Impact of Terror on the French Revolution

How far do you agree that Terror was necessary to save the Revolution?


In the space of around a century, beginning in 1789 and ending the in the late 1790s, the political landscape within France changed dramatically. Multiple issues encapsulated France, including economic unrest,  which boiled over leading to a revolution, destroying age old institutions that had controlled France for centuries. The monarchy and the feudal system came crashing down, allowing capitalism to start a new reign over the country. It is without question that the radical nature of the revolution pushed the boundaries of what was possible in the Western World and Europe. The Revolutionary government did not have everything their own way during this seizure of power. There was a counter-revolution breaking out from the Vendee and hostile armies surrounded France on all sides. This led to the introduction of the Reign of Terror by the National Convention, which lasted from September 1793 to July 1794, when the overthrow of Robespierre led to a winding down of the violence. It was a period of violence marked by mass executions of enemies of the revolution. It could be said that the Reign of Terror was a necessary evil to keep the Revolutionary government alive and kicking. The terror took a variety of forms during the revolution but it is widely agreed on by historians that the Reign of Terror generally refers to the period when the Jacobins had a majority within the government and Robespierre was the face of it. As the Jacobins gained control of the Committee of Public Safety, which in turn controlled the legislature (the Convention), the disputes among their factions sharpened. After an interregnum of shared power, Robespierre became dictator, and the Terror started in earnest. It took the form of the arrest, show trial, and execution of thousands of people, including the leaders of the Girondins and the opposing Jacobin factions. Robespierre played a major role in the Reign of Terror, as one historian, Albert Soboul, stated, Robespierre was a ‘defender of democracy’ and not simply ‘content to defend the Revolution against the privileged classes’[1], suggesting how Robespierre wanted to fight back against anyone who challenged the revolutionaries, which is exactly what can be seen through his actions during the Reign of Terror in his role in the Committee of Public Safety. Nonetheless, the extremities of the terror were clear for all to see in France with over sixteen thousand official death sentences. However was this sheer amount of terror necessary to save the revolution in France? Could the National Convention and Committee of Public safety dealt with the counter revolutionaries in other ways? It could be argued that terror is necessary for all revolutions and governments to work, as it has been evident in both the Russian Revolution and through the Nazis in Germany since. Nevertheless since the Furies of the French Revolution terror has become an even more disconcerting and controversial issue, ‘even more complex and perplexing than that of violence’[2].

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Terror was always an underlying issue in France from the beginning of the revolution in 1789, as it started with ‘spontaneous and wild terror from below’[3]  with the explosion of the popular violence that spread throughout Paris from 1789. This led into the prison massacres of September 1792. However none of this would compare to the scale to the ‘terror from above’ that was about to unfold in France. As it was put by Arno J.Mayer, these terrors from below were the ‘embryo and precipitant of a would-be-legitimate and quasi legal terror from above, which was formally adopted and proclaimed in September 1793[4]. However what events led to this Reign of Terror? As Marisa Linton highlighted in her paper ‘The Terror in the French Revolution’, ‘There were three principal reasons for the Jacobin Terror.’[5] These were the strength of the counter revolution, ‘the lack of a parliamentary tradition within France to give revolutionaries experience in the management of political parties and majority voting, and to accustom them to accept the legitimacy of opposing political views’[6]. With the ‘third, and most overwhelming reason, was the war with foreign powers that began in April 1792. The exigencies of war, coupled with fears of invasion and conquest by an alliance of counter-revolutionary French nobles and key powers including Austria, Prussia, Britain and Spain, led to demands for a war economy, the recruitment of troops, and requisitioning of supplies’[7]. The people of France had started to doubt the revolutionaries. But did all these reasons amount to Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety needing terror to grab back control and keep the revolution alive?

These three reasons as stated above do highlight and suggest why terror was necessary in saving the French revolution. The National Convention had many enemies both abroad and at home that were challenging the status of the revolution. Least of all were the civil wars that were breaking out in the country, commonly referred to as the ‘wars in the west’ or the ‘Vendee Revolution’[8]. But was terror indeed needed to save the revolution from these counter revolutionaries? Jean-Clement Martin looks into the Vendee and the counter revolutionaries in his work ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and The State, 1791-99’. Martin states that ‘The Vendee, as it was to become generally known after 1793, was at first linked to the most important decisions taken by the central state. The Committee of Public Safety owed its very existence to it’[9]. This suggests how The Committee of Public Safety, a major contributor to the Reign of Terror, would not have existed without the counter revolutionaries. Nonetheless Martin goes on to describe the many battles that took place between the Vendee and the revolutionaries as the country spiralled into a civil war. It was said by Martin however that the Vendeans actually retreated at battles including at Nantes and Lucon in 1793[10]. This portrays how if the Committee of Public Safety had not become involved with their own ‘operations’ the war may as been able to play out by itself and the use of terror, on whatever scale, may have been unnecessary. However Martin provides a rather interesting insight into the Convention and Committee of Public Safety’s actions toward the Vendee suggesting that it ‘served as a yardstick by which other uprisings were judged’[11]. Martin provides the example of how the Vendee were used as a scapegoat to describe the disturbances in the Massif Central. Moreover ‘The Vendee was a scarecrow used to justify and impose any measures, however exceptional’[12]. This is seemingly referring to the terror used by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety that was utilised to defeat the counter revolutionaries. Martin goes on to highlight how there was a ‘terrorist rhetoric that arose around the Vendee’, compounding how the use of terror by the revolutionaries was utilised in great effect. However it was not actually this use of terror that ended the counter revolutionaries charge. A change in the Convention’s policies allowed Charette, the Vendean leader, to negotiate a declaration of peace in February 1795, interestingly enough after the end of the Reign of Terror. Overall this brings to question whether the terror was necessary in order to save the revolution in this circumstance. Is terror not needed in every successful revolution and creation of a new government to coerce the people, and without this use of widespread terror toward the counter revolutionaries, they could have grown stronger and defeated the revolution

One major question that could be raised by historians is that was the excessive use of terror necessary in order to save the revolution from threats from abroad and at home, or was the use of terror utilized predominantly by Robespierre to keep him feeling safe and out of danger from his own political enemies within the revolutionary government. Therefore was the use of terror actually necessary to save the revolution or just Robespierre’s own political gains? It was certainly true that fear had been internalised within the politicians and as Marisa Linton highlighted it is a characteristic of terror that people really venture out to say what they really think[13]. After the Jacobin factions had been destroyed in the Spring, each Jacobin was afraid of one another. These politicians had greatly benefitted from the use of terror to reach the positions they were in but now they were afraid the terror would be switched onto them. There was an uncertainty about whether the French would lose the wars abroad, whether the counter revolution would win and what would happen if the popular violence turned onto them. That is why when the day came ‘the image of Robespierre as the sole initiator of Jacobin ideology and the Terror was encouraged by the group of Jacobins that joined forces to overthrow him’[14]. This suggests how no Jacobin felt safe and comfortable with the excessive terror being put on France and could portray how these politicians that were leading the revolution with Robespierre did not feel that this use of terror was necessary to save the revolution. This is something that Linton addresses in her work stating that ‘There is evidence that some of the Jacobins were looking for a way out of terror in the Spring of 1794’[15]. Overall I believe that this does highlight how many of the politicians around Robespierre did not feel that this terror was necessary. However, Robespierre clung to his ‘ideology of political virtue’[16].

One man that would have a steadfast belief that the terror was certainly necessary to save the revolution was Robespierre himself. He had created an ideology of terror within the Jacobin party, that he felt was crucial toward the revolutionary push. Indeed, in his speech to the convention, given on the 5th of February 1794, Robespierre gave his reasons for the justification of the terror. By this point the threat from abroad had been largely dealt with and the threat from the Vendee had also been pacified. So why did the Reign of Terror continue throughout 1794? It had already been utilised to ‘save the revolution’, hence why was it necessary for the terror to continue? During this speech Robespierre highlights that terror ‘is nothing more than justice, prompt, severe and inflexible’[17]. This clearly highlights his viewpoint on the terror and certainly suggests his clear ideology. However it has been noted that by 1794 Robespierre was emotionally and mentally shattered suggesting that he felt the use of terror was the only single way he was able to keep power. Overall Robespierre’s view on the use of terror was extremely clear, it was necessary to save the revolution and lead France to liberty.

To conclude I believe that terror had to be a necessary excess of the revolution and that could not be avoided. Afterall it has been evident in many of the revolutions that have happened since the French revolution. Nevertheless i do not totally agree that terror was necessary to save the revolution. The wars abroad and at home were not able to fully play out before the insurrection of the Committee of Safety. Nonetheless, the question remains if one can argue that the terror was no more lethal than other government policies resulting in mass death in and around the late eighteenth century, then why has it “been viewed as exceptional? Afterall Lefebvre suggested that the terror was the exercise of a ‘punitive will’ against a class enemy, he also justified it as necessitated by crisis of 1793 and the need for the assertion of executive power in an increasingly chaotic state of affairs.Overall I do believe that terror was a necessary evil in the French Revolution, however the excessive nature in which it was used was not needed and it was not the sole reason that ‘saved the revolution’.





Burney, John.M; The Fear Of The Executive and the Threat of Conspiracy: Billaud-Varennes Terrorist Rhetoric in the French Revolution, 1788–1794, French History, Volume 5, Issue 2, 1 June 1991, Pages 143–163,

Kennedy, Michael L. “The Foundation of the Jacobin Clubs and the Development of the Jacobin Club Network, 1789-1791.” The Journal of Modern History 51, no. 4 (1979): 701-33.

Linton, Marisa, ‘The Robespierrists and the Republic of Virtue’ in ‘Choosing Terror; virtue, friendship, and authenticity in the French Revolution’, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.227-240

Linton, Marisa, ‘The Terror in the French Revolution’, Kingston University UK,,20545,en.pdf

Mayer, Arno J.. The Furies : Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Accessed January 11, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

McPhee, Peter, ed. Companion to the French Revolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2012. Accessed January 11, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Mitchell, H. “Vendémiaire, a Revaluation.” The Journal of Modern History 30, no. 3 (1958): 191-202.

“Robespierre, “On Political Morality”,” Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, accessed January 11, 2019,

Scurr, Ruth. ‘Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution’. Vintage Books, London, 2006

Soboul, A. “Robespierre and the Popular Movement of 1793-4.” Past & Present, no. 5 (1954): 54-70.

