France's Economic and Social Transformation

Nineteenth Century Europe
PART 1
session 3
FRANCE: THE RESTORATION AND
THE JULY MONARCHY

Major Themes of This Session
The Economic and Social
Organization of the Country
THE EFFECTS OF THE REVOLUTION
ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
The Last of the Bourbons,
1814-1830
THE KING AND THE CHARTER
DOMESTIC POLICIES UNDER LOUIS XVIII
THE REIGN OF CHARLES X
The July Monarchy
GOVERNMENT BY THE MIDDLE CLASS
SOME INSURRECTIONS
WORKERS’REVOLTS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF
SOCIALISM
NATIONALISM AND THE REVIVAL OF
BONAPARTISM
THE GUIZOT SYSTEM
Religion and the Arts, 1815- 1848
CHURCH, BOURGEOISIE, AND WORKING CLASS
OTHER CHURCHES
LITERATURE AND THE ARTS

The Economic and Social Organization of
the Country
The Effects of the Revolution
Prise de la Bastille et arrestation
du gouverneur M. de Launay,
le 14 juillet 1789.—Wikipedia

“The period of French history that opened in 1814 is usually called the Restoration;
but, as has often been pointed out, very little was in fact restored, except the Bourbon
dynasty. France had had twenty-five years of of revolutionary change since 1789, and it
was so obviously impossible to re-establish the institutions and the laws of the old regime
that the first French ruler of the period resisted the advice of those councillors who
wanted him to turn back the clock. Louis XVIII was wise enough to see that very few
people in France had any desire to see the past recaptured.”
Gordon A. Craig, Europe Since 1815, Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1971. p. 64.

“Thanks to the Revolution and to Napoleon, the feudal customs and privileges of the
nobility had been swept away, the old administrative system with its plethora of
provincial agencies and local boundaries had been replaced with a centralized, logical
system that really worked, and the ancient judicial system, with its many conflicting
sovereignties and law codes, had given way to a uniform system of courts and by-laws
that were codified and binding on all parts of the country.…”
Craig, op. cit., pp. 64–65.

“Thanks to the Revolution and to Napoleon, the feudal customs and privileges of the
nobility had been swept away, the old administrative system with its plethora of
provincial agencies and local boundaries had been replaced with a centralized, logical
system that really worked, and the ancient judicial system, with its many conflicting
sovereignties and law codes, had given way to a uniform system of courts and by-laws
that were codified and binding on all parts of the country. The majority of Frenchmen put
too high a valuation on efficiency to want to see outworn institutions restored merely for
the sake of tradition.
“There were more persons, perhaps, who were sympathetic to the idea of restoring
clerical influence in education; but, even here, the merits of Napoleon’s centralization of
the whole educational educational system under the Université de France were too
obvious to permit its abolition, and most people were content to argue that neither the
state nor the church should be allowed to monopolize education. Finally, in the case of
the most profound changes effected by the revolution, those in the economic and social
organization of the country, there were too many people who had benefitted directly from
the transformation of the last twenty-five years to permit efforts to restore the old system.
“The changes, then, were permanent; and the economic and social changes in
particular made France profoundly different from the countries discussed above, despite
occasional superficial similarities.”
Craig, op. cit., pp. 64–65.

the Country
Economic Organization
The Angelus by Jean-François Millet, (1857-59)—Wikipedia

“Both the government and private agricultural societies took an active interest in
scientific methods; a Ministry of Agriculture was founded in 1836; and there was
widespread dissemination of agricultural studies. The effect of this was diminished,
however, by the high degree of illiteracy in the rural districts and the extreme
conservatism of the French peasant, who looked with suspicion upon novelty and resisted
such useful innovations as selective breeding and artificial fertilization. The fact that
primogeniture had been abolished during the Revolution also has a bearing here, for the
distribution of the land among all members of the family meant that allotments tended to
be small, so that—even when they were used—scientific methods had less striking effects
than they might have had on more extensive farms. As a result of this, French agriculture
remained highly vulnerable to natural disasters. The effects of poor harvests, for instance,
tended to be widespread and, because the peasants were free citizens, to have violent
political results.
“France’s industrial progress was more advanced that that of its eastern neighbors. It
had been stimulated by government assistance during the war and by the necessity of
producing goods normally imported but at that time cut off by blockade. Thus, the cotton
industry at Rouen, Lille, and Saint-Quentin was in a flourishing condition when peace
was restored. Both it and the linen industry were protected by tariffs and produced for the
internal market, rather than the external, where the British were supreme. In both these
industries the putting-out system of household production was still the rule, although
concentration of manufacture in factories was beginning, especially in the silk industry,
which had its center in Lyon. It was in silk that mechanization was most pronounced,
both Jacquard and power looms being widely used in this period.”
op. cit., pp. 65-66.

“In 1815 France had a population of twenty-eight million people, and by 1850, this had
risen to almost thirty-five million. At the latter date there were eight million more
Frenchmen than inhabitants of the British Isles, and, among the Great Powers, France
was second only to Russia in number of subjects.
“The great majority of Frenchmen still lived off the land. As late as 1850 there were
only five French cities with 100,000 inhabitants or more: Paris, with 1,420,000;
Marseille, with 195,000; Lyon, with 177,000; Bordeaux, with 131,000; and Rouen,
with100.000. The fact that Paris increased its numbers by 300,000 between 1830 and
1850 indicates that a shift to the cities was getting under way; but this was still on a small
scale and France was a predominantly rural country.
“The state of agriculture was potentially healthy. Thanks to the abolition of feudalism,
France was now a nation of free farmers, and the division and sale of church properties
and of some of the large estates belonging to the nobility had greatly favored the
intensive cultivation of the soil. The most important crops were grain (which was
protected against foreign competition by an adjustable tariff), grapes, garden products,
olives, and—introduced most recently—sugar beets. There was a slow but steady
expansion of all crops during this period; and, by 1835, the yield of wine grapes was
double what it had been in 1815, while there was generally a surplus of cereals for
export.”
op. cit., p. 65.

“Aside from textiles, the most important industries were the metallurgical and machine-
making industries. France was handicapped by the lack of good coking coal and, until the
mid-forties, most of its pig iron was smelted in small charcoal furnaces. Even so, the
beginnings of concentration and mechanization were made, and such firms as Schneider-
Creuzot and Wendel were producing iron in modern puddling and rolling mills in the
middle 1820s. In this period also, machine industry became firmly established in Alsace,
Lille, Marseille, and the vicinity of Paris. Power for manufacturing was still produced by
water; but by 1846 France had a total of 5000 steam engines with a combined horsepower
of 60,000.
“Domestic commerce was encouraged by the improvement of roads and canals and by
the creation in 1831 of a special Ministry of Public Works charged with their construction
and upkeep. Some measure of French success here is indicated by the fact that one could
travel by highway from Paris to Bordeaux in thirty-six hours in 1848, whereas the same
trip had taken eighty-six hours in 1814. In the same period the canal network was tripled
in length, and all of France’s major rivers were fitted into it.…”
op. cit., p. 66.

