And then they overthrew that monarchy, had a second republic for four years, Napoleon III declared himself emperor, the empire collapsed, and they had a third republic, which was overthrown by the Nazis, and then a fourth republic after the Nazis lost, which only lasted another twelve years before they changed enough laws to call it #5.
Boy, I bet they would have preferred to skip ahead to overthrowing the monarchs indefinitely.
And how the absolute fuck do you propose they could have reformed a monarchy that responded to protests with violence? Even the French don’t overthrow their government without giving it a chance to respond to their demands.
It’s like suggesting that a union get concessions without striking. Sure, they’d like to, but if the company refuses to negotiate, there’s only one (legal) path forward.
The third estate had effectively politically overthrown the old regime by like day five of the estates general. There would still be a king, but the clergy-nobility-commons divide was gone and there would be representative government. Not enough, obviously, but a step in the right direction.
Denton decided the people he didn’t like needed to die and that sent things spinning out toward murderville for everyone, including eventually himself. Basically everyone who would have built upon those small steps fled the country or were murdered. Many of them were shitheads, yes. But I think France would have been better off without the head-choppy parts of the revolution.
That doesn’t seem compatible with the summaries I’ve found. I’m not an expert by any means, but it looks like the constitutional monarchy you mentioned was repeatedly sabotaged by Louis XVI until he was violently deposed. You can argue against his beheading the following January all you like, but deposing him was not a change from within, it was a violent revolution. They stormed the palace and threw him in jail.
And then they overthrew that monarchy, had a second republic for four years, Napoleon III declared himself emperor, the empire collapsed, and they had a third republic, which was overthrown by the Nazis, and then a fourth republic after the Nazis lost, which only lasted another twelve years before they changed enough laws to call it #5.
Boy, I bet they would have preferred to skip ahead to overthrowing the monarchs indefinitely.
And how the absolute fuck do you propose they could have reformed a monarchy that responded to protests with violence? Even the French don’t overthrow their government without giving it a chance to respond to their demands.
It’s like suggesting that a union get concessions without striking. Sure, they’d like to, but if the company refuses to negotiate, there’s only one (legal) path forward.
The third estate had effectively politically overthrown the old regime by like day five of the estates general. There would still be a king, but the clergy-nobility-commons divide was gone and there would be representative government. Not enough, obviously, but a step in the right direction.
Denton decided the people he didn’t like needed to die and that sent things spinning out toward murderville for everyone, including eventually himself. Basically everyone who would have built upon those small steps fled the country or were murdered. Many of them were shitheads, yes. But I think France would have been better off without the head-choppy parts of the revolution.
That doesn’t seem compatible with the summaries I’ve found. I’m not an expert by any means, but it looks like the constitutional monarchy you mentioned was repeatedly sabotaged by Louis XVI until he was violently deposed. You can argue against his beheading the following January all you like, but deposing him was not a change from within, it was a violent revolution. They stormed the palace and threw him in jail.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-great-french-revolution-1789-1793#toc27