By the time the American Revolution was strong and the war was beginning, Britains defenses were already down since they had so quickly lost the vast amount of power they had gained in the prerevolutionary years. In France and in the case of the French Revolution, it was much the same and although some of the reasons differed for the revolution, on the whole, it was a very similar attack against the monarchy. In the eighteenth century, the French bourgeoisie had become aware of the increasing disparity between its wealth and social usefulness, on the one hand, and its social prestige and opportunities on the other. It way was blocked and recognition of its worth was denied by a decaying class of parasitic, hereditary privileged, noble landowners. Its vitality was further jeopardized by a monarchy not only committed to antiquated aristocratic values, but also incapable of giving the country that firm yet benignly restrained direction under which the initiative of men of business might flourish (Lucas 84). Just as in America, it was the middle and lower classes involved in the revolution and although the loyalists in America had a sound following, the demographics of the revolution were essentially the same. Another important similarity between the two revolutions in France and America was their emphasis on Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment, which started in France and is associated with writers such as Rousseau and Voltaire, caused those under the thumb of monarchies to begin to recognize the inequality inherent in such systems. People of all classes, especially the middle and lower classes, began to use these ideas to formulate an ideology of resistance and insist on the implementation of new measures that would guarantee the natural rights of all citizens. These ideas shaped the American Revolution and the success of it went on to also inspire the French as well. In France, the war was an ideological war, but anyone who tried to see it as a straight clash between Revolution and counter-revolution would soon become confused. Partisans of the Revolution differed violently with each other, as did their opponents. To different parties, the French Revolution might refer to specific events, like the capture of the Bastille, or to a vast personified force, or to an abstract cause for which the French or others might be fighting. It could mean taking titles away from dukes, giving bread to the poor, or mean the teachings of Jesus or Voltaire (Palmer 10). This statement would also apply to America during its revolutionary period and acts of rebellion could be anything such as boycotting goods from Britain to violently attacking loyalist and British enterprises. The final result was that there originated in the emergence of a new discourse on politics which grew up in opposition to the traditional ideology and practices of the old

monarchy (Sutherland 259) in both countries as Enlightenment ideals were put into practice. In the end, the prime fruit of independence was the national republic, resting its claim to resolve the old problem of American legitimacy on several bases. One was the charisma of General Washington, embodying as he did the states had fought the war together. Another was the half-realized myth of an ultimate popular sovereignty, superior to both the republic and the separate states (Countryman 283). Like in the case of the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the years leading up to it saw increasing dissatisfaction with the absolute monarchy, especially in terms of his unwillingness to bring in a meaningful parliament or engage with demands of the citizens. On top of this, the Seven Years War had increased taxes by a huge margin and no onenot even those in the upper echelons saw the potential for personal yield. The nobility was becoming a useless old structure and the boredom of many of these idle aristocrats led to planning action. In its French setting, then, the idea of revolution was inseparable from the condemnation of the past, which sharpened the will to exclude or eliminate those corrupt beneficiaries of the old order, the aristocrats (Furet 65). What was perhaps most striking about the French Revolution was that it wasnt merely a works revolt or a peasants rebellionit was a wide-scale assault on the monarchy and the old values that were now stagnating in a world that was opening to industrialization. The difference between France and America was that in America there was not a period of protracted wars outside of the country going on that would weaken the economy and necessitate the need for additional funds. Even though there were battles in America with the Indians, mostly in the pursuit of land, these did not match the scope and cost of the Seven Years War that had driven the French nearly to bankruptcy. On the other hand, the British, the opponent to the Americans, were weakened because of outside (mostly colonial and land-grabbing) wars. The people in America were less impoverished than their French counterparts although the British government was coming close to breaking the bank through massive taxation. There was also a difference in class participation in the Revolutions in America in France. In America, there were still a strong number of loyalists because they benefited from the great amount of favor they received from the British government. In France, however, even the nobles and aristocrats were angry at the monarchy because they were given less and less power. Although they still had money and a fair amount of control over local politics, they were almost figureheads instead of people with actual power. They saw that the king was limiting their role in government and they were part of the resistance effort as

well. This is not to say that all of the nobility took part in reaction against the monarchy but the numbers of French aristocrats that were rebelling was significant. Still, the similarity of the rest of the population sponsoring the revolts was strong in both France an America. From the top levels all the way to the lowest of laborers, everyone in France had a reason to want to prompt great change. The nobility wanted a greater stake in the future of the country, the middle classes wanted better representation and lower taxes, and the poor wanted to be able to earn a living and not be forced to give up well over half their earnings to a king theyd never seen for a war theyd never benefit from. While it seems that a majority of the focus of the French Revolution is on the plight and revolt of the working poor, the fact remains that this was a rebellion that was so effective because of this widespread support. Although there were certainly royalists among the rebellious French, their interests in crushing the revolt were equally self-centered. If they were lucky enough to enjoy a spot of favor with Louis XIV, certainly the lavish spoils that the monarch himself enjoyed were to be shared. With such nepotism, the introduction of an elected or mixed-class parliament would obliterate their security. Still, the ideas of the Enlightenment had gradually tricked down and soon enough, they may have had an influence on the agricultural poor. Whether sentimentalist ideas had been widely enough disseminated to influence the laboring poor in cities and in fields is an open question. There are indications that the topic of sentimentalism were familiar far down the social ladder (Reddy 109). In sum, these revolutions had more in common than it might appear despite the slight difference in time period and national histories. They were both reactions against an oppressive monarchy that taxed heavily and attempted to control its subject and they both reacted in part because of Enlightenment ideals. While there were different circumstances that effected the governments being rebelled against and there were different demographics of supporters, these revolutions had similar aims and achieved the similar result of a new republic and constitution as the final outcome.

Estates General
Definition: In medieval and early modern France, the Estates General was a representative body drawn from the three estates into which society had been theoretically divided: the First Estate was comprised of the clergy, the Second Estate the nobility, and the Third Estate everyone else. The Third Estate was thus a vastly larger proportion of the population

than the other two estates, but in the early Estates General they only had as much say as the other two estates had each. The Estates General originated in the thirteenth century, developing out of situations when monarchs needed support and developing across the centuries, but were called irregularly, being generally considered too unhelpful to use frequently, and never turned into a true representative institution. The meeting of the Estates General, which is best known, occurred in 1789, decades after it had last met. It was called when a French government desperate to introduce fiscal reform turned to it as a last resort. The dramatic inequality in voting led to the Third Estate demanding better representation, which contributed to the radicalization of the Estates General and the creation of a new National Assembly to better represent the nation. In turn, they also effectively started the French Revolution.