“…The first regular railway was started at the industrial town of Saint-Etienne on the
Loire in 1827 and was extended as far as Lyon by 1832.…”
Ibid.

“…The first regular railway was started at the industrial town of Saint-Etienne on the
Loire in 1827 and was extended as far as Lyon by 1832. By 1842, a railroad law was
passed, providing for the construction of a national network by private companies with
government aid and supervision. By 1848 about 1000 miles of railway were in operation
and another 1500 being constructed.
“France’s foreign commerce had been pretty well ruined by the wars and, at the
beginning of this period, the older ports were in decline.Marseille was revived by the
conquest of Algeria in 1830 and Bordeaux by the growth of French industry, which also
stimulated the rise of the newest and fastest growing port, Le Harve. Probably the
greatest barrier to the resuscitation of foreign trade was the generally protectionist
character of European tariff policy. After 1846, when Great Britain went in for free trade,
there was growing interest in France in the possible advantages of following suit.”
Ibid.

the Country
Social Organization
Petite

Bourgeois

Collage—

jbp

“The social system of the ancien régime had been completely smashed by the
revolution. In the new France the king and the court played a much diminished role, and
were generally unpopular in Paris, to which they had removed from Versailles. As for the
nobility, they found it impossible to regain their former monopoly of political and social
power. Even in the first years after their return, their position was contested by the
wealthy bourgeoisie and, after 1830, it was captured by the great bankers, merchants,
speculators, and industrialists, who formed that class. There was a tendency, as time went
on, for the nobility and the upper bourgeoisie to cooperate, if not to combine, as there was
also for the sons of the bourgeoisie to turn from the business world of their fathers to the
professions, government service, and the army. Thus, in Stendhal’s…”
op. cit., pp. 66-67
.

“The social system of the ancien régime had been completely smashed by the
revolution. In the new France the king and the court played a much diminished role, and
were generally unpopular in Paris, to which they had removed from Versailles. As for the
nobility, they found it impossible to regain their former monopoly of political and social
power. Even in the first years after their return, their position was contested by the
wealthy bourgeoisie and, after 1830, it was captured by the great bankers, merchants,
speculators, and industrialists, who formed that class. There was a tendency, as time went
on, for the nobility and the upper bourgeoisie to cooperate, if not to combine, as there was
also for the sons of the bourgeoisie to turn from the business world of their fathers to the
professions, government service, and the army. Thus, in Stendhal’s penetrating analysis
of French society in this period, Lucien Leuwen, we find the hero, the son of a great Paris
banker, first serving as a lieutenant in a regiment in the provinces and then seeking a post
as secretary in one of the ministries.•
“Beneath the nobility and the upper [grand] bourgeoisie and the lower [petite]
bourgeoisie, that solid, respectable, unadventurous class of urban tradesmen, wealthy
peasants, rentiers, and pensioners described so well in the pages of Balzac and Flaubert.
Their outlook was restricted, for the most part, to the events of their own small world;
they were not widely read; and, in politics, they were interested only in actions that
affected their financial well-being. But they comprised the class with which any
government had to recon, for their support was necessary if it was to retain power.”
op. cit., pp. 66-67
.

“At the bottom of the scale were the poorer peasantry and the working class. The
majority of French peasants now owned some land of their own, but a large part of what
they held was mortgaged and they had to pay ruinous interest rates to the speculators who
had sold it to them, a situation also well described by that percipient observer Balzak,…”
op. cit., p. 67
.

“At the bottom of the scale were the poorer peasantry and the working class. The
majority of French peasants now owned some land of their own, but a large part of what
they held was mortgaged and they had to pay ruinous interest rates to the speculators who
had sold it to them, a situation also well described by that percipient observer Balzak,
•particularly in Les Paysans (1844), in which a radical agitator warns the peasants against
the village usurer who has been ‘sucking the marrow from your bones for the last thirty
years, and you still don’t see that the bourgeois will be worse than the seigneur. A peasant
will always be a peasant!’ The lot of the French peasantry was, of course, far superior to
that of their Austrian, Prussian, and Russian counterparts but their standard of living was
often not far above the subsistence level, their housing conditions were often wretched,
and their lives were ones of unremitting toil. They were mostly illiterate and conservative
in their views, although prone to violent action in time of economic distress.
“Finally, the working class in the urban centers included craftsmen in small shops,
factory workers, construction workers, day laborers, and beggars. Even those who were
steadily employed were more vulnerable economically than they would have been under
the old guild system, which had now been abolished. They were forbidden to organize
and hence had no means of protection against depreciation of wages or abominable
working conditions.…”
op. cit., p. 67
.

“…All the evidence indicates that their existence became steadily more wretched from
1815 to 1848, as their numbers were swollen by new arrivals from the countryside, and
they became increasingly rebellious. Although strikes were illegal and were followed by
heavy jail sentences for their instigators, they were numerous and violent in these years.
The German poet Heine,• who visited some of the factories in the Faubourg Saint-
Marceau in 1842, and saw the kind of reading matter that was being circulated among the
workers and read to them, wrote: ‘The harvest that will sooner or later come from this
sowing in France threatens to be a republican outbreak.•’
“Thanks to the revolution, then, and to the advance of industry, the old and relatively
static division of society had been replaced by one that was much more complicated. It
was also more fluid, partly because the revolutionary doctrine of equality was taken
seriously by Frenchmen and led them to be less inclined to accept the station into which
they were born and readier, when other methods failed, to take violent action to improve
it.”
Ibid.
.

1814-1830
The King and the Charter

Louis XVIII (1755-1795-1814-1824)
“sober good sense … in the ﬁrst years of his
reign”
granted his subjects the constitutional
charter
steered a middle course between democracy
and absolutism
after the assassination of the Duc d’Berry
(1820) he became a reactionary
authorized the Spanish expedition (1823)

Le Charte (The Charter) —1814-1848
insistence of the Allied Powers
Chamber of Peers and Chamber of Deputies
Peers = hereditary (House of Lords)
Deputies = limited franchise (100,000 of 28 million)
civil liberties
equality before the law
freedom of religion and the press
civil and military “careers open to talent”

“Louis XVIII has generally been treated with respect by French historians, probably
because of the sober good sense he showed in the first years of his reign, when it would
have been easy to act emotionally. He demonstrated his intelligence at the very outset by
admitting that that the Allied Powers were right in insisting that France be ruled in a
constitutional manner; one of his first acts was to grant to his subjects the Constitutional
Charter that was to remain in force until the February days of 1848.
“This document began with a preamble that sought to justify the divine right of kings
in general and to list the great services of the French monarchs of the past, and then
added:
It then claimed for the king the right to make treaties, to declare war and make peace, to
command the military forces, and to make appointments; and it went on to state that
legislative power would be shared between the king and the two houses of parliament, the
king alone having the right to introduce or amend laws and the parliament the right to
accept or reject them. Parliament was to consist of a Chamber of Peers, composed of
hereditary peers and members appointed by the king for life, and a Chamber of Deputies,
composed of members elected for a term of five years, unless the king decided to dissolve
the Chamber and call for new elections.…”
op. cit., p. 68.
.
While We recognized that a free monarchical constitution should fulﬁll the expectations of an
enlightened Europe, We had also to remember that Our ﬁrst duty toward Our people was, in
their own interest, to preserve the rights and prerogatives of the Crown..