Word Count- 2230

[1] Soboul, A. “Robespierre and the Popular Movement of 1793-4.” (pp.55)

[2] Mayer, Arno J.. The Furies : Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions, (pp.93)

[4] Mayer, Arno J.. The Furies : Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions, (pp.101)

[5] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Terror in the French Revolution’, (pp.1)

[6] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Terror in the French Revolution’, (pp.1)

[7] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Terror in the French Revolution’, (pp.1)

[8] Jean-Clement Martin in ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and the State, 1791-99’, Companion to the French Revolution. (pp.246)

[9] Jean-Clement Martin in ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and the State, 1791-99’, Companion to the French Revolution. (pp.252)

[10] Jean-Clement Martin in ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and the State, 1791-99’, Companion to the French Revolution. (pp.253)

[11] Jean-Clement Martin in ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and the State, 1791-99’, Companion to the French Revolution. (pp.253)

[12] Jean-Clement Martin in ‘The Vendee, Chouannerie, and the State, 1791-99’, Companion to the French Revolution. (pp.253)

[13] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Robespierrists and the Republic of Virtue’ in ‘Choosing Terror; virtue, friendship, and authenticity in the French Revolution’ (pp.227)

[14] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Robespierrists and the Republic of Virtue’ (pp.228)

[15] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Robespierrists and the Republic of Virtue’ (pp.229)

[16] Linton, Marisa, ‘The Robespierrists and the Republic of Virtue’ (pp.229)

[17] Robespierre, “On Political Morality”,” Liberty, Equality, Fraternity


Reasons for English Colonization and American Revolution

A)    Reasons for English Colonization

According to the text, the two major political reasons for England’s colonization of North American are the opportunity for expansion of profit and the different ways to make money, and the expansion of colonies on American soil to ensure that Spain and France didn’t take over all the land.

 There were also social reasons for expanding the English Empire. With new land, the English would be able to improve their agriculture and crops which would lead to an increase in population. Due to the these factors, the English economy increased drastically so fast, but negatively affected the economy because as the population increases the prices increased but the wages decreased. When landowners raised rents, seized lands they displaced their tenants.

B) Economic, Social and Political Characteristics

Economic System

Social Characteristics

Political System


 The initial economy depended on the shipbuilding, fishing, fur, and lumber trades. Originally dependent on agriculture, fishing and trade,

Church membership was a prerequisite for voting. All the early English colonies, north and south, taxed residents to build churches and pay ministers’ salaries, but only New England based criminal codes on the Old Testament. New Englanders were required to attend religious services. Their leaders also believed the state was obliged to support the one true church—theirs. These laws forbade people to be drunk, play, cards,, dance, or even curse.

Company elected John Winthrop, a member of the lesser English gentry, as its governor. Winthrop organized the initial segment of the great Puritan migration. political power was limited a government run by religious officials who would enforce religious principles


Tobacco was the major cash crop of Virginia and It was mostly grown by slaves. Tobacco was used to buy everything including things important from England.

Virginia households were run by the father, and by law followed the Church of England.

Virginia colony operated under what historian Edmund S. Morgan has called a “semi-military dictatorship,” but the discovery of tobacco as a money-making crop and the establishment of an elected legislature, the General Assembly, placed the most political power in the hands of wealthy planters.

North/ South Carolina

Tobacco and corn were major cash crops of the Carolinas. Cattle and corn were sold to the caribbean harvesters. They also exported slaves Indian Slaves

The father was in charge of all the money and was responsible for managing it. It was ran like a totalitarian household.

Governors were elected by men who owned property of legislatures, the judiciary included county courts and appeal courts.


C) Major ideas and events led to the Revolution

There were several events leading up to the American Revolution that was the start of the Americanization of the Colonies. John Locke, an enlightenment theorist believed that no person was born with knowledge in their head, that it was all learned through questions and observation. One of the events was the enlightenment, which consisted of curiosity, questioning and knowledge through reason. The Enlightenment educated Europeans and Americans with a common vocabulary and a unified worldview. This theory challenged a hierarchical political order originating in the power of fathers over families. There were many colonial conflicts amongst one another. Wars among Indian nations was Europe’s first conflict, and when the British, French, Spanish, and Dutch arrived in America, their political, religious, and mercantile tensions of effected the new colonies. These wars were fought by the colonials alone, lacking resources from a mother country. Americans at the same time were brainstorming strategies that would beat the Indian ambushing of men marching in European formations.

Find Out How Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our services

 The new colonies didn’t only face conflicts from war but from the government. They faced Imperial regulations such as the Sugar Act and Stamp Act. The Sugar Act, revised existing customs regulations and laid new regulations on some imports into the colonies. The Sugar Act was designed to raise revenue, not to channel American trade through Britain. The Stamp Act (1765), required tax stamps on most printed materials, placing the heaviest burden on members of the colonial elite. Those who used printed matter more intensively than did ordinary folk were affected the most. The Colonies had their own ways of fighting back against the government. One act of rebellion was the burning of the Gaspee, the revenue schooner Gaspee ran aground near Providence, Rhode Island and was burnt by locals angered by the enforcement of trade legislation. Also the Boston Tea Party who were angered by the Tea Acts, disguised as Mohawk Indians and dumped £9,000 of East India Company tea into the Boston harbour.

D) Effects of Political, Social changes on Native Americans, Women, and African Americans.

Many different groups were affected by the American Revolution. The three groups that were mainly affected where the women, Native Americans, and the African Americans. After the American revolution, women began to fight for their rights and they had more say. Women’s rights became of great interest after the American Revolution. Abigail Adams, John Locke’s wife, advocated for women’s rights and disagreed that men should have complete control of the household and money and this begun the start of the women’s suffrage. Native Americans who were once the enemy of the new colonies, was now becoming accepted and Americans were trying to Americanize them and make them adopt American Culture. They taught them American way such as farming instead of hunting. Lastly, African Americans were no longer used as slaves across all colonies. Different states had different laws on slavery, and were no longer using slaves to harvest their crops. Although there social status had changed, life in general was much harder for them, and in many states they were not able to vote, or speak against white men in court.

E. List of References

Norton, M.B (2015). A People & a Nation. Retrieved from https://lrps.wgu.egu/provision/5354310

Causes of the American Revolution

American Revolutionary War

What caused the American Revolution?

The American Revolution was motivated by many different reasons. The citizens living in the American colonies at the time were driven by many factors that lead them to declare independence from Great Britain. Some of these factors include social, cultural, economic, and political issues, among others. However, the main cause for the American Revolution that is taught over and over in history classes in the modern day is that the colonies did not accept Great Britain’s tyrannical rule and wanted independence from the British empire in order to govern themselves. While this is true, a mix of other internal and external problems influenced the war and the outcome of it. Two historians that have studied the American Revolution extensively are Bernard Bailyn and Ben Baack, and they have studied the war from an economic and political standpoint. There are many viewpoints of how and why the American Revolution was caused, but the economic and political perspectives of this particular war are not commonly studied, although they were two of the most important factors. These two opposing viewpoints have similarities in addition to their differences, but overall the most important factor concerning the American Revolutionary War was the economic restrictions Great Britain placed on the American colonies.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

There are many opposing views of the causation of the American Revolutionary War. Most commonly, it is known as the war between Great Britain and the American colonies over the colonies’ desire for independence from Great Britain’s rule. There are various theories about the causes and effects of the American Revolutionary War over different periods all throughout history. The best known theory about the cause of the war is that after a long period of salutary neglect, in which trade regulations for the colonies were loosely enforced and British supervision of internal colonial affairs was restricted (Wallenfeldt, Salutary Neglect), the American colonies then rejected the British government’s attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs at a later time. The British government’s attempts at control were basically imposing strict and harsh taxes on the colonies.

The British Parliament continued to impose new laws and taxes on the American colonists in order to finance the heavy costs of war against other foreign countries. For example, in 1764, the British government imposed the Sugar Act, which increased the tax on sugar and other imported goods such as textiles, coffee, wine, and dyes. In 1765, the Stamp Act was the first direct tax on the American colonies: all printed materials were to be taxed including newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice, and playing cards. These two acts were met with the greatest amount of resistance by the American colonists.

Bernard Bailyn is a Harvard University professor, and he has taught there since 1949. He has written many books about the American Revolution and the time period surrounding the war. Bailyn’s writing has changed the way early American history has been perceived as well as emphasizing the influence of ideology and radical republican ideals on the Americans that lead the Revolutionary War. He argued that British Whig ideologies had a large impact on the thinking on the leaders of the American Revolution and the colonists strongly believed in liberty and freedom, and independence from a tyrannical government.

 In 1967, Bernard Bailyn wrote The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, which was a study of the American political pamphlets and their creators during the Revolutionary time period. According to Bailyn, radical ideas about power, liberty, and fears of conspiracy by the British government to take over the colonies’ freedom completely propelled the American colonies into the Revolution to gain their freedom. Bailyn’s analysis concluded that the American patriots very strongly believed that the British monarchy was in fact a tyranny – the colonists had no say in how they were governed – and that they intended to take away their freedom. A central belief of the American patriots was that republicanism and liberty were not used as propaganda, but were rather real ideas that most, if not all, colonists believed in.

American colonists wanted to be able to make their own choices rather than have the British monarchy impose strict laws on them and in turn eventually lose control over their government, which they had created in the British empire’s period of neglect. In this case, resistance was necessary and vital in order to secure the safety and well being of the American colonies, their freedom, and the people living there. Then, Bailyn went on to discredit Charles A. Beard’s theory that the American Revolution was, in reality, a war between the social classes living in the colonies and that liberty meant nothing to the revolutionaries. In fact, these radical new ideas actually meant everything to the revolutionaries.

 Bernard Bailyn also had very specific historical views. He believes that the revolutionary ideas of the American patriots were an extension of the British Whig theories from the 17th and 18th centuries. These theories focused on the protection of individual rights from a tyrannical government, such as how Great Britain was towards the American colonies. British Whig ideology was developed through many pieces of writing by various authors such as John Locke, John Trenchard, and Thomas Gordon, in addition to other members of the Whig party such as William Atwood, Robert Ferguson, and Henry Hallam. These pieces of writing about old British Whig ideology showed that ideas such as virtue, sovereignty in the people, and separation of power were also paralleled in the American Revolution (Nam, The Whig Ideology’s Influence on American Politics).

The British Whig party believed that the best solution to keep a large government in check was to create a contract between the government and the people being governed in order for the state to become overall more democratic. According to these ideologies, the people being governed have to be able to find it in their best interest to sacrifice some of their individual freedoms in order for the government to secure their well-beings, which is still a theory believed in the modern day (Nam, The Whig Ideology’s Influence on American Politics). As a matter of fact, the new government the American colonists set up for themselves after breaking away from the British empire was a true reflection of the influence these British Whig ideologies had over the American colonists.

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution showed how the American Revolution developed from British Whig ideology rather than the colonies’ extensive isolation from England. The ideology of republicanism, which is defined as the ideology that is embraced by members of a republic, which is a form of representational government in which leaders are elected for a specific period by the preponderance of the citizenry, and laws are passed by these leaders for the benefit of the entire republic, rather than select members of a ruling class, or aristocracy (Marcus Hawkins, A Definition of Republicanism), was influenced by the ideas of civic virtue, corruption, “given” rights, and fear of large governmental power. Bailyn also demonstrates non-acceptance of previous accepted views about the American revolutionaries in his work. These previous views include the progressive view, that the revolutionaries acted from self-interest, and the conservative view, that the revolutionaries wanted to keep the social classes the same. Bailyn believes that the American Revolution leaders were political visionaries due to their radical beliefs about government and freedom.

The Revolution itself was driven by a “transforming libertarian radicalism”, in Bailyn’s own words. American political culture was influenced by the themes of 18th century radical libertarianism. The American colonists believed that power, such as in the form of the government, was an evil necessity that needed to be controlled, limited, and restricted because it was corrupting to men (Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution). Bernard Bailyn stated that “Written constitutions, the separation of powers; bill of rights, limitations on executives, on legislatures, and courts, restrictions on the right to coerce and wage war – all express the profound distrust of power that lies at the ideological heart of the American Revolution…”. In summary, the American Revolution was propelled and motivated by the American revolutionaries’ deep distrust in the British monarchy and government and the fear that the British Parliament would take away the colonists’ individual rights based off of old British Whig ideologies, according to Bernard Bailyn’s political perspective on the American Revolution.

