Tag Archives: France

European Common Market (1957)

Posted on by

This document is a press statement written from the United States’ perspective that described a potential European Common Market and free rade area. This common market was to be comprised of Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The intent of these negotiations was to eliminate trade barriers between member countries and to establish a common external tariff towards outside countries. Both the United States and Great Britain favored this initiative because it would further the political and economic strength of Western Europe by unifying this market. It would also be aligned with the U.S.’s vision of having freer, nondiscriminatory multilateral trade, as well as further increase the prevalence of convertible currencies. This trade relationship would also be in the U.S.’s interest because it would continue a positive trend by further liberalizing imports from the dollar area.

Do you believe that, although not mentioned, the U.S. vehemently supports this treaty because it will halt the spread of communism in Europe by creating a strong, economically expanding, western Europe?

At the end of the document, is the use of the words “welfare of the entire free world,” meant to include every free country, even if it was a freely elected socialist or communist government?

Otto von Bismarck

Posted on by

Author: Otto von Bismarck, who ruled between 1862 and 1890, helped to unify Germany. He helped to unite the German states with Prussian leadership by initiating wars with Denmark, Austria, and France. [1]

Context: He wrote this during the time when he was establishing power with Prussia. He began a series of wars in order to establish this Prussian power. He created tension between France and Prussia by editing a telegram to make these countries angry at each other. The French declared war on the Prussians, but the Prussians ended up defeating the French. [2]

Language: The language that he uses is not highly complex; rather, it is very to the point because he wants others to be able to easily understand him.

Audience: He is writing to the general people of Germany because he wants them to understand what is currently happening. He also addresses the leaders because he wants to stress the importance of having a unified Germany.

Intent: To stress the need of a unified Germany and to explain how he felt that war was inevitable.

Message: He explained how in order for Germany to be very powerful, it was important for Austria and Prussia to be allied.

Why: He wanted the people of Prussia to see what he what he had done for them. Also, he wanted the German states to be unified to create a national identity and to fight against other European states.

Do you think that Otto von Bismarck was effective in attempting to relay his message?

Socialist Opinions in an Industrial Society

Posted on by

Robert Owen

Author

  • Robert Owen
  • English cotton manufacturer
  • “Utopian” socialist and workers’ rights advocate
  • Headed England’s Revolutionary Trades Union movement in 1830s
  • Worked in America/England

Context

  • Industrial Revolution is booming
  • Working conditions are not good and there are few laws in place to protect them
  • In United States, President Andrew Jackson defunded Second Bank of U.S. on March 28 (much to many peoples’ disapproval)

Language

  • Negative opinion on the flaws of the system
  • Persuasive with extended flowery (yet still understandable) language

Audience

  • Literate upper/middle class
  • Voters, landowners, business owners (people of everyday influence)
  • Great Britain’s people

Intent

  • Explain why the current system is so flawed
  • Incite change in a bloodless revolution

Message

  • Unite as Consolidated Union
  • By holding a strong moral influence, help man reach its full potential outside the evil grasps of the current flawed system

Karl Marx

Author

  • Karl Marx
  • Wealthy middle class
  • When this was published he was working as the editor to a paper in Paris

Context

  • Industrial Revolution
  • Very poor conditions for workers
  • France during the July Monarchy

Language

  • Very philosophical… breaks down each basic element and defines/redefines to reach a certain conclusion
  • Rational
  • Easy to understand and follow

Audience

  • Workers
  • Lower classes of Paris

Intent

  • Reach the workers and convince them of a socialist system where they are not devalued

Message

  • Political economy based on greed and competition
  • Workers are objectified, estranged, and treated poorly in a system based on greed
  • People are alienated from their products by the system which contradicts their nature
  • Private property causes this estrangement

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon

Author

  • Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon
  • Scientist, businessman, and theorist
  • Writing had more influence after his death

Context

  • France under Napoleon’s constitutional monarchy
  • Industrial rev with poor working conditions and a lot of angry, hungry workers

Language

  • Emotional and persuasive
  • Many questions

Audience

  • Working class and middle class

Intent

  • Offer an opinion against laissez-faire economics

Message

  • Personal and social interests do not always coincide, which is why laissez-faire economics don’t always work
  • Those at the top become corrupted while those at the bottom suffer

Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind

Posted on by

Johann Gottfried von Herder was a German philosopher associated with the Enlightenment. He wrote the article, “Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind” in 1784, and he discussed the idea of nationalism. Paul Halsall provided an introduction to this article. There have been different types of nationalism, such as cultural pride, …right to self-government, and …national superiority” (Halsall 1)

He established the central ideas of nationalism, which are that people can be defined as having a “common history, language, and tradition” and that a nation “has a unique claim to be considered a legitimate political basis for sovereignty” (Halsall 1). In general, the people of nations do not necessarily consider themselves as members of a given nation. They are more aware that they belong to a smaller group, such a family or a town whereas nationalism is in a broader sense.