“…To be eligible for election as a deputy one had to be at least forty years old and to own
enough property to necessitate the annual payment of 1000 francs in direct taxes. To vote
in elections one had to be at least thirty years old and to pay taxes amounting to 300
francs a year. What this meant was that only about 100,000 men could vote and only
1,200 stand for election out of a population of twenty-eight million.
“The Charter, therefore, did not provide for anything resembling democratic
participation in government. On the other hand, it enabled a higher proportion of the
population to have some share in politics than was true at this time in countries further to
the east. It was relatively enlightened in another way; it declared equality of all
Frenchmen before the law, their eligibility for all civil and military positions, their
freedom from arbitrary arrest and from imprisonment without legal process, their
freedom to worship as they saw fit and to have a free press. Moreover, in an
announcement made a month before the Charter was issued, the king had made it clear
that his subjects need have no fear of expropriation in case they had acquired land
formerly belonging to the church or the émigrés; and he added:”
Ibid.
The guaranteed government debt, pensions, distinctions, and military honors will be
maintained, as well as the old and new [Napoleonic] nobility. The Legion of Honor will be
preserved, and We will decide upon the nominations.

“Taken all together, this was a charter of liberties the like of which was unknown in
eastern Europe. It was, in effect, a recognition of the principal changes wrought by the
Revolution.
“The Charter itself was regarded with aversion by some people in France. Speaking
generally, one can distinguish four main political groupings in the country: the Ultra-
Royalists, the Doctrinaires, the Liberals, and the Radicals. The first and the last of these
groups opposed the constitutional grant and everything it stood for.
“In his great novel about Restoration France, Les Misérables, Victor Hugo…”
op. cit., p. 69.

Revolution.
“In his great novel about Restoration France, Les Misérables, Victor Hugo described
the attitude of the Ultra-Royalists. He wrote:
op. cit., p. 69.
To be Ultra is to quarrel with the stake as to the degree of cooking heretics should undergo; it
is to reproach the idol for its want of idolatry; it is to ﬁnd in the Pope insufﬁcient papism, in
the king too little royalty, and too much light in the night.

Revolution.
The Ultras lived in the world of Bouvines and Fontenoy: and, not unnaturally, they
regarded the Charter as an abomination. They were, indeed, so completely reactionary
that Louis XVIII once grumbled, ‘If these gentlemen had their way, they would end by
purging me.…”
op. cit., p. 69.

Revolution.
The Ultras lived in the world of Bouvines and Fontenoy: and, not unnaturally, they
regarded the Charter as an abomination. They were, indeed, so completely reactionary
that Louis XVIII once grumbled, ‘If these gentlemen had their way, they would end by
purging me.•’
At the other end of the political spectrum were the Radicals, a confused group of
varying views, unified only in their desire to destroy the existing regime so that either the
empire could be restored or a republic established, they opposed the Charter for obvious
reasons, but they had little strength or importance before 1830.”
op. cit., p. 69.

“The two middle groups accepted the Charter but differed in their attitude toward it.
To the Doctrinaires it seemed as reasonable a balance between government power and
individual freedom as could be devised; therefore, it should not be tampered with. The
Liberals, on the other hand, felt that it was inadequate and must be amended in such a
way as to extend civil liberties and strengthen the powers of the Chamber of Deputies by
making the king’s ministers responsible to it. In other things these groups were in general
agreement. Neither favored any real widening of the suffrage; both opposed democracy
as steadfastly as they did absolutism; both believed that France should be run by the well-
to-do and educated middle class. If they had been able to cooperate in a political system
run according to well-defined and mutually satisfactory rules, in which they could have
alternated in power, both the Charter and the monarchy might have survived. Instead, as a
result of events that could not have been foreseen, the Doctrinaires were driven into the
arms of the Ultras, while the Liberals drifted toward the Radical position.”
Ibid.

1814-1830
Domestic Policies under Louis XIII
The Execution of Marshal Ney,

painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme

(1868 )—Wikipedia

“The political history of this period began with the unedifying spectacle of royalist-
inspired riots, plundering forays and political murders, especially in the southern
departments. This White Terror which the government proved incompetent or disinclined
to suppress, had the effect of intimidating liberal-minded electors when the first election
of deputies took place in 1815; and the Chamber that resulted from these elections was so
reactionary in its complexion that the king called it a Chambre introuvable,…”
op. cit., pp. 69-70.

reactionary in its complexion that the king called it a Chambre introuvable, ‘a chamber
the like of which will never be found again.’ This body further encouraged rightist excess
by demanding the execution of Marshal Ney and other soldiers who had rallied to the
cause of Napoleon during the Hundred Days. A foreign observer was moved by this
bloodbath to observe: ‘The French are behaving as if there was no such thing as history
or the future.’ The Chamber’s insistence on repressive measures was so patently
vindictive that the other Great Powers became alarmed.…”
op. cit., pp. 69-70.

cause of Napoleon during the Hundred Days.• A foreign observer was moved by this
vindictive that the other Great Powers became alarmed. The Russian Foreign Minister
Nesselrode warned the Count of Artois, the darling of the Ultras, that they were not
occupying France in order ‘to sustain his foolishness,…”
op. cit., pp. 69-70.

occupying France in order ‘to sustain his foolishness,’ and the Duke of Wellington wrote
Louis XVIII that this crude provincial royalism might very well cost him his crown.…”
op. cit., pp. 69-70.

occupying France in order ‘to sustain his foolishness,’ and the Duke of Wellington wrote
Louis XVIII that this crude provincial royalism might very well cost him his crown. The
king was not opposed to this kind of encouragement. In September 1816 he dissolved the
Chamber, forcing new elections that brought a more moderate-minded assembly into
existence.”
op. cit., pp. 69-70.