The second historian that had an economic viewpoint on the American Revolutionary War is Ben Baack, who is a professor at Ohio State University. He wrote the Essay on the Economics of the American Revolution. This sort of viewpoint of the American Revolution analyzes the war and its causes based on the economic standards in the world at the time. One economic viewpoint that Baack believes is that the colonies were pulled into a revolution due to the economic challenges they faced from the British government. Due to the colonies being a part of the British empire, they were protected from foreign invasion by the British military and in return were asked to follow regulations for foreign trade (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War). Once economic policies surrounding taxation came into play, the British government faced heavy backlash from the American colonists due to the economic losses they suffered as a result of these new changes.

There were two large, fundamental changes in British economic policies that lead to problems between the British government and the American colonists. The first change was about Western land. The Proclamation of 1763 and Quebec Act of 1774 proclaimed that colonists could not settle in the isolated land between the Allegheny Mountains and the Mississippi River or trade with the Native Americans without the expressed, written permission from the British government. These new laws lead to individuals, colonies, and land companies losing claims on that land, which lead to a loss of revenue (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War). The policy was enforced to maintain the British government’s control over the Western fur trade by restricting settlement areas of the colonists in the areas where the fur came from. In turn, the American colonists lost opportunities to expand their land and chances to earn more money, which infuriated them as the point of this law was to ensure that the British government would be able to keep all the revenue generated from that land.

Find Out How Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our services

The second change the British government imposed on the American colonists was taxation. A British victory after their war with France lead to an incredibly high cost, and the government debt doubled. The British Parliament had previously placed a standing army in North America to enforce the Western land policies they had forced on the American colonists. The British government decided that because the colonies were a part of the British empire and domestic taxes in England were already very high, the American colonies should share in the debt of their government.

Due to the British government’s belief about the American colonies being a part of their empire, they passed a series of tax acts on the colonies. The Sugar Act of 1764, among others, were very unpopular. Some of the most unpopular tax acts were the Stamp Act of 1765, which required stamps for a large range of documents and other goods, was commonly imposed in England. The Quartering Act of 1765 required the American colonists to house members of the British military in their own homes and provide food and transportation for them without being compensated. The Townshend Acts of 1767 imposed taxes on imported goods and a board was put in place by the British government in order to collect the revenue generated. These tax acts were expected to gather enough money to finance the standing army in the American colonies but was less than the tax on the people in England (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War). However, the American colonists were still outraged and felt that the British government was being unfair and tyrannical towards them. These tax acts lead to the development of the idea of taxation without representation. The American colonists believed that they should have a say in what taxes should have been enforced and wanted representation in their government overseas.

The outrage of the American colonists lead to them organizing economic boycotts. The revolutionaries discovered that economic boycotts were increasingly more effective than petition and lobbying boycotts, which were more peaceful forms of protest. A petition boycott was when a large amount of citizens signed a paper calling for reform and a lobbying boycott was the citizens directly asking Parliament for a change. Representatives from nine colonies met at the Stamp Act Congress in New York in 1765 and organized a mass boycott against imported British goods. Due to the shocking success of these boycotts, American merchants petitioned the British Parliament to repeal the tax acts. In 1766 the British government decided to repeal the Sugar and Stamp Acts, then later on in 1770 repealed all of the Townshend Acts except for the tax on tea, and also did not re-enact the Quartering Act. In order to cement their control and power over the American colonies, British Parliament passed the Declaratory Act of 1766, which stated that the British Parliament had the full power and authority over the American colonies to make whatever laws they thought were necessary, including laws about taxation (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War).

However, even with the British repeals on the tax acts, the American colonists rebelled against the monarchy. The Tea Act of 1773 allowed the East India Tea Company to ship tea to America, causing American merchants to lose potential profits. A small group of American revolutionaries in Boston illegally boarded British ships and dumped out all of their tea in the harbor, which became known in history as the Boston Tea Party. The British Parliament became angry when they received word of the colonists’ actions and would not tolerate that kind of behavior from their subjects under any kind of circumstance, so they decided to pass the Intolerable Acts. On September 5th, 1774, the first Continental Congress was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was attended by delegates, or representatives, from the colonies. The American colonists believed that the British government was continuing to take away their power due to the fact that the British monarchy was a tyranny and therefore decided to do something about it. At the Continental Congress, the delegates organized an embargo of trade with Great Britain. The delegates also decided that if Parliament did not repeal their acts, they would meet again in May of 1775 for the Second Continental Congress. In response, the British Parliament decided to use their military as a show of force against the American colonies. In April of 1775, there was a military confrontation at Lexington and Concord between the colonists and the British military, and the Revolutionary War began (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War).

The delegates met within a month of this issue and resolved on a few important topics. First, they created a Continental army to protect the American colonies, and bought weapons and ammunition for the soldiers. Second, they created a Continental currency as a new monetary value for the colonies. Thirdly, they decided to allow the Continental army to raid Canada. The British Parliament was shocked at what the American colonists were doing, so the King of England told the British Parliament that the colonists formed their own government and wanted their independence from the British empire although the colonies had not formally announced it yet (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War).

Baack believes that there were major economic incentives for the American colonists. Avoidance of taxes from Great Britain was not a major economic incentive for independence. The taxes on the American colonists were somewhat reasonable, even though the American revolutionaries did not see it that way. The incentive might have been in the form of the rejection of British control over colonial trade (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War). The American colonists viewed British regulations over international trade poorly because they believed that the British government was trying to restrict their income and take the colonies’ profits for their own country overseas. Once these regulations were gone, American merchants were free to trade with the world and gain profits unrestricted, which was a major benefit to the colonies.

In his essay, Baack cites a man he refers to as “Thomas”. Thomas used a counterfactual analysis to find out how the American economy would have looked like if there had been no Navigation Acts. He compared American trade under the Navigation Acts to what would have happened if the colonies had been independent after the Seven Years War. Then, he calculated the loss of consumer and producer surplus to America of goods had been shipped indirectly through England. However, he was slightly wrong based on his estimated value of British protection and bounties given to the colonies. The outcome of this analysis is that Thomas concluded that the Acts passed by the British government were a net burden of less than one percent of colonial per capita income (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War). He also concluded that these acts were not the direct cause of the Revolution, which were consistent with the findings of the First Continental Congress.

Other economic historians believe that the colonists cared more about the future economic costs due to their status under the British empire, such as higher taxes and restrictions on world trade further down the line. The Declaratory Act, as mentioned beforehand, showed the American colonies that the British Parliament did not want to give up their rights to tax the colonists. Colonists had protested up until 1775 using petitions, lobbying, boycotts, and even violence in order to make a change in their government but felt like they had made no progress in Parliament, and things would not ever change. They had no representation in Parliament and the slogan “no taxation without representation” became a major propaganda line for the revolutionary cause. Baack stated that “…the economic incentive for independence would have been avoiding the potential future costs of remaking from in the British empire (Baack, The Economics of the American Revolutionary War).”

The political, social, and cultural standpoints on the American Revolutionary War were all central to the main ideas behind the separation of the colonies from Great Britain, but the most important factor was economics. Unrestricted trade and profits, no more harsh taxes, as well as the benefit of ruling themselves and deciding upon their own economy was incredibly appealing to the American patriots. It did not make sense for the colonies to finance Britain’s reconstruction and economy after a war they had no part in, although they were technically part of the British empire. The American colonists began forming their own identity after a long period of salutary neglect from the British government, and when the British government started to impose on their newfound freedom, the American revolutionaries resisted. Declaring independence from the tyrannical British government had major economic incentives for the American colonies that could not be ignored any longer.

Although Bernard Bailyn and Ben Baack both studied the American Revolution extensively, they both have different viewpoints on how and why the American Revolutionary War was caused. Bailyn believes that the American revolutionaries were propelled by the political tension between Great Britain and the American colonies while Baack believes that they were motivated by the world’s economic factors at the time. However, they do share similarities in their perspectives. Both historians believe that the American colonies had a deep distrust in the British government, albeit for political or economic reasons. Their hatred of their government was a huge reason in why the war was caused, but the question of what was the most driving factor that prompted the revolutionary war remains. The American colonies hated the laws that the British government forced on them, such as not allowing them to settle on new land. But one thing the Americans hated more than the land laws were the laws about taxes and money. The American colonies felt detached and distant from the British empire and did not feel the need to support them after they had been ignored by British Parliament for so long. The economic reasons and incentives outweighed any other reason for the revolutionaries to start a war between America and Great Britain because they wanted their money to support America and its people, not some far off country they did not care about whatsoever.

Works Cited

Baack, Ben. “The Economics of the American Revolutionary War.” EHnet,

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. Harvard University Press, 2017.

“Bernard Bailyn Biography.” Palette of King Narmer | AHA,

“Book Summaries – The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn .” Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution,

Lambert, Craig. “Bernard Bailyn.” National Endowment for the Humanities, 2010,

Nam, Michelle. “The Whig Ideology’s Influence on American Politics.” BEARdocs Home, 24 May 2013,

Hawkins, Marcus. “What Is the True Meaning of Republicanism?” Thoughtco., Dotdash,

Wallenfeldt, Jeff. “Salutary Neglect.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 25 Sept. 2018,

“Who Were the Whigs?” Whig Party,

Animal Farm & The Russian Revolution

Animal Farm & The Russian Revolution

 Throughout human history, there had always been conflicts of interest between separate parties. To separate an individual’s rights against the people’s common interest has always been a controversial task. Should we emphasize the civil liberties and freedoms that we, as Americans, are entitled to? Or does the promise of the common good, the benefits and interests of everyone, seem to align with what we should want? As we move through wars, power campaigns, and complete takeovers, these events reveal what happens when corruption takes over and attempts to enforce extreme political views. This is discussed in George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm, where unhappy animals revolt against their farmer in order to follow the ways of Animalism, the belief that animals are equal, superior to people, and that people, including their ways of living, are the enemy. Following soon after the rebellion, Snowball, a pig, begins gaining support, Napoleon, a power hungry pig, chases Snowball off the farm with trained, savage dogs, and amidst the chaos, Napoleon quickly instates himself as leader. Problems soon worsen as the pigs begin spreading propaganda among the animals, altering the Seven Commandments (the seven principles of Animalism), and eventually killing those that show signs of opposition or suspicion. In Orwell’s novel, symbolism is used throughout and when comparing Squealer’s ideas to the use of propaganda during Stalin’s reign and Moses the Raven’s message to the promises of the Orthodox Church reveals the consequences when an individual exploits society for their own benefit.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

