Research Challenge
Part Two: Your next Challenge is to prove that these essential facts are either correct or incorrect by finding at least two sources or references to support your answer.
ESSENTIAL FACTS
The early revolutionaries in France were influenced by the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson was the U.S. minister to France at the time and was sympathetic to the causes of the Revolution although he condemned its violence. Jefferson even hosted a meeting of French revolutionary leaders. His support of the Revolution got him into trouble at home.
“Finally, the King was a fervent supporter of the American War of Independence and decided to help pro-independence fighters by sending them a tremendous amount of resources” - Bastille Day Website
“And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbearers fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” – John F. Kennedy
This statement is not true. There are many facts that disprove this statement. Firstly, the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution, which means that he could not have taken interest in it as it would not have even occurred at the time. The other reason is because it happened the opposite way around. King Louis XVI had become interested in the French Revolution, and agreed on their cause. He had spent large sums of money on it, as opposed to the statement in which it says Thomas Jefferson had become sympathetic of its cause. Lastly, Thomas Jefferson’s supposed support did not get him in trouble at home. Instead, King Louis XVI’s support for the American Revolution, had gotten him in major trouble in France, and even led to the French Revolution. Although his help with the American Independence led to their own victory, he did not realize what it would mean for his country. He spent a lot of money on their cause, so much so, that he had created a debt in France, that led to their very own revolution. The two sources convey this. The first quote, from a website about the economic crisis, states that he had spent a lot of money on the cause. He spent tremendous amounts, and shows how he created his own downfall. This disproves the statement above, as it talks about how King Louis XVI helped out the American Revolution, and not the other way around. The second quote, by American president John F. Kennedy, talks about the French Revolution. It talks about how the American Revolution relates to God, and that their rights come from Him. This is different to what the people of French Revolution believed in, which is also seen in the quote, as it states “the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state,” which is basically what the French Revolution was about, opposed to the American Revolution. This shows how different the values and intentions of the two revolutions were and shows that those involved in the American Revolution would have been less likely to be involved in the French Revolution as they had been fighting for two different power figures.
Although the Bastille was a hated prison, there were only nine prisoners within its walls on the day it was attacked and two of those were noblemen. The attackers were actually more interested in the large quantity of weapons and ammunition stored there.
This statement is true. When the angry mobs of people had stormed the Bastille, their intention was not to take those inside but to take the arms inside. As you can see in the two images above, the people of France are destroying the building, and callously killing many people. There are two things, in both images, that show how they were not there for the prisoners. The first is the bodies and violence that is being displayed in the two sources. In both of them you can see many dead bodies and bloodshed playing out, and if they were there to take the prisoners, whether it be for hostage or leadership, they would not be so careless as to kill so many people, to simply take nine prisoners. The other example is the violence that that is occurring in both sources. They both show weapons aimed at the Bastille and in the first you can see a lot of damage has already been done. If they were to be there for the prisoners, they would have been more subtle in their attempt to get inside and been more strategic. The method they are using is extremely destructive, and makes it easy for the prisoners to get out without being seen. If they are not there for the prisoners, then it is evident that they are there for the large stores of arms and ammunition.
On the night of June 21, 1791, after two years of virtual house arrest, the King and his family tried to escape dressed as servants. The escape was not well planned, and they were easily caught.
“The flight to Varennes was the royal family’s failed attempt to escape Paris in June 1791.” - Flight to Varennes site
This statement is correct. The royal family had attempted to escape the inevitable French Revolution, and had attempted to escape France, but were extremely unsuccessful in their attempt. This led to their capture and they were then taken back to Paris, and put up for trial. The three sources above show what happened during this failed attempt to escape. The two images depict the event. They show the people of France coming to take away the royal family, but it is not just the common people. It is also the higher estates, such as the nobility and the clergy, and also the military. The two sources show that the people had come to arrest the royal family, which also showed their extreme anger at the royalty. The reference, from a website talking about the event, talks about what happened in the event. That they had tried to escape and they had failed. Their escape had failed because of the terrible planning and also the terrible execution of the plan. At each of their stops, they had poorly disguised themselves, and been spotted by citizens at two of them. The plan was unsuccessful, and therefore they had been captured and taken back to France, which is clearly depicted in these three sources.
The Reign of Terror, led by Robespierre, led to the death of more than 18,000 citizens by the guillotine in the years 1793 to 1794. Immortalized by Charles Dickens in his Tale of Two Cities, innocent people made to kneel before the guillotine as it falls to strike off their heads is the most common image of the Revolution. Robespierre was himself sent to the guillotine on July 28, 1794. It was a moment of poetic justice.
"Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible" – Maximilien Robespierre
This statement is also true. The Reign of Terror was an event that occurred at the end of the French Revolution, where one of the leading revolutionaries went crazy with power, and sent thousands of citizens to the guillotine. The novel “Tale of Two Cities,” also shows the events that occurred in the French Revolution, including the French Revolution. These two sources also show the events that happened. The painting portrays what actually happened in the Reign of Terror. It shows the many people that crowded around the guillotine in which the people were executed. It shows the device that was used to execute the people, a guillotine, which was a block that used a dropping blade to decapitate one’s head. It shows the amount of people that were paraded into the square to be executed. They are seen being bought in on the carts and dragged onto the execution block. You can also see the military that had been bought in to guard the execution block, and assist in the execution of these innocent citizens. This quote from Maximilien Robespierre himself, states that terror is justice, and needs to be done to achieve righteousness. He seemed to think he was serving justice to their cause, by executing these citizens. It shows his view on the event, and that he thought that it had to be done, which is obviously untrue, as innocent people never need to be killed, even to prove a point or for a “good cause.”