“This action ushered in the most constructive period of Louis XVIII’s reign. In the
next four years the ministers Decazes and Richelieu,…”
op. cit., p. 70.

next four years the ministers Decazes and Richelieu, supported by a Chamber in which
the majority was composed of Doctrinaires and Liberals, passed the laws that were
necessary to elaborate the suffrage and press provisions of the Charter. They also restored
France’s fiscal sovereignty and raised the money needed to pay off the war indemnity,
which not only freed French soil of foreign troopzsbut restored France to the family of
nations, as was demonstrated by her admission to the consultations at Aix-la-Chapelle in
1818. In the same year, the famous law drafted by Gouvion St. Cyr was passed, providing
for the reorganization of the army and laying down the principles—voluntary enlistment,
equality of opportunity, promotion by merit—which were to guide military training and
recruitment policy until 1868. These and other constructive measures infuriated the
Ultras, who found the press law too liberal and the army law prejudicial to the nobility
and who accused the king’s chief minister, Decazes, of encouraging the growth of
liberalism.
“Their criticism might have been ineffective if it had not been for an unforeseen
calamity. On February 13, 1820, a fanatic named Louvel stabbed and killed the Duke of
Berry as he was helping his wife into a carriage at the Opera.…”
op. cit., p. 70.

next four years the ministers Decazes and Richelieu, supported by a Chamber in which
the majority was composed of Doctrinaires and Liberals, passed the laws that were
necessary to elaborate the suffrage and press provisions of the Charter. They also restored
France’s fiscal sovereignty and raised the money needed to pay off the war indemnity,
which not only freed French soil of foreign troopzsbut restored France to the family of
nations, as was demonstrated by her admission to the consultations at Aix-la-Chapelle in
1818. In the same year, the famous law drafted by Gouvion St. Cyr was passed, providing
for the reorganization of the army and laying down the principles—voluntary enlistment,
equality of opportunity, promotion by merit—which were to guide military training and
recruitment policy until 1868. These and other constructive measures infuriated the
Ultras, who found the press law too liberal and the army law prejudicial to the nobility
and who accused the king’s chief minister, Decazes, of encouraging the growth of
liberalism.
“Their criticism might have been ineffective if it had not been for an unforeseen
calamity. On February 13, 1820, a fanatic named Louvel stabbed and killed the Duke of
Berry as he was helping his wife into a carriage at the Opera. The duke was the youngest
son of the Count of Artois and he was considered the only member of the Bourbon family
likely to have a son who would assure the line of succession. The murderer admitted that
his motive was to remove this possibility, although events were to show that his attempt
had been belated, the Duchess of Berry being already with child.”
op. cit., p. 70.

“The importance of the Berry murder was that it introduced a new period of reaction.
As Chateaubriand wrote, ‘Decazes’ foot slipped in the blood and he fell.’
Ibid.

As Chateaubriand wrote, ‘Decazes’ foot slipped in the blood and he fell.’ The ministry
that replaced his was Ultra in its views and, in being so, now received the support of
many Doctrinaires who seemed to have believed that the murder was a sign that their past
policies had been too liberal to be safe. As a result, the government was able to ram
through laws that suspended the liberty of the subject, reconstituted a rigorous censorship
of the press, and, finally, rewrote electoral procedure in such a way as to give virtual
control of the elections to the Chamber of Deputies to the large landlords and the old
nobility. This new law worked so effectively, from the Ultra point of view, that the
elections of 1820 reduced the Liberals to a group of 80 in a Chamber of 450 members,
leaving the Ultras and their Doctrinaire allies in complete control.
“Louis XVIII made little attempt now to resist their demands. He had been genuinely
shocked by the Berry assassination, and this inclined him to the Ultras, as did the fact that
his new mistress, Mme. du Cayla,…”
op. cit., pp. 70-71.

his new mistress, Mme. du Cayla, was an uncompromising Ultra in her opinions.…”
op. cit., pp. 70-71.

his new mistress, Mme. du Cayla, was an uncompromising Ultra in her opinions.
Moreover, the king’s tendency toward indolence had grown with the years, and he was
now willing to leave the initiative in most things to his heir, the Count of Artois.…”
op. cit., pp. 70-71.

“…Villèle,…”
op. cit., p. 71.

“…Villèle, the minister who came to exercise greatest influence over him after Decazes’
fall, was also of the extreme royalist persuasion. It was Villèle, who persuaded the
hesitant king to authorize the expedition into Spain in 1823,..”
.
op. cit., p. 71.

Louis XVIII trying on Napoleon's boots. Caricature by George Cruikshank about the French Intervention in Spain.—
Wikipedia

“…Villèle, the minister who came to exercise greatest influence over him after Decazes’
fall, was also of the extreme royalist persuasion. It was Villèle, who persuaded the
hesitant king to authorize the expedition into Spain in 1823, which published to all
Europe France’s apparently inflexible opposition to liberalism. Apart from this, the last
years of Louis XVIII were marked, on the one hand, by a deepening of repressive
legislation and a growth of religious influence in education and, on the other, by a
number of attempts on the part of frustrated Liberals and Radicals to escape from their
impotence by secret conspiracies and coups de main. The failure of these further
discredited the left; and, in 1823, there were only fifteen Liberals left in the Chamber.
“It is little wonder that, by September 1824, when Louis XVIII died and was
succeeded by the Count of Artois, the Ultras felt that the satisfaction of their wildest
hopes was at hand.”
op. cit., p. 71.

1814-1830
The Reign of Charles X
Charles X Roi de France et de Navarre
in his coronation robes

by Jean-Baptiste Paulin Guérin, (1827)

—Wikipedia

Charles X
(1757-1824-1830)
younger brother to both Louis
XVI and XVIII, comte d’Artois,
last king of the senior Bourbon
line

“The new king was a kindly and charming man, but one with limited intelligence in
political matters, a reputation for cowardice, and an ostentatious piety that exasperated
his subjects, who were soon repeating the story that he was a Jesuit and bound by the
rules of the order. This charge was not true, but seemed plausible at a time when the
government was passing a law punishing certain kinds of sacrilege with death, when the
church was conducting a clamant* campaign against civil marriage, and when the
University of Paris was being submitted to the control of the Archbishop of Paris and
having certain of its courses suspended by that authority as dangerous to morals.
“The favors shown the church were not, however, as unpopular as the persistent
attempts to restore the power of the nobility. One of the first actions of CharlesX’s reign
was a clever bit of financial jugglery with the national debt which saved the state a billion
francs, which the government promptly handed over to the émigrés to indemnify them for
their losses during the Revolution. Not only did this hurt the great bankers—the holders
of the bonds whose interest rate had been lowered in order to effect the saving—but it
infuriated a lot of other people who saw it for what it was: a piece of special legislation
for the advantage of a class whose members had not only left France during the
Revolution but who had actually fought against their country.”
op. cit., p. 71.
________
* clamant, adj., forcing itself urgently on the attention—Apple Dictionary