 Throughout Animal Farm, after Napoleon proclaims himself as leader of the revolution, Squealer, second in command to Napoleon, used speech to minister propaganda to the animals. He served the central role of making announcements to the animals and through his spieling could “turn black into white” (Orwell 31). Squealer was key in helping Napoleon maintain power and control over the animals. Near the end of chapter three, the animals began noticing the milk and apples were disappearing. Turns out that the milk was being mixed in with the pigs feed, and the apples were collected and brought in the pig’s harness, and so Squealer sent to help calm the confused animals, “‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? … Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples contain substances absolutely necessary to the well−being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ … ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?’ ” (Orwell 42, 43) When Squealer says “It is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples. Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ … ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?” He threatens, that if the pigs couldn’t carry their important duties, Jones would return. The animals, not wanting Jones to come back, accept and don’t question the explanation. When he claims that the pigs don’t even like milk and apples, but it is vital for the pigs’ welfare and since the pigs are the “brains” of the organization, he plays the animals’ ignorance and gullibility. He pretends that he is, in fact, working in liaison with the animals. Squealer represents the propaganda itself under a totalitarian government. One form of propaganda used by the Communist Party was a daily newspaper called The Pravda. “The Pravda was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1991.” Originally began as a daily newspaper, later became means to administer propaganda under the Communist Party. (Britannica 2016) After the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II, Stalin and a few others took over the Pravda, “although its name means “truth,” the view of those outside the Soviet bloc was that Pravda was a purveyor of Communist theories and interpretations rather than objective reality.” (New World Encyclopedia) While Joseph Stalin was in power, he took complete control over The Pravda, he made propaganda for himself, used it to bash his enemies and change the events of the Russian Revolution to make it appear as if he played a more important role than he actually did. If the people really saw Stalin’s views, they would automatically rebel, as Stalin hid behind The Pravda, he twisted the newspaper in whatever way he wanted. “Workers of the World Unite!” and “Bread Peace & Land” were Communist sayings published often in The Pravda, ( and can be compared to the saying “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!” (Orwell 42) in Animal Farm. “Bread Peace & Land” shows us what the communist promise was: plentiful food, peace, and land for all. Unfortunately, the promise was never delivered. Just as Napoleon used propaganda (Squealer) to his benefit, to keep the animals working and maintain control over Animal Farm, is much like how Joseph Stalin used The Pravda in order to spread fear, fake statistics, and false hope.

 In Animal Farm, Moses the Raven was intended to represent the organized religion that threatened socialism and communism. In the book, we are introduced to Moses as “Mr. Jones’s especial pet … He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died.” (Orwell 32) Sugarcandy Mountain represents heaven, and Moses the Raven’s message is that animals should accept their injustice as it was only temporary because they were all going to heaven after they had been worked to death. His message also implies that by focusing on the idea of a paradise after death, the animals task of building a better world for themselves in this life wasn’t important. Moses is also similar to a priest, because in the book it states “the animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work” (Orwell 32) as priests didn’t do real labour like common workers. At first it bothered the pigs, because at first they wanted the animals to focus on how great a place Animal Farm could be. Soon, Moses leaves the farm, only to reappear later on in the book, but now, things had changed and the pigs weren’t in such a hurry to get rid of him. “A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day.” (Orwell 88) The pigs now let Moses hang around, because by now they see the value in having their workers listen to Moses and go about their daily tasks with good behavior and with minimal fuss. The real life equivalent of Old Major is Karl Marx (Orwell 16) as Karl Marx was the father of Communism as Old Major was the father of Animalism. Karl Marx once famously wrote, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” (Marxist Internet Archive) Napoleon and Squealer represent major political figures for Communism in Russia during the Russian revolution, they didn’t like Moses very much as always talked about a better place, but in death, he represents religion, and as Karl Marx described it, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” When Marx says “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions,” he means religion is what happens when the oppressed, the heartless, the soulless need something to hang on to. Once Moses returned, we don’t see the Animal Farm as prosperous or happy under Animalism as originally once thought, when Moses started speaking about Sugarcandy Mountain, the pigs realize they had become the oppressors, and after the animals suffered heavy propaganda and forced labor, Moses the Raven became the sigh of the oppressed creature.

 What happened with Squealer and propaganda and Moses and the promise of religion is the result of when an individual in power has puts their own concerns above everyone elses’. That when Squealer ministered lies to the animals is similar to how the Communist Party spread propaganda along during the time and the censorship in Russia in 1712 allowed for exploitation of the people by powerful figures in the Communist Party. The moment that the pigs and Stalin suddenly tolerated Moses the Raven and organized religion is when they found the need for their people to have faith in the existence of a “better world” and is when they slowly become the oppressors rather than the revolutionaries. In the end, in order to benefit majority, it is a matter of balancing individual rights with the responsibilities. If those in power aren’t willing to make those sacrifices and fulfill their individual responsibilities then everyone’s societal interests and needs will be harmed.

Work Cited

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Pravda.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 21 Oct. 2016,

Orwell, George. Animal Farm.  Rosemead High School English 1P Unit 4 Reader. Rosemead: EMUHSD, 2018. Print.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. Modern History of the Arab Countries by Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky 1969,

Marx, Karl. “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved 19 January 2012.

“Pravda.” Ohio River – New World Encyclopedia, New World Encyclopedia,

Was the French Revolution Necessary?

The French Revolution was a necessary revolution that gave the people of France their independence and a new form of government that was much needed. Before the French revolution, France was going through the Renaissance, which sparked some causes for the French Revolution. The government before the revolution was very unequal to the people of France, which sparked the revolution. One of the government issues to the people of France was the unequal Estate System. The Estate System represented three social orders of within French society: Estate-Clergy, Second Estate-Nobles, and Third Estate. The majority of the population of France was in the third estate and were forced to pay most of all of the taxes that came towards France. This being a problem was enhanced a ton when France’s debt came along because of participation in wars and the American Revolution. This lead to a massive debt which really angered the third estate. Also, this was when the Enlightenment was happening, a major part of the Renaissance. Many Philosophers wrote and spread many ideas of equality and voting rights. This further enhanced the movement of the third estate rebelling and causing the French Revolution to occur. The French Revolution was not just battling. There were several events leading up to the big battles and bigger events. The revolution took action when the National Assembly was formed. The starting events such as the Estates-General in May 1748 and the Storming of the Bastille caused the revolution to take action. Then the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen gained more support for the revolution by gaining the attention of the lower class which was the majority of France’s population. All of these smaller events lead to battles and war and played a major role in the revolution. The revolution permanently affected France in many ways such as social order and daily life. The French Revolution was most necessary for the people to fight for equality and justice.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

In the time period, 1750 to 1900s, the Industrial Revolution had started and spread rapidly. There were many new inventions such as the steam engine, cotton gin, and factories. As states industrialized over this time period, they expanded their existing overseas colonies in need for raw materials. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, there began an intense period of revolutions and rebellions over existing governments. One of these Revolutions was the French Revolution. The French Revolution had many causes leading up to this revolution such as France’s economic crisis and unfair taxes, Enlightenment ideas, and the Estate System. The French Revolution was necessary in order to help the people fight back to gain their equal rights, to create a new fair and just government, and so the people of France can live freely.

Before the French revolution, the social structure of France was very noticeably unequal with its estate system. The estate system divided France’s society into three categories, First estate-Clergy, Second Estate-Nobles, and the Third Estate. The first estate owned an enormous amount of power-about a ruler’s amount of power, and they also owned a ton of land. The second estate didn’t own as much power, but enough to be in the high-class range, and they got all of the good paying jobs, like military and politicians. The third estate consisted of many subcategories and made up 98% of the French population. Some of those subcategories went from the bourgeois (highest) middle class, (middle) middle-class peasants, and (lowest) city workers. The sans-culottes however, (city workers) got the most work, were underpaid for it, and started to spread the unfairness of getting the most work and taxes.(The French Revolution 1789-1815, 2015) Now, the other two states had no taxes to pay and most of them lived the life of luxury and did not want anything to change. They didn’t want to change simply because of the fact that they are on top and do not have to go through any pain like the third estate is in right now. All of this inequality contributes to the fact that the France revolution needed to happen. These differences are gonna influence the French revolution in that it is showing clear separation of power with the unequal distribution of power. The Second Estate will soon want to be with the First estate, but not want to change the third estate because they do all of the work. This means that they want more power and land because of the greedy need but don’t want the lower classes to change the state that they’re in right now.

Now with their estate system at the state that it is currently at right now, (unequal) France will be going into economic debt and will need a way to pay it off. So just as essential knowledge, Europe is going through the Renaissance (rebirth) which will lead to a larger population; which created a greater demand for food and products. The discovery of new gold mines in Brazil had led to a general rise in prices throughout the West from about 1730, indicating a prosperous economic situation. However, from about 1770, this trend slackened, and economic crises, provoking alarm and revolts, became more frequent. (History SparkNotes, 2018) France was accompanying the 13 colonies with helping their American revolution. Which lead to France’s heavy military expenditures during the American Revolution, and were also involved in the Seven Years War; (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018) resulted in a national debt of approximately four billion books in 1789. The country could not afford to meet its loan payments nor could it obtain more credit (History SparkNotes, 2018). When the French needed more money they started to tax the lower class, only the lower class they got 99% of the taxes. As if the lower class didn’t pay all the taxes but now they have to pay even more, and even Loui Xiv thought this was pretty unfair; so he decided to go to assemble the nobles which he called “The Assembly of Notables”. So Loui Xiv gathered the nobility and wanted to make a system in where they would have a nice balance in the taxation system, and it backfired on Loui. The nobility questioned their authority and they didn’t fix the government. All of this debt incoming towards France is a necessary cause for France because this just helped the Third Estate gain more rage. This supports why the French Revolution needed to happen because this inequality within the taxes and debt are all incoming towards the poor city workers. So with this economic debt at hand, with the lower class paying for it, and the nobles rebelling on Loui this just lead into the Enlightenment.

So to start, the Enlightenment caused big changes in Europe, because of the philosopher’s ideas conveying throughout Europe. The Enlightenment was a development of thought, which led to increasing criticism of absolute monarchy and an interest in republican ideals. Philosophers like John Locke, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, where just of the few that really influenced ideas like liberty, freedom of slaves, no more monarchies and more. John Locke emphasized contributions to modern theories of limited, liberal government; “He argued that all of our ideas are ultimately derived from experience, and the knowledge of which we are capable is therefore severely limited in its scope and certainty.”( By Individual Philosopher >John Locke, 2008). Also, Voltaire found inspiration in their ideals of a free and liberal society, along with freedom of religion and free commerce. (Julien Josset, 2008) Adam Smith as well believed in no slavery, wanted free religion and equal rights. Adam Smith devoted most of his time towards the economic ideas of the Enlightenment Era, as the idea of laissez-faire and the law of supply which created the basic concepts of modern economics. (Modern Economics) Jean-Jacques Rousseau strongly believed in the goodness of man and in basic human rights founded upon universal natural law; he also believed that both rulers and the citizens have natural human rights as well as obligations to each other which should be bound in a social contract. (Julien Josset, 2008) Basically saying that people should have a say in government. Even though some of these philosophers didn’t originate from France, this just supports how many philosophers ideas were getting spread and where affecting revolutions. The reason why this really helped make France go into the Revolution. These philosophers posed many different, and also similar ideas, influencing France’s population to really think about absolutism. This “development” of Enlightenment thought led to increasing criticism of the absolute monarchy, an interest in republican ideals, critiqued the monarchy and the Catholic Church and examined democratic forms of government.

