HBL+-+Group+1


 * HBL Source-Based Questions**

Question: How far do the sources support the view of that the French Revolution was due to deteriorating economic conditions? Explain your answer.

History HBL (LING:D) __Source A__ Source A does not really support the view that the French Revolution was due to deteriorating economic conditions as even though it touches on the topic of taxation, which is related to the economic conditions, it portrays the Estates’ objection as towards the King’s supposedly absolute power rather than the relation between the taxes and economic conditions then. Source A is the Parlement President’s response to the King’s decision to tax the nobility and the Clergy in view of the growing debt the government was facing. The fact that the king had to consider taxing the First and Second Estates suggests that the economic conditions were bad to a certain extent as in history and tradition, these two estates were never taxed by the previous kings. However, while reviewing the source, it was mentioned that the issue of taxing the nobilities have been going on for twelve years, in which twelve years is a fairly long period of time relative to King Louis XVI’s reign as the monarch. Thus, this showed that the economic conditions at the time was not the pressing factor that led to the Revolution. On the other hand, the source suggests how it could have been the King’s weak leadership that led to the Revolution. This could also be seen when it was mentioned that the issue of taxing the First and Second Estates have been going on for twelve years. Fundamentally, as an absolute monarch King Louis XVI was supposed to be, he should have been a despot who would have no opposition or objections from his people. Thus, this portrayed his indecisiveness in executing a decision and inability to empower his subjects, as an absolute monarch should have. This can be further seen when the people decided that they “continue to protest with firmness and respect, against such practices (taxing the First and Second Estates)” in that the people’s refusal to comply with the King despite being aware of his power to execute his decision showed that he failed as to ‘control’ his people as the absolute ruler. In addition, the people asked the King to hold an Estates General, which was an assembly for the Estates, and this portrayed how the King’s ability to lead the country was in question and that the people wanted a say in their future. As such, rather than the economic conditions at that time, it depicted King Louis XVI’s weak leadership. Cross-referencing to Source B, Source B showed that King Louis XVI was losing his power, and recognition that the appeal to summon the Estates General by the people was to claim power and rights rather than remedy the economic situation. This can be seen it mentioned that the people displayed “unswerving consistency and firmness of principle” in demanding for their right to “act as judges” and “register taxes and general laws for the kingdom”, portraying how the people wanted a share of the King’s absolute power. It was also mentioned that “any delay (in effecting changes) would reduce the resources for preserving and consolidating the King’s authority”, showing that Marie Antoinette, the Queen of the country, had recognized that King Louis XVI’s power over his people is decreasing. Based on my own knowledge, the people had been paying huge amounts of taxes and the country had been in debt for a long run. On the other hand, when the Estates were in conflict due to voting methods, the King recognized the need to revive his popularity as the monarch by exercising in their interests, in which he did not handle the situation well and avoided any pronouncement on the voting procedure, causing confusion as the Third Estate assumed that there would be voting by head. This showed how the people were more concerned over their individual rights rather than the economic situation at the time. The tone of the source was respectful as it was written to the people to the King to appeal for the Estates General, but words with strong connotations were used, such as ‘impossible’, where “disastrous’ and ‘illegal’ were used to describe the King’s decision, portrayed their defiance in his lead. Hence, source A does not really support the view as through the economic situation, it showed how the people were rising to claim power and rights from their absolute monarch.

Source B (aliza)

Source B supports the hypothesis. It can be inferred that the King was insistent and very keen on carrying out actions to aid his financial status, and that would prevent harming his position as King. In the letter, Marie Antoinette stated that they were "about to make great changes in the parlements", which was to create an assembly who would "have the right to register taxes and general laws for the kingdom". She also said that it was "clear that any delay would reduce the resources for preserving and consolidating the King's authority", showing the desperate nature of the economic situation that they were facing, and the extent of damage it would inflict upon the King Louis's position as King. Thus, it supports the hypothesis that the French Revolution and subsequent overthrowing of the King was due to deteriorating economic conditions. Cross-referencing this to Source A, it says that the King had made a decision to tax the clergy and nobility due to the growing debt the government was facing, and that was in 1787, one year before Marie Antoinette's letter to her brother was written. This shows that the economic situation of that time was so bad as to have the King make the decision to tax the nobility and clergy, who were exempted from taxes, and thus supports the idea of the the French Revolution was due to deteriorating economic conditions. Also, this source is fairly reliable as Marie Antoinette, the wife of the then King Louis XVI of France, had written the letter, and she was there to experience the deteriorating economic conditions and the pre-French Revolution conditions firsthand. Adding on to this reliability was her purpose for writing the letter. It was written to her brother Joseph II of Austria, most likely to be confiding in him what they were about to do, and the consequences of not executing these actions. This letter was likely to be confidential and only to be read by her brother, thus reducing the possibility of the truth being obscured, and increasing its reliability.