“This was followed by an attempt to restore a measure of primogeniture, by allowing
fathers to leave a double portion of their estates to their eldest sons—a modest enough
proposal on the surface but, quite plainly, a first step in a planned return to the feudal
economy. One deputy said indignantly, ‘This is no law. It is a manifesto against existing
society. It is a forerunner of twenty other laws which…will break in on us and leave no
rest to the society of France….’ The bill was passed by the Ultra-dominated Chamber of
Deputies but rejected by the Peers, enough of whom still regarded the abolition of
primogeniture as one of the great achievements of the Revolution.
“But it is really unnecessary to dwell in detail on the events of the reign of Charles X.
History is doubtless filled with examples of political folly, but surely there are few that
are so unrelieved as the one afforded by the last Bourbon ruler of France. His most
marked quality was stubbornness, and it was this that lost him his crown, for it prevented
him from learning anything from his defeats. His dogged pursuit of objectives in which
only the nobility and the conservative clergy would find any advantage soon united all of
the other groups that possessed any political influence against the regime. It alienated the
lesser bourgeoisie as well as the great bankers, converted even moderate Liberals into
antimonarchists for the time being, and thus effected a fusion between Liberals and
Radicals that was ominous for the dynasty….”
op. cit., pp. 71-72.

“…It is significant that the king’s successes in the field of foreign affairs—the
participation in the Allied fleet action against the Turkish navy at Navarino in 1827,….”
op. cit., p. 72.

participation in the Allied fleet action against the Turkish navy at Navarino in 1827, and,
in 1829-1830, the preparation and successful launching of the expedition that was to
conquer Algeria and mark the beginning of the establishment of France’s new colonial
empire—…”
op. cit., p. 72.

empire—went virtually unnoticed in France, where all attention was focused on the
reactionary policies of the king’s ministers.
“Some kind of crisis was inevitable; and the way for it was prepared at the end of
1829 when Charles reconstructed his ministry, filling it almost completely with extreme
royalists, including such men as General Bourmont,…”
op. cit., p. 72.

empire—went virtually unnoticed in France, where all attention was focused on the
reactionary policies of the king’s ministers.
“Some kind of crisis was inevitable; and the way for it was prepared at the end of
1829 when Charles reconstructed his ministry, filling it almost completely with extreme
royalists, including such men as General Bourmont, who had betrayed Napoleon, and
Labourdonnaye, who had been active in the White Terror of 1815. The head of this new
combination was Count Polignac,….”
op. cit., p. 72.

Jules Auguste Armand Marie, Prince de Polignac
(1780-1847)
8th Prime Minister of France (August, 1829
- July 29, 1830)
Ultra-Royalist, former émigré
opponent of the Charter
visionary, claimed frequent conversations
with the Blessed Mother
parliamentary crisis-->July Ordinances
Revolution of 1830

“…Polignac was politically so incompetent that he did not know enough to disguise hid
real intentions. His object was, he admitted openly, was ‘to reorganize society, to restore
to the clergy its former preponderance in the state, and to create a powerful aristocracy
and surround it with privileges.
“This was to confirm the worst suspicions of the middle class, and that part of it which
possessed political power now met Polignac’s challenge. In the elections of 1827, Liberal
strength in the Chamber of Deputies had revived markedly, and, in March 1830, it was
sufficient to pass an Address to the Throne which, in effect, asked for the dismissal of the
ministry. The king responded by dissolving the Chamber and calling for new elections,
doubtless expecting the support of the electors. In this he was disappointed, for the voters
elected a Chamber that was overwhelmingly antigovernment.
“It was apparently at this point that those shrewder reactionaries,• Nicholas I and
Metternich, advised Charles to yield. But he was too insistent on his royal prerogatives to
consider that. He tried, instead, to break the opposition by issuing, on July 26, 1830, four
ordinances. These suspended the liberty of the press, dissolved the Chamber again on the
grounds that misdemeanors had occurred during the recent elections, altered the electoral
law in such a way as to reduce the electorate by about three fourths and to exclude the
whole of the bourgeoisie from it, and, finally, set a date for new elections.”
Ibid.

“Once he had authorized these decrees, Charles went off to Rambouillet to hunt; when
he came back, he was no longer king. A protest against the edicts was started by the
Liberal editors of Paris, led by Adolphe Thiers (1797-1877) of Le National;…
op. cit., pp. 72-73.

“Once he had authorized these decrees, Charles went off to Rambouillet to hunt; when
he came back, he was no longer king. A protest against the edicts was started by the
Liberal editors of Paris, led by Adolphe Thiers (1797-1877) of Le National; it was taken
up by the printers, unemployed because of the new press law, and by other workers,
students, intellectuals, and the like. On July 28 Rouget de Lisle, now seventy years old
burst into a friend’s house and quavered ‘Things look bad. They are singing La
Marseillaise!’ Outside in the narrow, twisting streets, the great barricades for which Paris
was famous began to be erected, barriers fifty to eighty feet high, made of paving stones,
boxes, furniture, trees, wagons, and anything else that came to hand.
“On the same day General Marmont brought troops into the city and sent them against
the barricades, but with indifferent success. The soldiers were neither trained nor properly
armed for street fighting; they did not know the unconventional terrain in which they
were engaged; whereas the insurgents knew every short cut and alleyway; and their hearts
were not in the fight anyway. Marmont was later to claim that he would have had better
results if he had been allowed to surround and bombard the city, but this was a favorite
excuse of commanders in the midcentury who had the uncomfortable experience of
having their troops worsted by untrained students and workers….
op. cit., pp. 72-73.

Auguste de
Marmont
(1774-1852)
"Sire, it is no longer a riot, it is a revolution. It
is urgent for Your Majesty to take measures for
pacification. The honour of the crown can still
be saved. Tomorrow, perhaps, there will be no
more time... I await with impatience Your
Majesty's orders."
--28 July 1830

“…In any case, after three days of hard fighting, it was clear even to the king that he was
not going to be able to put down the revolt. He decided, therefore, to withdraw the edicts,
but now it was too late.
“Indeed, the only real question now was what was going to take the place of Charles’
discredited and defeated regime, and who, if anyone, was to have his throne. The weary
and powder-stained fighters on the barricades would probably have voted for a republic;
but the initiative was now taken by the Liberal editors and businessmen and deputies,
again led by Thiers.…”
op. cit., p. 73.

again led by Thiers. After some involved maneuvering, they persuaded a rump Chamber
of Deputies to invite he did so, managed to get Lafayette Louis Philippe, the Duc
d’Orleans, to come to Paris as lieutenant governor of the kingdom, and when he did so,
…”
op. cit., p. 73.

again led by Thiers.• After some involved maneuvering, they persuaded a rump Chamber
managed to get Lafayette, the nominal leader of the small republican party, to throw his
support to him.…”
op. cit., p. 73.

support to him. Finally, on August 3, 1830, the full Chamber invited Louis Philippe to
take the throne, and he accepted.…”
op. cit., p. 73.

take the throne, and he accepted.
“A week later, Charles X sailed off to exile in Scotland.…”
op. cit., p. 73.

take the throne, and he accepted.
“A week later, Charles X sailed off to exile in Scotland. “He was not destined to
return to his country, nor was any of his line ever again to sit upon the throne of France.”
op. cit., p. 73.