The revolution started to take action with the National and Legislative Assembly. On May 17, 1748, there was a meeting of the Estates General, where there was a dispute over the voting structure. The nobles of the Second Estate demanded the use of one vote per estate, which would effectively void any vote of the Third Estate and the Third Estate refused to participate (French Revolution, 2018). These actions were necessary because the people of France wanted to be equal and be treated fairly. The cahiers of all three social distinctions saw the need for reform to the judiciary, taxation, and the Catholic church as well as it’s administration. The parish priests agreed with the reforms of the taxes, but they wanted to keep their power as the Catholic church (Mcphee,2006). Then there was a rumor about an aristocratic conspiracy to overthrow the Third Estate, and on July 14th, the uprising stormed the Bastille, and massacred the workers and freed the prisoners (French Revolution, 2018). The take-over of the Bastille helped the National Assembly gain more support by “patriots” started to take over and revolt against local governments (Mcphee, 2006). The Storming of the Bastille was necessary because it was a way for the people of France to revolt against the government and gain more support for their fight for justice and equality. Shortly after, on August 4, the National Assembly, desiring to satisfy the peasants, abolished serfdom and old feudal privileges. The National Assembly codified this as The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As the revolution grew, Louis XVI allowed the National Assembly to grow and invited the clergy and nobles to join the National Assembly. In addition, King Louis XVI rejected the abolition of feudalism and The Declaration of the Rights of Man (French Revolution, 2018). This declaration was definitely necessary because the lower classes were no longer the lower classes, everyone was equal. This gained support for the fight of equality and justice because it got the lower class involved which was the majority of the population. Eventually on October 21st, the National Assembly declared martial war. Over the next several months, the National Assembly passed a series of liberal reforms which proceeded to simplify France’s complex administrative system. The actions on the complex administrative system was necessary because it simplified the existing government and the people of Frances were making more progress to their fight for justice and equality. Frances On June 20th, 1790, the assembly officially abolished nobility. Louis and his family tried to escape to Paris but were caught and Louis was soon forced to accept the new Constitution of 1791 that provided for a limited monarchy (French Revolution, 2018).

After King Louis was caught he was convicted of treason and was punished by execution. By King Louis being executed, it showed that the revolution was gaining in power and how powerful it was. In 1793, the Convention established the Committee of Public Safety which was a 12 man Committee that worked as the executive branch of the revolutionary government. Girondins and Montagnards were both included in this committee and in May, more moderate Girondins were purged from the Convention, and the more extreme Montagnards took control of the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety. Then the Montagnards used their power to identify their enemy in the revolution. The Committee of Public Safety was necessary because it united all the revolutionists together and progressed towards their goal of equality and justice. Under the direction of Maximilien Robespierre, the Committee of Public Safety executed tens of thousands of people by guillotine in the name of the revolution. At least 300,000 suspects were arrested, 17,000 were officially executed, and many died in prison or without trial (French Revolution, 2018). In addition, the Committee of Public Safety had to mobilize an entire society into a defensive position because they faced internal collapse and external defeat (Mcphee, 2006). The Committee of Public Safety was focused on increasing their size so they established a draft for all men between the ages of 18 and 25, which made the French army increase in size massively. Then the Convention abolished the Gregorian calendar which had Christian associations and replaced it with a more scientific calendar. In July 1794, the Convention overthrew Robespierre and put an end to the reign of terror which is known as the Thermidorian reaction (French Revolution, 2018).

Find Out How Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our services

The Convention drew up a new constitution that established the French Directory which was governed by five directors and these five directors were chosen by a bicameral legislature divided into the Council of Five Hundred and an upper chamber of 250 ancients. In addition, the Directory was plagued by the same problems encountered by the Convention (French Revolution, 2018). Napoleon Bonaparte, a young republican artillery officer, who helped in the war overthrew the directory in a coup d’etat and in 1802, he appointed counsel for life and in 1804, he proclaimed himself emperor Napoleon I of France (Mcphee, 2006)(French Revolution, 2018). This war permanently affected France in many ways. For example, every France citizen was judged the same and taxed the same on wealth and more importantly land. Daily life was unchanged and women also remained unchanged with their rights before the revolution. A lot of lands was also changed due to the church’s loss of power, but farmers did benefit from this and were able to farm more (Mcphee, 2006).

The French Revolution was a major turning point in French history in that it was a period where France was in a phase where it fixed itself. It was really necessary as those causation factors really pushed it to the point where it went to into phases during its Revolution. Phase One introduced the rage of the third estate, and how the first estate and second estate had to try to calm them down. However all of the problems were solved, and Phase three solidified it with a new constitution. With this new constitution, it established a new way of rule, a more equal way of rule, and with this new way of government or rule, it will establish a baseline for other societies to follow. When the Revolution ended, France was in a better state then it was than before and this is a great setup for current France.



Impact of the Enlightenment on French Society During the Revolution

The way of life in Western Europe underwent drastic transformations during the late seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries. The lifestyles of the populace and aristocrats alike were transformed through the Enlightenment. People began to travel between the various countries of Western Europe, studying and exchanging philosophical views. This diversification of thought sparked one of the most significant periods of change in modern history. The Enlightenment educated the common man, handing them an invaluable tool in their struggle to free themselves from the oppression of the monarchies that controlled much of the world. As the common man became increasingly educated and empowered, they began to create thoughts devoid of the Crown’s influence. These thoughts were the foundation for many of the most critical rebellions and uprisings, such as the French Revolution in 1789. The works of the Enlightenment writers inspired the minds of the French populace, effectuating one of the most transformative, influential events in modern history. Baron de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Voltaire challenged the authority of the monarchy which governed France through their works, as they undermined the ideologies that the Crown’s rule was rooted in.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

           One of the most influential, controversial concepts of the Enlightenment was the disparagement of the long-held belief of a King’s divine right to rule, which was championed by one of the most prominent writers, Montesquieu. “In his view, no political system could claim divine sanction,” (Bernard and Flower). Montesquieu’s scorn of the divine right of kings was rooted in his deist beliefs, that there is no divine being that interferes with the laws of the universe (Deism). The absence of a divine being’s interference in the world contradicts the King’s divine right to rule. Montesquieu culminated this belief in his reasoning for the separation of powers, which he argued would protect the individual rights and liberties of the citizen (Bernard and Flower). Montesquieu used the British constitution as a basis for his ideal form of government, as he believed the parliament would resist the royal authority, preventing abuses by the monarch. The populace widely accepted this belief, and it shaped the minds of the young revolutionaries. However, the old regime was vehemently refuted this claim, which led Montesquieu to publicly dispute members of the old regime. One such member of the old regime was Bishop Bossuet, a staunch defender of absolutism and the Divine Right of Kings.

Montesquieu wished to undermine Bossuet’s approach, to steer history away from telling stories about how the divine will and providence of God are realized through human history. In its place, he wished to substitute a thoroughly human account rooted in the interplay between human nature and the world in which human history occurs (Reill and Wilson).

The repudiation of the King’s divine right to rule undermined the core principles of the Old Regime in eighteenth-century France, as their influence and status were entrenched in the power and authority of the King.

              The disdain for the monarchy and aristocracy that governed France was further influenced by the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his political philosophy. One aspect of his political philosophy that had a profound impact on the authority of the French Monarchy was his conception of the different types of freedom of the individual.

The connection between freedom of choice and morality is central to his argument against despotic government, where he writes that the renunciation of liberty is contrary to human nature and that to renounce freedom in favour of another person’s authority is to “deprive one’s actions of all morality” (Bertram).

This derision of a despotic government became a commonality in the ideologies of French Revolutionists. They used Rousseau’s works to substantiate their vilification of the King and the aristocracy. The revolutionists drew upon Rousseau’s concept of the general will of the citizens in their reformation of French politics and society.

The concept of the general will had a profound and lasting influence on modern republican thought, particularly in the French tradition. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (article 6), a founding document of the current French Constitution, defined law as the expression of the general will (Munro).

Munro highlights the influence of Rousseau’s works on the revolution, as the definition of law as the expression of the general will was a fundamental aspect of Rousseau’s political philosophy found in The Social Contract. The impact of the Rousseau’s Enlightenment ideals was further illustrated through his celebrity and admiration by some of the most influential groups and figures of the French Revolution, such as the Jacobin Club. The Jacobins cited many of Rousseau’s works in their reasoning and rationale behind the Revolution. One of the most influential Jacobins, Maximilien Robespierre, idolized Rousseau and drew inspiration from many of his works (McNeil 206).  The adoption of Rousseau’s political philosophies by members of the French Revolution helped to undermine the ideals of the Old Regime of eighteenth-century France.

              The freedoms and liberty of man was of a principle aspect of the Enlightenment used by the Revolutionists to challenge the core principles of the Old Regime in eighteenth-century France. The significance and influence of this concept on the Revolution were furthered by the Enlightenment writer Voltaire. Voltaire fervently fought to expose the hypocrisy of the Old Regime through his works by using critical reason. This outward challenge of authority is what many scholars to consider his works to be a cause of the revolution (Shank). The disruptive nature of Voltaire’s writings often led to his exile from France and his works to be banned by the monarchy. “The monarchy feared the power of written word so deeply that they used any means possible to keep it under lock and key. This was shown by their desperate attempts to exile Voltaire as far away from them as possible…” (Hight 70). This quote illustrates the significance of Voltaire’s work and the power it had over the people of France. The reverence with which the monarchy treated Voltaire is detailed, as they so deeply feared the influence of his works that they took extraordinary measures in an attempt to ensure that his works would not be read by the populace in France. One of the reasons for which the monarchy banned much of his works was his advocating for the liberty of speech. Voltaire believed that the liberty of speech was sacred and could not be taken away from a citizen no matter the context (Shank). This became one of the most influential philosophies of the Enlightenment as it became a fundamental aspect of the French Revolution and a crucial instrument in challenging the authority of the Old Regime. Voltaire’s public opposition to the censorship of the French monarchy enabled other Enlightenment thinkers in France and revolutionists to voice their opinions, undermining the authority and control of the Old Regime.

              The works of Baron de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Voltaire helped to undermine the sovereignty of the Old Regime in eighteenth-century France by challenging and refuting the ideologies in which the monarchy was rooted in. Montesquieu argued against the validity of an absolute monarchy, reasoning for a form of government that would better represent the populace. Rousseau expanded on Montesquieu’s ideas, as his philosophy of the freedoms of the individual became commonplace in the minds of revolutionists. Voltaire fought for the freedom of speech for all citizens, openly challenging the monarchy and exposing its hypocrisy in his works. The writings of these three Enlightenment thinkers had a profound impact on the French Revolution, as they helped the citizens of France openly challenge the authority of the Old Regime in eighteenth-century France. The influence of these thinkers drastically transformed French society, shaping the ideals of the French citizen.

