The primary issue that plagued France during the period leading up to the “Tennis Court Oath” and the “Oath Abolishing Feudalism” was the disparity between the different social classes in French society. One driving force of this disparity was the amount of monies spent by the monarchy and the first two estates of France that were funded by taxes levied, tithes demanded and rents imposed upon the Third Estate. Another was the lack of respect that the nobility showed towards the middle class of the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie. This group of about a million people consisted of doctors, lawyers, merchants, manufacturers and entrepreneurs who were the wealthiest demographic group in France; yet were still classified as members of the Third Estate and thus treated as inferior by the first two. Finally were the desperate conditions endured by the peasants; twenty-five million people held down with no hope or means of improving their lives.
Louis XIV’s reign truly exemplified the concept of an absolute monarch who only had God to answer to. It was only on his deathbed that he that expressed regrets about his life as advice to his heir, Louis XV. He encouraged his great-grandson to do more for the peo
. . .
They simply finished where they should have continued. Undeterred, they reconvened in a nearby, indoor tennis court vowing to remain in session until they had crafted a new constitution for the people of France. Even though he was able to avoid the costs of wars until 1740; Louis XV’s appetite for opulence, plus the lack of a proper banking system and the lack of fiscal support from the nobility created a financial disaster in France. Unlike comprehensive reforms, such as those of Jacques Turgot, the National Assembly’s solution was to correct the immediate needs based on the wrongs inflicted by the first two estates. The nobility insisted on the vote being tallied according to the customs of over 150 years prior – one vote per ‘Estate’. They only considered a solution in terms of the state in which they found themselves, they did not consider nor address the underlying forces that lead up to their situation. With their impressive numbers and the liberal nobles and clergy they knew they could rely on, the bourgeoisie wanted one vote per representative. "
The reign of Louis XV clearly shows that he did not pay much attention. ” is quite accurate describing the Assembly’s response to their estate’s circumstances. Turgot’s policies did not set well with the nobility. By 1787 half of the government’s expenses were used to pay the interest on the France’s debts. He “suppressed a multiplicity of officials of the ports, quays, halls, and markets of Paris, many … notoriously corrupt…” He even initiated “relatively trivial measures designed to reduce slightly the cost of living for the wage-earners… to promote a little more the freedom of trade, and… [provide] a small gain to the Treasury”. As I reflect on their decree I believe that Burke’s statement “We are but too apt to consider things in the state in which we find them, without sufficiently adverting to the causes by which they may be upheld. Much like Louis XIV, in his excellent choice of Jean-Baptiste Colbert; Louis XVI made well-respected choices for his ministers “…Vergennes, the ablest diplomatist of the day, for the Foreign Office; Malesherbes, a philanthropic reformer, as Home Secretary; Turgot, a famous economist and provincial administrator, as Minister of Finance and as pilot and ballast for the ship of State, Maurepas…”
Turgot was a Physiocrat who believed that mercantilism was economic death and the only way for nations to create wealth was through free trade.
Approximate Word count =
1282
Approximate Pages =
5 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