Eugène Delacroix,
La Liberté guidant le peuple, 1830

The July Monarchy
Government by the Middle Class
Louis Philippe I,

King of the French

painting by Franz

Xaver Winterhalter

(1845)—Wikipedia

“One of their shrewdest political observers of the nineteenth century was Alexis de
Tocqueville (1805-1859),• who won a European reputation when he published the first
part of his Democracy in America in 1835. At the time of its publication this book
infuriated many Americans because of de Tocqueville’s criticism of certain institutions
and customs in this country. They would probably been less annoyed if they had known
that de Tocqueville was an infinitely more scathing critic of his own nation. Indeed, it is
in his posthumously published memoirs that we find the most trenchant indictment of the
regime established after the July revolution.
“That revolution, de Tocqueville wrote, marked the definitive conquest of political
power by the middle class, and they proceeded now, in exercising it, to exclude the other
classes from any share in it.
“It was not merely aristocratic disdain that prompted these sentiments. De
Tocqueville saw clearly what a great many Frenchmen sensed after 1830: the pettiness,
the narrowness of view, and what might be called the lack of political style of their new
rulers….”
op. cit., pp. 73-74.
The particular spirit of the middle class became the general spirit of the government; it ruled
the latter’s foreign policy as well as affairs at home: an active, industrious spirit, often
dishonorable, generally orderly, occasionally reckless through vanity or egoism, but timid by
temperament, moderate in all things except in its love of ease and comfort, and, last but not
least, mediocre. It was a spirit which, mingled with that of the people or of the aristocracy, can
do wonders; but which, by itself, will never produce more than a government shorn of both
virtue and greatness….The middle class, when called upon to assume the government, took it
up as an industrial enterprise.

“…His charge that the bourgeoisie sought to monopolize power and exercise it in their
own interest is a fair one. Before the triumphant Liberals offered the crown to Louis
Philippe, they had amended the Charter in such a way as to weaken the position of other
classes or institutions that might threaten their own position. They deleted the preamble,
thus repudiating the whole idea of divine right of kings (although they substituted no
alternative theory to give a logical basis for the institution of monarchy which they
retained).They did away with the paragraph that made Roman Catholicism the official
religion of France, thus undermining the position of the clergy. In subsequent years, they
greatly weakened the prerogatives of members of the House of Peers and deprived them
of their hereditary character. On the other hand, by the law of 1831, they widened the
suffrage slightly by reducing the property qualification from 300 to 200 francs in annual
taxes and by also giving the vote to professional men, like lawyers, doctors, and
professors, who paid at least 100 francs in taxes. This, and the lowering of the voting age
to twenty-five years, doubled the electorate; but still only about 200,000 people could
vote out of a population that was getting close to thirty-two million; and if most of the
bourgeoisie were now enfranchised, all of the working class was excluded from power.
Finally, by a law that is entirely characteristic of the class character of the new regime,
the National Guard—the force designed to protect the Charter and maintain law and order
—was reorganized so that service in it was obligatory only for citizens who paid direct
taxes and could afford to buy their own uniforms and equipment.”
op. cit., p. 74.

“To the bourgeoisie it seemed perfectly reasonable that power should be theirs and
theirs alone. The most eloquent spokesman of this class and, in the last stages of the July
Monarchy, its leading statesman, was François Guizot…”
op. cit., pp. 74-75.

François Guizot (1787-1874)
historian, orator, statesman
Minister of Education, 1832-37
Foreign Minister, 1840-47
Prime Minister, September 19, 1847-
February 23, 1848
limited vote to men of property, advising those
who wanted to vote, enrichissez-vous, (“get
rich”)
his January ban on political meetings was the
catalyst of the revolution of 1848

“…university professor, historian of the English revolution, member of the Doctrinaire
party, Guizot argued that political power should be exercised by la classe moyenne
because it alone possessed ‘not only the necessary fortune [to devote itself to political
work] but also the intelligence and the independence without which that work cannot be
accomplished.’ He was not moved by arguments that the middle class was dominated by
the commercial and financial oligarchy of the country, although he did not deny that this
was true. The political system of the July Monarchy was admirable, he said, because ‘at
the same time that it sets limits to political rights by a property qualification, it works to
remove that limit by allowing men to become wealthy and to extend it.’…”
op. cit., p. 75.

“…university professor, historian of the English revolution, member of the Doctrinaire
party, Guizot argued that political power should be exercised by la classe moyenne
because it alone possessed ‘not only the necessary fortune [to devote itself to political
work] but also the intelligence and the independence without which that work cannot be
accomplished.’ He was not moved by arguments that the middle class was dominated by
the commercial and financial oligarchy of the country, although he did not deny that this
was true. The political system of the July Monarchy was admirable, he said, because ‘at
the same time that it sets limits to political rights by a property qualification, it works to
remove that limit by allowing men to become wealthy and to extend it.’
“In general, the new ruling class took a typically middle class attitude toward
government; they regarded it as a necessary evil, whose functions should be kept to the
bare minimum. Aside from protecting property from civil disorder, government was not
supposed to do things. Above all, it was not supposed to become involved in foreign
adventures…”
op. cit., p. 75.

“… because nothing was more detrimental to business. Guizot, who had additional
motives for this feeling (he hated the cheap chauvinism which became so pronounced in
the 1840s and which was encouraged by his antagonist Thiers), once said, ‘Let us not talk
about our country having to conquer territory, to wage great wars, to undertake bold
deeds of vengeance. If France is prosperous, if she remains free, rich, peaceful, and wise,
we need not complain if we exercise only a small influence in the world abroad.’
These attitudes of the bourgeoisie were shared by the new king. Lous Philippe was
the son of the Duke of Orleans called Philippe Égalité who had supported, and then been
executed by, the Revolution….”
op. cit., p. 76.

executed by, the Revolution. He himself had fought for his country at Valmy and
Jemappes and had then gone into exile, traveling extensively and actually visiting the
United States [staying in Old Talbott Tavern on 10/17/1797 in Bardstown, Kentucky,•
then the frontier, which is still standing].…”
op. cit., p. 76.

executed by, the Revolution. He himself had fought for his country at Valmy and
Jemappes and had then gone into exile, traveling extensively and actually visiting the
United States [staying in Old Talbott Tavern on 10/17/1797 in Bardstown, Kentucky,•
then the frontier, which is still standing]. This romantic background did not alter the fact
that he was not a man of wide interests or with a temperament calculated to inspire his
people. Fifty-seven years old at the time of his accession to the throne, he showed himself
a knowing, garrulous, but cautious man, who distrusted talent unless it had prover itself
in the business world and who had a reverence for industry and finance that bordered on
the ridiculous.…”
op. cit., p. 76.