Works Cited

Bernard, François, and John E. Flower. “France.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 30 Jan. 2019,

Bertram, Christopher. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 May 2017,

“Deism.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2019,

Hight, Jennifer. “Voltaire: An Example of Enlightenment Censorship.” Digital Commons, Western Oregon University, 2015,

McNeil, Gordon H. “The Cult of Rousseau and the French Revolution.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 6, no. 2, 1945, pp. 197–212., doi:10.5040/

Munro, André. “General Will.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 26 Feb. 2016,

Reill, Peter Hanns, and Ellen Judy Wilson. “Montesquieu, Charles De Secondat, Baron De La Brède Et De.” Infobase Learning – Login, Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, Revised Edition, 2004,

Shank, J.B. “Voltaire.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 31 Aug. 2009,


Causes of the Chinese Cultural Revolution

Revolution refers to a fundamental change in a political organization.  It is an activity that creates fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation [1].  Rebellion refers to resistance to change. There are a lot of revolutions and rebellion in China since 1911, which have affected the country till now. There have been successful and unsuccessful revolutions which are called rebellions in the country over the years. Examples of revolutions and rebellions in China include economic, social, cultural, and system changes. In some cases, revolution is only partial, where the economic status changes but the political system remain the same. Cultural Revolution hurts China because it led to the loss of lives, destruction of properties, and disruption of human activities. 

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

To assert his authority over the Chinese government, Mao Zedong, a communist leader, launched a Cultural Revolution in 1966. He believed that current leaders were not focused. He asked young people to remove unworthy elements from the Chinese society and restore the revolutionary spirit that gave them victory in the civil war[2].  He gathered a group of people, including his wife, to help him attack party leaders to establish his authority over the government. He also put together a coalition to undertake the Cultural Revolution. He was determined to see to it that the revolution was successful. His wife, whose name is Jiang Qing, gathered a group of radicals to lead the cultural realm. Zhou Enlai was Mao’s premier who kept the country running while he focused on the revolution.  However, conflicts arose among the leaders and reflected on the performance of the initiative. Mao was concerned about middle-class who infiltrated his government and party.  He wanted to eliminate people who did not share his ideas and visions of communism.  Although he thought about starting the Cultural Revolution early, he hold it back until 1966.  Things escalated quickly, and elder people were abused and attacked.  Scores lost their lives, and Mao encouraged the movement to continue with what they were doing. He decided to rebuild the Communist Party to have control in 1968 after the country had been subjected to radicalism. Over the years, America’s streets and universities have turned into rioting grounds that point towards the return of a violent civil turmoil of the 1960s. The 1960s was a period when norms and values of behaviors broke down among American youths [3].  Many college students and young people became political activists and led the civil rights and antiwar campaigns.  Other young people separated themselves from mainstream culture through their dressing and behavior. Many people loosened their attitudes towards sexuality, and women started protesting traditional roles assigned to them by society.  They no longer wanted to be just housewives and mothers but wanted to be actively engaged in the affairs of the country. Left wing politics attracted middle-class college students who wanted to see a change in how the country was being governed. Leaders believed that universities were a natural base to promote social change. They were fighting for equality and civil rights for everyone and formed the Free Speech Movement.

Before the Cultural Revolution started, there was an exploitive system of contract and temporary workers. The system was capitalist and did not promote euqality state that Mao wanted.  He wanted workers to have permanent jobs to guarantee them consistent income[4] . Thus, the revolution was good because it fought for the rights of workers to have permanent jobs to improve their lives. Previously, state and government employees had more privileges than average Chinese person, and Mao wanted to change this to ensure equality. He believed that this system prevented the country from attaining equality of everyone.  He ordered government officials to practice productive labor to narrow the gap between classes.  Therefore, the Cultural Revolution was good because it connected the gap between government workers and the average Chinese person. However, the revolution did more harm than good. The unleashing of Red Guards of 1966 led to unanticipated problems[5].  They ignored the policy of using reason to perform political struggles against opponents.  Red Guard officials attacked intellectuals who did not agree with their ideologies without consideration. Mao hired radicals who did anything he asked, and this led to the loss of lives and destruction of properties. Moreover, universities were shut down, and the economy was disrupted. When the policy concerning intellectuals was applied, rightist intellectuals were criticized publicly. I thought that the Cultural Revolution dealt with cultural changes in China. I thought that it discussed cultural ideologies, changes, and steps taken to promote unity among the people.  Cultural Revolution affects my family’s understanding of customs and culture. Mao Zedong started the revolution to tighten his grip on power by removing old cultures, customs, and practices. Cultural Revolution affects my family’s thoughts of old cultures and their significance to our lives today.

Some people argue that the Cultural Revolution was not a revolution and should not be put on the list.  They state that although it had a massive impact on Chinese people, it was not successful in effective change[6]. Instead, Mao Zedong struggled to have power and resulted in unscrupulous means to control the government. Critics argue that it could have been a revolution if it did something successfully. Furthermore, it ended after the death of Zedong, pointing its failures. They believe that a movement should be considered a revolution if it manages to effect a long-lasting change in the society and the Cultural Revolution failed.

Cultural Revolution started in 1966. Mao Zedong started it to get rid of middle class infiltrators who did not share his ideologies on communism. The revolution had a negative impact on citizens, including loss of lives, loss of properties, and disruption of activities. Schools were shut down in attempts to give the Communist Party leader to show his power. Although some people do not think that it is a revolution, it is given its huge influence on people.  It removed current leaders from power, many people were imprisoned, the economy plummeted, and education was disrupted. It ended when the Mao Zedong suffered a stroke.


Barnes, T. J., (2017). Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the “cultural turn.” In Theory and Methods (pp. 53-72). Routledge.

Dittmer, L., (2015). Liu Shaoqi and the Chinese cultural revolution. Routledge.

Havelock, E. A., (2019). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences (Vol. 5330). Princeton University Press.

Perry, E., (2018). Proletarian Power: Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution. Routledge.

[1] Perry, E., (2018). Proletarian Power: Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution. Routledge.

[2] Barnes, T. J., (2017). Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the “cultural turn.” In Theory and Methods (pp. 53-72). Routledge.

[3] Havelock, E. A., (2019). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences (Vol. 5330). Princeton University Press.

[4] Barnes, T. J., (2017). Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the “cultural turn.” In Theory and Methods (pp. 53-72). Routledge.

[5] Dittmer, L., (2015). Liu Shaoqi and the Chinese cultural revolution. Routledge.

[6] Dittmer, L., (2015). Liu Shaoqi and the Chinese cultural revolution. Routledge.

The Green Revolution: History, Impact and Future

Plants are an essential part of lives on the planet and a crucial source of economic prosperity for almost every country. They provide directly or indirectly almost all the food of man and animals. They also supply industrial raw material, for instance, timber, paper, rubber, products for the chemical industries such as starch, sugars, oils and fats, energy in the form of fuel wood, starch and sugars which are sources of ethanol, methanol, etc., and massive numerous valuable drugs, fragrances and other fine chemicals. Plant growth also has a massive influence on environment. Because of all these roles, Policymakers should be continually developing policies for the use of plants to protect the earth’s environment and to feed the growing populations.(1)