For France, the concept of nationalism was difficult because most residents of France did not speak French. Ultimately, a French national identity was created by having all people learn to speak French. For French thinkers, an nationalistic France was not complicated because France had been established as a united state. However, for German thinkers, the idea of nationalism was more difficult because heterogenous groups of people were interspersed. For example, people had different religions, languages, and traditions. THe idea of nationalism can be created throughout language because “to deprive a people of its speech is to deprive it of its one eternal good” (Halsall 2).

How do you think that the United States establishes its own sense of nationalism and how does this compare to the idea of nationalism in France during the French Revolution?

Moving away from Absolutism

Posted on by

France endured centuries of Absolute Monarchs that spent much of their kingdom’s wealth on lavish buildings, monuments, and other signs of status, while the common people, known as the third estate, remained poor, hungry and devoid of power.  Though the third estate lacked power through the traditional estate system, as the clergy and nobility could overrule their political ambitions, it consisted of 96% of the French population.  Because it held the overwhelming majority of the population, members of the third estate believed that they should hold more power over France’s decisions.  Thus power was subsequently moved away from absolute rulers, nobility, and clergy and towards the third estate.

One of the most profound demonstrations of this shift was the change from the state following Catholicism to supporting more general Deist practices.  Revolutionaries saw the clergy as a corrupt entity created to justify a Monarch as well as being a way to neutralize the common man’s power in the estate system.  Therefore, revolutionaries aimed to reduce its power by shifting France’s religion to Deism.  This meant that the clergy and nobility would have less power over the third estate.  Likewise, it meant that the third estate now had control over their own religious preferences and would not have to pay to the church.

Another shift away from the past Absolutist ways of France was the general condemnation of royalty.  Children were prohibited from receiving names of past kings such as Louis, Francis, or Henry.  Kings and queens where removed from games such as chess and cards.  The general attitude of disapproval of royalty was promoted by members of the third estate as they realized their power as their society’s majority.

France underwent a shift away from absolutism towards democracy.  Much of the government supported by the revolutionaries had roots to the Greek concepts of equality and free thought.  These ideas mixed with the third estate’s desire to have political input and led France in its modernization and ultimately its rejection of Absolutist practices.

Thoughts on the Declaration of Independence and the Third Estate

Posted on by

The document originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed by fifty-six men on July 4th, 1776 that was coined the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America” (Blaisdell 63) and later became known as the Declaration of Independence, remains to this day the most famous and important document in American history. Throughout this document, the framers specifically highlight and outline wrongdoings committed by the King of England and ultimately their desire to form a new sovereign nation separate from England. With the abuses committed by the English monarchy, it became their right “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” (Blaisdell 64). The Declaration of Independence creates the United States of America, a free and independent nation that has the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do” (Blaisdell 66).

Similar to the power that was desired in accordance to the Declaration of Independence, in Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes’ What is the Third Estate? he believes that the Third Estate of France was entitled to more power and respect than they have been given. According to Sieyes, out of all public and private services, “it needs no detailed analysis to show that the Third Estate everywhere constitutes nineteen-twentieths of them” (Blaisdell 72). Clearly, the message that Sieyes wants to relay is that a monarchy is not necessary for the people of France to function. They would be fine and most likely better off if they were to overthrow or rebel against the Crown. The French Revolution ensued and lead to The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. This was created with very similar rights in mind as the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence and The Third Estate

Posted on by

Thomas Jefferson wrote up the draft to a very important document back in 1776. It was known as “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America” (Blaisdell 63) but came to be known as the Declaration of Independence. This document explained what the government should do for its people to prove that the king of England was not the proper or wanted ruler for the colonies anymore. It explained how the government should help out the citizens rather than hold them back, how it should promote safety and happiness (Blaisdell 64).

This leads into Sieyès’ document “What is the Third Estate?”. He is trying to provoke a similar rebellion to the one that happened over in America. He wants  the people of France to realize they don’t need. King just like the colonies of America didn’t. To do this, Sieyès explains how the Third Estate is everything (Blaisdell 70) and how they don’t need anyone from outside the Third Estate to help them run the government (Blaisdell 74). All this talk of a new government would lead up to the Tennis Court Oath, where the National Assembly of France. Owed to work until they made a new constitution and the king was out of power (Blaisdell 78).