“…He was personally brave, as he was to show on numerous occasions during his reign
when he was the target of assassins, but his foreign policy especially seemed the reverse
of courageous to many Frenchmen. Victor Hugo, who had a high opinion of the king’s
qualities, wrote in Les Misérables that ‘his great fault was that he was modest in the name
of France….[His reign was marked by] excessive timidity, which is offensive to a nation
that has July 14 in its civil traditions and Austerlitz in its military annals.’
“The political principles shared by Louis Philippe and the bourgeoisie could not help
but alienate important sections of the population. The supporters of the Bourbons rejected
Louis Philippe for obvious reasons; but there was also a marked growth of republicanism
in this period and a revival of the democratic spirit of 1793. At the same time, the
working classes regarded the existing system as oppressive; the patriots agreed with
General Lamarque’s bitter description of the July monarchy as a ‘halt in the mud’; and
the intellectuals and the romantically minded youth of the country felt, like Stendhal, that
this was a regime of ‘charlatanism without talent.’ ”
Ibid.

The July Monarchy
Some Insurrections

“The opposition took violent forms, and the first years of Louis Philippe’s reign were
filled with conspiracies, insurrections, and attempts at assassination. The Duchess of
Berry, for instance, attempted a legitimist counterrevolution in 1832.…”
op. cit., pp. 76-77.

Berry, for instance, attempted a legitimist counterrevolution in 1832. This charming,
courageous, but giddy-minded woman, scorning the sober doubts of her friends, landed in
France in April 1832, with her head a muddle of improbable schemes and unwise
expectations. When the city of Marseille failed to rise in revolution as she had hoped, she
made her way by a series of hairbreadth escapes to the Vendée, only to find that her plans
had been anticipated by the government. Escaping once more, she went into hiding at
Nantes but was betrayed to the police and put in prison., where she astonished both her
captors and her supporters by giving birth to a daughter, a fitting end to an episode that
resembled sensational fiction.….”
op. cit., pp. 76-77.

resembled sensational fiction.
“Even before this, there had been disorders in Paris, and in June 1832 there was a
bloody insurrection in the capital. Since 1830, a radical republican movement had taken
form, centered in two societies called Les amis du peuple and La société de l’homme et
du citoyen, the latter of which had branches in the provinces.The 1832 affair, however,
was more a spontaneous action by the republican rank and file than a deliberately planned
revolt….”
op. cit., pp. 76-77.

resembled sensational fiction.
“Even before this, there had been disorders in Paris, and in June 1832 there was a
bloody insurrection in the capital. Since 1830, a radical republican movement had taken
form, centered in two societies called Les amis du peuple and La société de l’homme et
du citoyen, the latter of which had branches in the provinces.The 1832 affair, however,
was more a spontaneous action by the republican rank and file than a deliberately planned
revolt. “The occasion for it was the funeral of General Lamarque, a popular and
avowedly republican commander….”
op. cit., pp. 76-77.

“…As his funeral procession reached the Place de la Bastille, it was joined by groups of
men shouting, ‘Long live the republic!’ The temper of the crowd was inflamed by
speeches by several republican notables; cries of ‘Lamarque to the Pantheon!’ began to be
heard; attempts were made to divert the procession, hearse and all, for an assault upon the
Hôtel de Ville; and dragoons charged the crowd. The disorders spread; barricades were
built; and there was open warfare in the streets of Paris for two days before order was
restored.…”
op. cit., p. 77.

“…As his funeral procession reached the Place de la Bastille, it was joined by groups of
men shouting, ‘Long live the republic!’ The temper of the crowd was inflamed by
speeches by several republican notables; cries of ‘Lamarque to the Pantheon!’ began to be
heard; attempts were made to divert the procession, hearse and all, for an assault upon the
Hôtel de Ville; and dragoons charged the crowd. The disorders spread; barricades were
built; and there was open warfare in the streets of Paris for two days before order was
restored.
“The government struck back by passing a series of measures submitting all political
associations to government surveillance and tightening restrictions on the republican
press. These, and the prosecution of the ringleaders of the rising, had the effect of
discouraging the growth of republicanism for a time; but it is nevertheless true that, in the
insurrection of June 1832—so stirringly commemorated in Hugo’s Les Misérables—
French republicanism had found another symbol to hearten its followers.”
op. cit., p. 77.

“In addition to these large-scale movements, there were several actions against the
constituted authorities by individuals, including a number of attempts to assassinate the
king. The most shocking of these was the work of a Corsican named Fieschi,…”
Ibid.

king. The most shocking of these was the work of a Corsican named Fieschi,…”
Ibid.
I n t e r e s t i n g
insider info on
how Wikipedia
e n h a n c e s
primary source
m a t e r i a l t o
make it more
realistic—jbp

king. The most shocking of these was the work of a Corsican named Fieschi, who rigged
up a kind of machine gun made of linked rifle barrels…”
Ibid.

king. The most shocking of these was the work of a Corsican named Fieschi,• who rigged
up a kind of machine gun made of linked rifle barrels and fired it off as Louis Philippe,
his three sons, and his [military] suite were passing in parade in Paris in July 1835.…”
Ibid.

his three sons, and his [military] suite were passing in parade in Paris in July 1835. The
king and princes escaped unhurt, but Fieschi’s machine gun killed eighteen people and
wounded many more.…”
Ibid.

his three sons, and his [military] suite were passing in parade in Paris in July 1835.• The
king and princes escaped unhurt, but Fieschi’s machine gun killed eighteen people and
wounded many more. The incident inspired a revulsion of feeling in favor of the monarch
but did not prevent new plots against him. All told, more than eighty attempts were made
against him, a striking commentary both upon his indestructibility and the violence of his
reign.”
Ibid.