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

The Historical Phenomenon (Green revolution)
The term “Green Revolution” has begun to be used in 1960s refers to the renovation of agricultural practices by some Third World countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, beginning in Mexico in the 1940s. Because of the use of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat and rice which increase food crop production. Green revolution technologies spread worldwide in different terms as “agricultural revolution” and “seed-fertilizer revolution”, which led to a substantial increase in the amount of calories produced per acre of agriculture in 1960s.(light green, H2)
The green days of the Green Revolution (History and Development)
In 1970 the American botanist, Norman Borlaug, Director of the Division for Wheat Cultivation at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center or CIMMYT in Mexico, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was honoured for having set in motion a worldwide agricultural development, later to be called the ‘Green Revolution’ (light green). In the 1940s, N. Borlaug began conducting research in Mexico and developed new disease resistance high-yield varieties of wheat. By combining Borlaug’s wheat varieties with new mechanized agricultural technologies, Mexico was able to produce more wheat than was needed by its own citizens, leading to its becoming an exporter of wheat by the 1960s. Prior to the use of these varieties, the country was importing almost half of its wheat supply.(net)
Due to the success of the Green Revolution in Mexico, its technologies spread worldwide in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States for instance, imported about half of its wheat in the 1940s but after using Green Revolution technologies, it became self-sufficient in the 1950s and became an exporter by the 1960s.(net)
A renovation of the history of the Green Revolution shows that the international agricultural research institutes played an important role in progressing of using Green Revolution technologies. Such as, in 1959, the CIMMYT instituted in Mexico, which was founded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and the Mexican government provided the land. Also, in 1960, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Manila, which was joint effort of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundation Several more international institutes were established and funded by government agencies as the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). After that, in 1971, all the international agricultural research institutes were brought under the umbrella of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).(4)
The development was based on the genetic improvement of particularly productive plants. Borlaug’s so-called “miracle wheat” doubled and tripled yields in short period of time. Similar increases were soon achieved with maize and, at the (IRRI), with rice (IR8) that produced more grain per plant when grown with irrigation and fertilizers.(2)
The success of the newly developed strains appeared limitless. They were introduced in several Asian countries in 1965, and, by 1970, these strains were being cultivated over an area of 10 million hectares. Within three years, Pakistan ceased to be dependent wheat imports from the United States. Sir Lanka, the Philippines, and number of African and South American countries achieved record harvests. India, which had just avoided a severe famine in 1967, produced enough grain within five years to support its population, and became one of the world’s leading rice producers.(2) Despite the success of the Green Revolution in increasing yields per hectare in India, this success has largely bypassed Africa. The reasons for this include the fact that both wheat and rice are relatively unimportant staple crops in Africa; that Africa’s main staples of maize, sorghum, millet, and cassava have experienced only modest productivity gains; and that Africa’s infrastructure is not sufficiently well developed to support significant agricultural change
The witness of the Green Revolution (Plant Technologies)
Agricultural technology development can be characterised as passing from primarily “land-related” technologies, through mechanisation to bio-chemical technologies (associated with new varieties and relatively large amount of agro-chemicals). It is now moving towards a “bio-technology’ phase. (green p 72)
The crops developed throughout the Green Revolution were high yield varieties (HYVs), which means they were domesticated plants in high response to chemical fertilizers and produce more grain per plant when grown with irrigation.( H2)
They were insensitive to photoperiodicity and matured in about 110 days rather than 180 days; it was thus possible to grow two or even three crops in a year. The yield potential of these varieties was greater in the temperate regions of Asia and in the dry season in the monsoon region than in the humid tropics, because of the longer hours of sunshine and hence the greater potential photosynthesis available to the plant. (H2)
The terms often used with these plants that make them successful are harvest index, photosynthate allocation, and insensitivity to day length. The harvest index refers to the above ground weight of the plant. During the Green Revolution, plants that had the largest seeds were selected to create the most production possible. After selectively breeding these plants, they evolved to all have the characteristic of larger seeds. These larger seeds then created more grain yield and a heavier above ground weight.
This larger above ground weight then led to an increased photosynthetic allocation. By maximizing the seed or food portion of the plant, it was able to use photosynthesis more efficiently because the energy produced during this process went directly to the food portion of the plant.
Finally, by selectively breeding plants that were not sensitive to day length, researchers like Borlaug were able to double a crop’s production because the plants were not limited to certain areas of the globe based solely on the amount of light available to them.
Benefits & Criticism (Consequences of the Green Revolution)
Agricultural development thinking in the 1960s and 1970s was preoccupied with the problem of feeding a rapidly increasing world population. Then, the obvious solution was to increase per capita food production. The resulting green revolution has had a dramatic impact on the Third World, particularly in terms of increasing the yields of the staple cereals – wheat, rice, and maize. However, despite impressive success, it also suffers from problems of equity and failures in achieving stability and sustainability of production.( 5 After)
Since the 1940s, the fossil fuel-based Green Revolution has greatly increased the production of a few selected commodity grain crops such as wheat, corn, soybeans and rice, achieved through high-input, monoculture cropping practices. The unintended consequence of this
Green Revolution experiment is that the focus on chemical crop fertility inputs, pest protection, and weed control has increased toxicity in the environment and degraded the planet’s finite soil and water resources (Khan et al. 2007).
Worldwide, 1.9 billion hectares are significantly degraded. Soils are less fertile, erosion has greatly increased, and breakdowns in agro-ecological functions have resulted in poor crop yields, land abandonment, and deforestation. (IAASTD 2008)
Furthermore, chemically-based conventional farming methods lead to human health risks. Pesticides have damaged wildlife, poisoned farm workers, and created long-term health problems such as cancers and birth defects (Lichtenberg, 1992).
Even in the U.S., more than half of the nation’s drinking water wells contained detectable amounts of nitrate and seven percent have detectable amounts of pesticides. (US EPA 1992) There is a significant health risk from pesticide residue on the foods we eat. Conventionally grown food in the heavily regulated United States has 2/3 more pesticide residue than organically grown food. As soils on organic farming systems continually rid themselves of pesticides from prior industrial agricultural practices, the pesticide residue gap between conventional and organic will grow even larger. (Delate et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2002). Preschool children in the Pacific Northwest eating a conventional food diet had eight times the organophosphorus pesticide exposure compared to children of parents who provided organic diets. (Curl et al. 2003; Lu et al. 2005) In countries with little or no regulatory enforcement, the situation of people eating food contaminated with pesticide residue can be much worse. A 2008 research review – commissioned in partnership with the United Nations and prepared by 400 world experts and signed by 57 nations – strongly rejects industrial farming as a viable approach to address problems of soaring food prices, hunger, social injustice and environmental degradation in the developing world. (IAASTD 2008). Around the world, one- to five-million farm workers are estimated to suffer pesticide poisoning every year, and at least 20,000 die annually from exposure, many of them in developing countries. (World Bank: Bangladesh: Overusing Pesticides in Farming January 9, 2007) The United States is burdened with an estimated $12 billion annual health and environmental cost from pesticide use, (Pimentel et al. 2005) and estimated annual public and environmental health costs related to soil erosion of about $45 billion (Pimentel et al. 1995). But the damage transcends environmental soil loss. What cannot be economically calculated is the cost of destroying future generations’ ability to produce enough food for their survival. When all costs are calculated the Green Revolution is not cost-efficient. While centralized, industrial agricultural methods reduce labor costs by substituting herbicides, insecticides and synthetically-produced fertilizers as well as farm machinery for application and crop maintenance, the energy costs are much higher than in organic farming systems. The negative consequences of the Green Revolution led the 2008 United Nations research review to strongly reject industrial farming as a viable approach to address problems of soaring food prices, hunger, social injustice and environmental degradation in the developing world. (IAASTD 2008)
Second Green revolution
New biotechnology can affect every stage of plant life. Rapid biotechnology tests for contamination by crop disease organisms and for seed and crop quality controls allow for safer and more efficient crop breeding is likely to play an important role in securing the future supply of food. Crop germplasm improvement by the addition of new genes has been the goal of plant breeding since the beginning of agriculture. New efficient genetic modification methods could aim at increasing plant performance and plant resistance to virus and other disease, as well as to drought, salt, cold, heat, etc. They could also enlarge the land resource basis available for agriculture. Genetic modification might become the most important contribution of biotechnology to plants. From 1982, when the first single gene was successfully transferred, progress has been rapid; several dozen plants have since been modified in the laboratory.(1)
Broad-scale implementation of innovative technologies, such as hybrid breeding and plant biotechnology, would go a long way towards increasing and securing the harvests of our most important crops. For example, varieties of crop plants whose resistance to drought or extreme temperatures has been strengthened – through gene technology or by other means – could contribute to securing the harvest in the face of climate change. Researchers in the Australian state of Victoria have run successful field trials of genetically manipulated wheat lines that are capable of delivering stable yields under conditions of water stress. In the 2006/07 season, drought in Victoria destroyed an estimated 70 percent of the wheat harvest. The German Association of Biotechnology Industries (DIB) expects the first drought-tolerant wheat variety to be brought onto the market in five to ten years. For maize, this could happen in two to five years. Authorities in the USA have already received a registration application for drought-tolerant maize. Plant biotechnology is also likely to contribute to a resource-efficient increase in the productivity of food from animal husbandry. In future, ruminants might be fed more easily-digestible grasses with modified fructan and lignin contents. This would reduce the amount of climate-damaging digestive gases they produce, and at the same time, increase energy yield.
Increasing income levels in developing countries mean that more and more people expect to be able to consume animal-derived foods, so this type of efficiency gain is essential if the environmental and climatic impacts of animal husbandry are to be kept under control. The twin pressures of climate change and dwindling fossil energy resources will propel agriculture to the forefront in supplying the world’s population with renewable energy and sustainable supplies of raw materials. Forecasts indicate that between 20 and 30 percent of the agricultural surface might be dedicated to producing biomass by 2025. It follows then that this area will either be lost to food production – or at best only available to a limited extent. This means that biomass production also desperately needs innovative approaches if the conflict between the tank and the plate is to be relieved.
Need of another revolution
The challenge facing the world today is to provide food, fibre and industrial raw materials for an ever growing world population without degenerating the environment or affecting the future productivity of natural resources. This challenge is even more pressing in developing countries, where FAO estimates that a total of 925 million people are undernourished in 2010 (FAO SOFI report 2010).
The industrial Green Revolution has not, and cannot, feed the world. Instead of helping people feed themselves, it has created a cycle of dependency. In a world of 6.5 billion people, experts project that the world food supply will need to double again over the next 40 years to feed our planet’s population.
Based upon the heavy use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation, the industrial Green Revolution worked only as long as fuel was cheap and water was abundant. The transitory benefits of increased short-term food production have come at too great an ecological price as carbon is extracted from the soil and emitted as global-warming carbon dioxide in our air instead of remaining in the soil to nurture crops. Petroleum-based fertilizers and chemical pesticides have also polluted our water and poisoned our environment, food, and people.
It is sometimes said that the Gene Revolution will replace the Green Revolution. But this will not happen until and unless this mechanism enables breeders to produce “dynamic” gains in generations of varieties. Until such time, the Gene Revolution’s GM products can only complement conventional Green Revolution breeding. This complementarily takes the form of installing “static” GM products on the dynamic generations of varieties produced by conventional Green Revolution methods.^
* The Roundup Ready product produced by Monsanto has been “installed” on approximately 1,500 soybean varieties produced by 150 seed production companies
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been introduced in the agricultural system and on the market of consumer goods in the last 10-20 years, initially in the USA but also increasingly in developing countries. Since the discovery of genetic engineering, with its potential to modify DNA of living organisms, discussion and controversy have been abundant [1,2] both cited in [3]. Europe has witnessed a particularly strong resistance to the introduction of GMOs in agriculture and for consumer food products, both from consumers, national governments and from the EU. The public objections had numerous causes, including the concerns about the risk assessment, the ethics and equity issues, power relations and the mistrust of technocrats and public authorities. The resistance in Asia, Latin America and North America has been generally weaker than in Europe, although some authors have voiced scathing criticism of the US governments and the industrial lobby for abusing famine in Africa to foster the spread of GM food to developing countries [4].In response to the criticism, the European governments have attempted to improve the risk assessment methods and its scientific basis, and to tailor public policies to the growing demand for transparency, accountability, and public participation.( second revo ref2)
Major issues
Concerns about the introduction of GMOs in crops and in food concentrate on four mutually overlapping areas: environmental concerns; public health concerns; ethical concerns about “tampering with nature” and individual choice; and a combination of ethical and socio-conomic concerns related to the issues of patenting
C) Improving plant breeding
In vitro and other biotechnologies help to reduce the time-consuming and expensive process of producing, growing and evaluating large numbers of plants. Included are molecular genetics for paid identification of valuable genes, new methods for hybrid seed production, and plant propagation and tissue culture.
D) Improving plant production
Crop performance in the field, defined as yield, depends upon numerous factors, including environment, soil type, agronomy, external factors such as pests and disease and the plant properties themselves. Genetic modification of plants or micro-organisms can modify these factors, leading, for example, to better plant morphology , stress resistance, and biological fertilisation, as well as pest and disease control, which reduce chemical inputs into agriculture.
Improving Plant Production
Crop performance in the field, defined as yield, is a very complex character and is affected strongly by environmental factors, soil type, external agents such as pests and diseases, by the quality of agronomy and husbandry as well as by the properties of the plants themselves. Biotechnological methods can lead to increased yield by creating plants with attributes that optimise exploitation of specific environments.
Plant characters frequently in need of improvement by exploitation of new genes in breeding programmes
Increase drought tolerance, Increase salt tolerance, Increase cold tolerance, Increase heat tolerance, Increase disease resistance, Increase pest resistance, Herbicide tolerance, Increase nitrogen utilisation, Increase acid/alkali tolerance, Increase metal tolerance, Modified day length responses, Modified vernalisation responses, Increase photosynthesis/respiration efficiency.

Effects Of The French Revolution

French revolution is a bourgeois revolution that happened on 14th. July 1794. It is the bourgeois revolution of the largest, most complete revolution. The revolution began with the storming of the Bastille was besieged by Pairs. The revolution gone through hardships and passed a tortuous progress. In this revolution, representatives of bourgeois democratic and republican overturned the absolute monarchic together. French revolution is a symbolic time in French history. The revolution happened by many reasons. It came not only because France was backward, but also because of economic and intellectual. Under absolute monarchy, the country’s economic and intellectual was not matched by social and political change. People live in Pair increasingly difficult life. The economic pressure became heavier. Most people had a fat lot rights. What is more, the asset class and the feudal class have the implacable contradiction. So, with a lot causes came together that make a revolution happened. The revolution had a profound influence in history and it also had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