Power Struggles Present in the Declaration of Independence and The Third Estate

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence clearly establishes the kind power the United States is looking for through a representation of Britain’s tight control. The Declaration of Independence exemplifies how the king caused “repeated injuries and usurpations” (Blaisdell 64) as well as acted in every way “which may define a tyrant” (Blaisdell 66). The United States is looking for a government that allows power to be given to the people. The authors of this document believe that men are born with certain rights, and in order to protect those rights, the people should have a say in the government. The Declaration of Independence goes on to state that is the “Right of the People” to alter the government if the government were not working or becomes “destructive” in any way (Blaisdell 64). The main intent behind this document is to stray away from the “absolute tyranny,” and create an inclusive government where the people’s voices are heard (Blaisdell 64).

Sieyès argues over power among classes in his What is the Third Estate? He argues that the privileged have set limits to the third estate, stating, “you can go so far and no further” (Blaisdell 72). However, Sieyès points out that it is the third estate that occupies certain jobs that keep society running as it should, therefore, the third state is everything and should have more rights. Sieyès goes on to claim that the privileged do not help society because of its “idleness,” but are granted certain rights because of their place in society (Blaisdell 73). Sieyès continues, stating that nobility has special rights making them “a people apart in the great nation” which forms the separation of powers between the third estate and the nobility (Blaisdell 73). Sieyès believed the nation would be better off without the nobility because the third state held society together.

The Declaration of Independence and the Third Estate

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence discusses the reasons why the United States decided to break off from England and become its own nation. This document discusses how it is a government’s responsibility to protect certain rights of the citizens: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Blaisdell 64). If a government does not protect these rights, then it is the rights of the governed people to “abolish it, and to institute new Government” (Blaisdell 64). The British government did not protect and uphold these rights of the people; rather, it caused a series of “repeated injuries” and established “absolute Tyranny over these States” (Blaisdell 64). The writers of the Declaration were clearly not satisfied with the government and how it protected its people. Therefore, they intended to create their own new form of government, which would do a better job in helping its citizens instead of merely ignoring their concerns. In this case, political power is created through a new form of government with different branches, such as a Representative House, Legislature, and Judiciary powers.

In France, the citizens also were not satisfied with their government. The Third Estate of France is described as “everything;” the people of the Third Estate are the commoners (Blaisdell 70). Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, author of What is the Third Estate? describes how the Third Estate is a complete nation by itself. In order to be considered a nation, it must provide “private activities and public services” (Blasdell 71), which the Third Estate does provide. For example, it must provide public services such as “the army, the law, the Church, and the bureaucracy” and private activities such as merchants, families who work on land, and the sale of goods (Blaisdell 71-72). France cannot run without the Third Estate and would ultimately do much better without the first two estates. The French are concerned with establishing their own rights: “Liberty, Prosperity, Security, and Resistance of Oppression” (Blaisdell 80). The French were less interested than the Americans establishing a new form of government that protected the rights of the citizens; rather, they concentrated on establishing a government that kept part of their old form of government and bashing the rest of their government.

French Colonial Expansion

Posted on by

Jules Ferry – On French Colonial Expansion

Author: Jules Ferry was born April 5, 1832, in Saint-Dié, France.  He was educated as a lawyer. Before serving two terms as prime minister of France (1880-1881, 1883-1885), Ferry was an active politician. He served as the republican deputy for Paris in 1869 and protested the declaration of war against Germany. The government of national defense appointed Ferry as the prefect of the Seine. As prime minister, he passed laws that secularized the French educational system. After Bismarck’s German victory over the French, Ferry began to promote French expansionism.

Context: Ferry wrote during the period of colonial expansionism and imperialism. This was a time when the powerful, industrialized countries like England began to stretch their constituencies by annexing or establishing protectorates in “undeclared” areas of the world like Africa.

Language: Ferry’s language was very direct, clear, and assertive. He emphasized and stressed his points by frequent use of the words “need” and “must.” Ferry referred to the grave seriousness of the problem of competition and the German and American protectionist policies restricting trade. He also spoke of the necessary French sense of duty to solve the problem.

Audience: Ferry made this speech before the French Chamber of Deputies on March 28, 1884.

Intent: Ferry hoped to convince the Chamber of Deputies to take up a more rapid and vast policy of colonial expansion for economic and political achievement amidst the globalizing competitive atmosphere.

Message: Ferry justified the need for a vast policy of colonial expansion with the need for economic success. He realized that competitive trade was globalizing and that to prosper, a country needed to attain a vast network of economic outlets. His solution was colonial expansionism, a policy that offered more outlets for exports. With more outlets, France would have a more competitive edge while rivaling the other industrialized nations like Germany, England, and the United States. Ferry also asserted that the French people, as a “superior” race, have a duty to reign over and civilize the “inferior” races, which is reminiscent of Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden.” Ferry saw colonial expansion necessary for France’s global rank.