The July Monarchy
Workers’Revolts and the Beginnings of Socialism

“More serious, and historically more significant, than these incidents were those that
gave evidence of an increasingly rebellious temper among the working classes. In
November 1831, the silk weavers of Lyon, who had to work eighteen hours a day for a
pittance, rose in desperation and seized the town,…”
op. cit., pp. 77-78.

pittance, rose in desperation and seized the town, controlling it for some days until their
revolt was crushed by a military force under Marshal Soult.…”
op. cit., pp. 77-78.

revolt was crushed by a military force under Marshal Soult. Three years later the weavers
rose again, this time holding on for five days before their resistance was broken; and this
time their effort touched off sympathetic disorders among workers in Paris and other
cities. The indifference of the bourgeoisie to the plight of the workers and their
antagonism to social legislation in these days when industry was expanding rapidly and
dislocating the old economic order were forcing the workers to strike out blindly in the
hope of securing some kind of relief.
“It was in these circumstances that socialism began to grow in France. Among the
more progressive bourgeoisie, who were worried by the disaffection of the working class,
and among intellectuals in general, serious attention began to be paid the work of thinkers
like Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825).…”
op. cit., pp. 77-78.

revolt was crushed by a military force under Marshal Soult.• Three years later the
weavers rose again, this time holding on for five days before their resistance was broken;
and this time their effort touched off sympathetic disorders among workers in Paris and
other cities. The indifference of the bourgeoisie to the plight of the workers and their
antagonism to social legislation in these days when industry was expanding rapidly and
dislocating the old economic order were forcing the workers to strike out blindly in the
hope of securing some kind of relief.
“It was in these circumstances that socialism began to grow in France. Among the
more progressive bourgeoisie, who were worried by the disaffection of the working class,
and among intellectuals in general, serious attention began to be paid the work of tankers
like Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825).…”
op. cit., pp. 77-78.

“…This is not the place to elaborate on the various writings of this profound and original
thinker, but it can at least be said that Saint-Simon and his followers Bazard and Enfantin
demonstrated to their contemporaries that the age of industrialism could be understood
only by analyzing its economic foundations and that the future peace of society would
depend on the success with which relations between the different classes were adjusted.
….”
op. cit., pp. 78-79.

The Two ‘Fathers’of the
Cult of Saint-Simonism
—French Wikipedia

“…This is not the place to elaborate on the various writings of this profound and original
thinker, but it can at least be said that Saint-Simon and his followers Bazard and Enfantin
demonstrated to their contemporaries that the age of industrialism could be understood
only by analyzing its economic foundations and that the future peace of society would
depend on the success with which relations between the different classes were adjusted.
Enfantin wrote:
”The Saint-Simonians hoped that moral reform and education would in the long run
promote better understanding among classes and bring a gradual improvement of the
economic conditions of the working class….”
op. cit., pp. 78-79.
Charles X thought that a few soldiers would silence inopportune voices, and the bourgeoisie
are almost as blind as he; recent events have helped us to show them up.…This is the crux of
the whole political problem, that it is no longer a question of priests and noblemen as in ’89, or
even as in 1829, but one of the people and the bourgeoisie or better of workers and
nonworkers; one has gone a long way when the question is known, also how it should be put.

“…They were not, however, egalitarians, but social engineers, who believed that a
society based on a hierarchy of talent and function would be more efficient than one that
stressed equality, and they were more interested in efficiency than in political
freedom.This was true also of Charles Fourier (1772-1837), who believed that the way to
regenerate modern society was to decentralize it…”
op. cit., p. 79.

regenerate modern society was to decentralize it by encouraging its members to form
themselves into small agricultural communities or phalansteries…”
op. cit., p. 79.

regenerate modern society was to decentralize it by encouraging its members to form
themselves into small agricultural communities or phalansteries in which they would find
it possible to develop all their faculties in fruitful cooperation with their fellows.
Convinced that the success of only one such utopian experiment would be enough to
convince mankind that this was the way of the future, Fourier announced that he would
be at home every day at noon in case some benevolent patron would wish to give him the
funds for the establishment of a society that would prove the feasibility of his plans.
Although he waited for twelve years, no generous stranger ever appeared. [Nevertheless,
many Fourierist experiments were launched by disciples, e.g., New Harmony, IN and
Brook Farm, MA.•].”
op. cit., p. 79.

“There were also more revolutionary socialists in France in this period. Philippe
Buonarroti (1767-1837)…”
Ibid.

Buonarroti (1767-1837) had been a member of the Babeuf conspiracy in 17962…”
Ibid.
_______
2 Gracchus Babeuf, sometimes called the ﬁrst truly class-conscious leader of the European working class,
organized a Society of the Pantheon which planned an insurrection against the Directory. betrayed by
informers, he was arrested, tried, and executed in the spring of 1796.

Buonarroti (1767-1837) had been a member of the Babeuf conspiracy in 17962 and now
carried on that tradition by preaching the necessity of political revolution as a means of
winning social reform. More extreme in his views was Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),
.…”
Ibid.

Buonarroti (1767-1837) had been a member of the Babeuf conspiracy in 17962 and now
carried on that tradition by preaching the necessity of political revolution as a means of
winning social reform. More extreme in his views was Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),.…”
Ibid.

Buonarroti (1767-1837) • had been a member of the Babeuf conspiracy in 17962 and
now carried on that tradition by preaching the necessity of political revolution as a means
of winning social reform. More extreme in his views was Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),
the perpetual conspirator, with his frock coat buttoned up to his chin, his flashing eyes,
and that sallow skin that made Herzen think that he must live in the sewers or catacombs.
Blanqui talked of ‘the duel to death between dividends and wages’ and called upon the
new worker, ‘the mechanized man,’ to wage unremitting war against the bourgeoisie,
since there could be no community of interest between the classes. In his emphasis on
underground activity and on a clear and systematic revolutionary strategy, Blanqui was a
forerunner of those professional revolutionaries whom Lenin was to consider
indispensable for a successful overthrow of bourgeois society.…”
Ibid.

“…But the enthusiasm with which he supported even the most hopeless of conspiracies
and émeutes [riots, French feminine noun, pl.] makes one suspect that he believed in
violence for the sake of violence and that it would not be illogical to class him with the
early anarchists. Anarchist in essence also was the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
(1809-1865),…”
op. cit., pp. 79-80.

“…But the enthusiasm with which he supported even the most hopeless of conspiracies
and émeutes [riots, French feminine noun, pl.] makes one suspect that he believed in
violence for the sake of violence and that it would not be illogical to class him with the
early anarchists. Anarchist in essence also was the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
(1809-1865), whose famous book What Is Property? appeared in 1840, with its bold
assertion that property was theft and its exposition of the theory that the measure of value
is the labor that goes into the product evaluated.
“But the most influential of the French socialists of this period was Louis Blanc
(1811-1882).…”
op. cit., pp. 79-80.

France's Economic and Social Transformation

France's Economic and Social Transformation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to France's Economic and Social Transformation

Similar to France's Economic and Social Transformation (20)

More from Jim Powers

More from Jim Powers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

France's Economic and Social Transformation