In the period of Louis xv regime, since the people responded angrily to under King’s rule. People suffered by various attacked. And this formed of enlightenment. Under enlightenment, the thinking of “national rights”, “constitution monarchy”, “separation of the three powers” had been around. What is more, the development of capitalism has a contradiction with the feudal autocratic rule. Half of the 18th century, capitalist economic had a great development in France. Textile, metallurgy and mining industry’s most rapidly. Its level of development ranked first in Europe. Foreign trade had developed quickly. But the feudal autocratic rule has become an obstacle to economic development of capitalism in France. The feudal government continued to raise taxes; checkpoints were set up everywhere around the country; feudal ownership of land still exist. All this made the bourgeoisie very unpleased. They asked for abolition of feudal land ownership, abolition of feudal privileges and against authoritarian rule. Their requirements and ideas, is reflected in the political ideology of bourgeois Enlightenment. The appearance and the spread of enlightenment had prepare for French revolution and the bourgeoisie’s showing on the political stage, in the aspects of ideologie and public opinion.
The sharp classes contradiction is also a propellant that caused the revolution. The French revolution started about 150 years later than the Britain revolution, the French was still in the feudal autocratic reign of the Bourbons when the British had completed bourgeois revolution and had begin the industrial revolution, the class relations was set into opposition sharply. It is as follows: French society was divided into three grades, first grade is priest, and second level is the nobility. They account for less than 1% of the total population in France, but the amount of land they occupied reach 2/3. And they did not bear any tax obligations. Opposed, the majority of third grade has to bear the country’s taxes and other feudal obligations. In particular, workers, urban poor and farmers, living a life in squalor, they demand to change living conditions strongly. Because of sharply antagonistic class relations, the French community as firewood piled everywhere, a revolution would outbreak possibility at anytime.
Intensification of the financial crisis is a reason that caused the revolution too. The French authoritarian rulers have been very corrupt. Repeated defeat of foreign wars and rulers extravagant that made France’s budget deficit increased, heavily in debt. The French government fiscal position was on the brink of bankruptcy.
All the reasons came together, a long awaited revolution happened. And the French revolution made a far-reaching impact, both of the people’s power and political legacy. Even effected the developed of capitalism.
As the French revolution was the greatest bourgeois revolution in 18th century. People have shown great strength in the three uprisings. When get the turning point in the revolution, people were always pushing forward the development of revolution.
French revolution also had a deep effect on French political. “The French revolution left a compelling and many-sided political legacy. This legacy included, most notably, liberalism, assertive nationalism, radical democratic republicanism, embryonic socialism, and self-conscious conservatism. It also left a rich and turbulent history of electoral competition, legislative assemblies, and even mass politic. Thus the French revolution and conflicting interpretations of its significance presented a whole range of political options and alternative visions of the future.” (McKay, J. P., Hill, B. D., and Buckler, J.).
Furthermore, the French Revolution was a profound social revolution, which ended a thousand years of feudal rule in France. Trough the revolution, a bourgeois republic has set up in France. As Engels said, “It is really fighting for in the end, until the part of noble were eliminated, while the other is the first victory of the capitalist class uprising.”
In general, the revolution against the French feudal forces and cleared the road of capitalist development in France. What is more, the revolution to the French social ideology, culture and education has far-reaching influence. Even more, the thoroughness of this revolution had set an example to other nation revolution. It has shaken the foundation for the rest of Europe the feudal system. It pushed the development of capitalism in Europe and America. As Lenin said: “The revolution of the class that it serves to give the bourgeoisie a lot of things, and the entire 19th century, that is, civilization and culture for all humanity to a century are under the sign of French revolution.”.
Above all, in the late 18th century, feudal dynasty in the political, economic and social awareness, has emerged all-round crisis, authoritarian rule has become an obstacle to the development of French society. The French revolution was not an accidental event. It is the inevitable outcome of the development of history. The French revolution has promoted the development of capitalism, and pushed people thinking and culture in Europe, even the world.

A Comparison of the French and America Revolution

Revolution is the overthrowing of one government followed by replacing with it another.[1]It includes the use of power to rebel against a ruling party or in favor of a new organization. Both the American and the French Revolutions aimed at bringing equality and liberty to the people. Both nations were attempting to gain freedom from their rebellion. France had eyed on abolishing the French realm and establish a restored government on which the citizens would live like a society, unlike America which was fighting to attain freedom from taxes and instructions subjected to them by Great Britain.[2]  While both the French and American Revolution in the late eighteenth century were based on economic struggles and enlightenment ideals, the American Revolution was based on independence from British rule and the French Revolution was based on overturning the French Monarchy.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

The French and American revolutions had so many similarities as well as differences. One of their similarities included that both nations were against the harsh rule by their kings. Both of them were tired of being oppressed. The American and French rebellion both championed for the desire of a republican government and principles of liberty.[3] Americans fought for freedom from high taxations while the French wanted a better government that could rule them equally. Both nations realized that they needed the power to bring democracy back.

Rising opposition among targeted people at the monarchy and it is associated prominent and nobles is one of the most important likenesses between the French Revolution and the American Revolution.3 Even though they existed in both France and America, at the commencement of each revolt, their dominations on both the people and thrifts of every nation were weakening. For instance, in 1763, Britain was on the very peak of universal supremacy, and her old enemies were apparently under her control. At the same time, however, Britain was politically unsteady and was tentative on the verge of economic failure.[4] The response against the British kingdom by Americans only helped to weaken it further, and although it may have been solid in other parts, the unrelenting resistance demonstrated by actions like the Boston Tea party and other rebellious acts against the crown were taking their peal. The immediate cause of the French Revolution was the near collapse of government finances.5

Both rebellions began and were propelled by the enlightenment period. They were both assumed with the aim of mind-independence. The American Rebellion was not originally tussled for liberation. Independence had become a byproduct of the colonialists to do away with the imbalanced levy of taxes upon them by the British Parliament. On the other side, Frances great thinker Rousseau emphasized the importance of human rights.[5] The words and articles of famous revolution front-runners like Maximilien Robespierre and Jacques Pierre powered the urge for freedom in France. These actions led to independence in both revolutions and were debatably acted to be an enticement for revolution.

Both the two revolutions generated seminal and similar political official papers. The assertion of the rights of human beings and for citizens was embraced in 1789 by the French State Constituent Assembly. The document was conscripted by Marquis de Lafayette which was proposed to be part of the shift from a complete to a constitutional empire. It was to present the concepts of dominance and equality. It also disregarded the idea of citizens being deprived of exceptional rights according to the household heredity of prominence which openly pulled apart the French structure of governing. These declarations also impacted the same in the American Revolution. It was also adopted in 1787 in the USA constitution approximately a similar time to that in France.[6]

The American Rebellion was the first weighty revolution of the time, and it was also the first to be fruitful. The reason for it being successful was that it never started being “rebellious” in nature, but quite conventional. In other word, it was not a revolt against the Regime, but rather contrary to too much government governing them. (American Revolution) The French insurgency was a real rebellion against the Ruler and the government in broad. The French were the ones on the invasive, struggling to attain new liberty beginning with the Invasion of the Bastille.

Both revolutions began similarly, but they had different endings. The American Revolution ended in afresh molded independent administration. The French revolution dethroned its government and executed their king. The French Revolution gave rise to a dictatorship that took years.[7]

The key distinction is the setting of the battle. The American Revolt was initiated by a wider number of the Americans who became sad about the British way of governing. They thought that they earned autonomy from Britain. French’s minority geared the French rebellion since they were sad with the treatment they received. Although related reasons triggered both of the revolutions, they were also fueled by an entirely diverse kind of individuals. One of the rebellions began by all diverse groups of individuals but steered by the rich, and the minority in the nation influenced the other.

Another minor contradiction is that the rebellion of the French was more cruel and bloodstained. The insurgents in the French Revolt would murder any individual that they heard was a supporter of the king. The radicals in the revolt of the Americans at no time slew the British supporters and were never intense to Britains not least they were in a combat. The American Revolution was just meant to be between America and Britain until when the French merged.[8] The French Revolution was between the French minority and their regime. It then progressed to become the French fighting against other dominions in Europe like Prussia and Austria.

The American Revolution mainly concentrated on attaining of independence. Later when they won the battle against the British, they were tied up from their guidelines. America was obliged to call off the battle and abolish the high taxation system which the British government had passed in their parliament. The Americans completed the war by making an avowal of independence that was a sweet approach and a great one to begin a compact society. On the other hand, the French masses also attain the same independence, but they were still under the leadership of a king.

The American Rebellion began from 1775 to 1783 where the colonies became the United States of America and got their independence from Great Britain. On the contrary, the French revolution began at around 1789 to 1799 and was a fight against domination and mismanagement and mistreatment of the people whereas the American Revolution was fueled due to economic and political reasons. All in all both activities that happened during the revolutions in the two nations were just facilitated for change, change that was gained in different ways.

The French Upheaval aimed in changing everything be it the social structure, economy, government or even religion. Whereas the American Revolution wanted only to alter the government structure but leave the social system intact.[9] After the revolution period, Americans remained largely narrow-minded and busy in unraveling internal matters like political war while French below Napoleon leadership spread principles of the French revolution of equality, liberty, and fraternity in entire Europe. France was experiencing financial crises due to costly wars and royal extravagance. The government responded by borrowing. Poor taxation policy contributed to the high debt with most of the monarch’s funds coming from the peasantry. 10Also, the American Revolution remain restrained between Americans and British while the French Revolution spread out beyond France and  Napoleon rule led to French ethics to entire Europe.[10] Therefore, revolutions against autocracy and feudalism increased from corner to corner in Europe while socialism spread receiving popularity among common people.

For most sections, the two rebellions majorly and greatly influenced the societies and people of America and France. After the long war, both countries had to endure the war — the societies involved in both fights headed to a time of much important advancement. Though, the French still had a journey to go after the revolution. Both rebellions were very significant and necessary to the commoners and their equality and liberty. Thus the French revolution and the American Revolution had so many contrariety and similarities as per how they have been discussed above. Though on a higher notch the differences of the two revolutions overweighed their similarities in the methods used and how the revolts occurred.


Chisholm, Michael. Britain on the Edge of Europe. Routledge, 2002.

Eisler, Riane. “Human rights: Toward an integrated theory for action.” Feminist Issues 7, no. 1 (1987): 25-46.

Gershovich, Moshe. French military rule in Morocco: Colonialism and its consequences. Routledge, 2012.

Hunt, Lynn. Politics, culture, and class in the French revolution: with a New Preface. Vol. 1. Univ of California Press, 2004.

Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich, and Todd Chretien. State and revolution. Haymarket Books, 2015.

Olson, Mancur. “Dictatorship, democracy, and development.” American political science review 87, no. 3 (1993): 567-576.

Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America.” International Sociology 15, no. 2 (2000): 215-232.

Seidman, Steven. Contested knowledge: Social theory today. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: Volume II: Since 1500. 10th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018

Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe. “The French Revolution. Vol. 1.” Trans. John Durand. New York: H. Holt (1897).

Wood, Gordon S. The creation of the American republic, 1776-1787. UNC Press Books, 2011.

[1] Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich, and Todd Chretien. State and revolution. Haymarket Books, 2015.

[2] Hunt, Lynn. Politics, culture, and class in the French revolution: with a New Preface. Vol. 1. Univ of California Press, 2004.

[3] Olson, Mancur. “Dictatorship, democracy, and development.” American political science review 87, no. 3 (1993): 567-576.

[4] Chisholm, Michael. Britain on the Edge of Europe. Routledge, 2002.

 5Eisler, Riane. “Human rights: Toward an integrated theory for action.” Feminist Issues 7, no. 1 (1987): 25-46.

6 Wood, Gordon S. The creation of the American republic, 1776-1787. UNC Press Books, 2011.

[7] Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe. “The French Revolution. Vol. 1.” Trans. John Durand. New York: H. Holt (1897).

[8] Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America.” International Sociology 15, no. 2 (2000): 215-232.

[9] Seidman, Steven. Contested knowledge: Social theory today. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

10 Spielvogel, J. (2018). Western civilization. 10th ed

[10] Gershovich, Moshe. French military rule in Morocco: Colonialism and its consequences. Routledge, 2012.