Although she was villified by the French as vain and weak, it was Marie Antoinette who held her family together after their capture at Varennes. She was eventually accused of treason to the state. Her children were taken from her, and her husband was executed. She spent her last days in prison with the head of her best friend being paraded on a pike outside her window. After her final confession, a priest exhorted her to courage. She replied: “Courage! I have shown it for years; do you think I shall lose it at the moment when my sufferings are to end?”
This statement is also correct. Marie Antoinette was believed to be vain and weak, and was also given the nick-name “Madame Deficit,” for her wrong-doings. She had spent extreme amount of money on extravagant events and expenses, including parties, gifts and even her own village. Although the people thought that she was weak, she was the person that held everyone together in their time of distress. When King Louis XVI could not make any decisions, she had to step into place when he couldn’t do anything. The two sources above show this. The first shows her with her children, when the mobs had come to take her. She is standing confidently, ready to meet the fate that was inevitable from the beginning of the French Revolution. Yet, she stands as confident as ever and shows no sign of fear, of the imminent death. She is guarding her two children, while they are cowering away. Marie Antoinette is protecting her family in their troubles, and all the while being confident and fearless. She is protecting those she loves and looking after her family, holding them together. The second source shows her right before her execution. She is once again confident and courageous. She is standing upright, and does not appear to be fearing her death that is almost upon her. This shows her confidence as an influential woman, and shows how she was one of the most courageous people in the French Revolution. These sources show that although she was portrayed as a vain, self-centered woman, she was really a confident, courageous woman, who held together those around her, while they were all in a time of great distress.
.
What Was The Tennis Court Oath?
During the Estates-General meeting, the Third Estate (people of France), had become angered at the fact that they did not actually have a say in what happened in the meeting and were not allowed to speak what they thought. After being mistreated for their whole lives, they decided to take a stance against it and create their own group, called the National Assembly. The idea was that it would be similar to the Estates-General, but not under the King’s supervision. They had asked the other two Estates (clergy and nobles), to join them as they too had been angered by the King’s decision. After the National Assembly had been created, the King, in a desperate attempt to stop them, had locked all the doors and had put up troops to guard the doors to the assigned meeting area of the Estates-General. When they had left to meet there, they had found these troops, and instead they decided to meet in the nearest available space, which happened to be the Tennis Court in the Versailles. After meeting at the Tennis Court, 577 deputies took an oath, that had been written by Emmanuel Sieyès, that stated that they would remain as a group, united, until they had written a new national constitution that would be both drafted and then implemented. This act of defiance became a symbol of the revolutionary rebelliousness that they people were willing to take, to get the rights they deserve.
Did Marie Antoinette really say "Let Them Eat Cake?"
Despite popular belief Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake.” There are varying stories behind why Marie Antoinette may have said Let them eat cake. These include, when she was sent to the guillotine by a group of starving French peasants she cried “Let them eat cake,” or another story is that when she was told the French peasants were starving she exclaimed, “Let them eat cake.” Yet, none of these stories are true as she never actually spoke those words, or in her case “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” The evidence behind this, is that this saying was actually written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in an autobiography titled “Confessions.” At the time of the release Marie Antoinette was 10 years old, and had not even been to France, let alone lived there. As well as this, he had also talked about the same phrase in a letter that was written 18 years before she had been born. This means that either he had come up with the phrase on his own, or he had been referencing her mother, Marie Therese. Therefore, it is not possible for her to have said this famous phrase, that she is so well known for.
How Long Did the French Revolution Last?
The time frame between which the French Revolution started and began is quite broad, but the general dates seem to be from 1789-1799. The believed beginning of the French Revolution is the Storming of the Bastille, an event where the people of France had stormed the Bastille prison in Paris and taken away the stores of arms and ammunition. This event occurred on July 14, 1789, and is thought to have been the beginning of the French Revolution. The end of the French Revolution was marked sometime around 1799. Therefore, it lasted for around 10 years. Throughout the French Revolution many things happened that led to one of the most important historical event, that represents what people can achieve with their own sheer will.
What Was The Coup D'eTat Of 18 Brumaire?
The Coup D’etat of 18 Brumaire was the Coup D’etat of Napolean Bonaparte. A Coup D’etat is when a state is forced to seize, and is usually started by a small group of the current government and are used to overthrow the current “ruling body,” and replace it with a new one. In this case it was performed by Napoleon Bonaparte. The 18 Brumaire was the date of it, although it sounds irregular because it is in the French Revolutionary Calendar, which would be the same as November 9 on a traditional calendar.
What Was The French Revolutionary Calendar?
The French Revolutionary Calendar was implemented into France on the 24th of November 1793 and was eradicated on the 1st of January 1806. It was created with the intention to get rid of any “religious and royalist influences” the calendar previously had. On the calendar one year was made up of either 365 or 366 days, which was split into 12 months, with each of them being 30 days long, and sometimes an additional 5 or 6 days would be added on the end. Each month was not made up of weeks, but was made up of “decades” which were ten days long and on the final day they would rest. This was meant to be an attempt to “de-Christianize the calendar,” but was quite unsuccessful as they had nine days of work, before rest whereas others, such as the Georgian Calendar, only had 6 work days, before rest.
Part One: Your Challenge is to find the answers to these questions. Record your answers.
