The French Revolution of 1789, as Viewed in the Light of Republican InstitutionsAbbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
History
The French Revolution of 1789, as Viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions
Abbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799
On Monday, August 30th, there was a report at the Palais Royal that
Mirabeau was in danger of arrest. St. Huruge immediately headed a band
of fifteen hundred men, and set out for Versailles for his protection.
It was a mob threatening violence, and La Fayette, at the head of a
detachment of the National Guard, stopped them and drove them back.
Murmurs now began to arise against La Fayette and the National Guard.
Rumors were set in circulation that La Fayette was in league with the
aristocrats. Excitement was again rapidly increasing, as the people
feared that, after all, they were to be betrayed and again enslaved.
[Illustration: LA FAYETTE REVIEWING THE NATIONAL GUARD.]
The agitated assembly at the Palais Royal sent a deputation to
Versailles to Mounier, one of the most influential and truly patriotic
of the deputies, announcing to him that twenty thousand men were
ready to march to Versailles to drive the aristocrats out of the
Assembly. At the same time an address was received by the president
from the citizens of Rennes, declaring that those who should vote
for the absolute veto were traitors to their country. Under these
circumstances, the king sent a message to the National Assembly,
stating that he should be satisfied with a limited, or, as it was
then called, a _suspensive_ veto. In taking the question the absolute
veto was rejected, and the suspensive veto adopted by a vote of 673
to 355. By this measure the veto of the king would suspend the action
of any legislative enactment during two subsequent sessions of the
Legislature. If, after this, the Legislature still persisted, the
king's veto was overruled and the act went into effect. This was giving
the king much greater power than the President of the United States
possesses. A two-thirds vote of both houses can immediately carry any
measure against the veto of the President. Freedom of opinion, of
worship, and of the press were also decreed.
These questions being thus settled, it was now voted that the measures
thus far adopted were constitutional, not legislative; and that,
consequently, they were to be presented to the king, not for his
sanction, but for promulgation. It was also voted by acclaim that the
crown should be hereditary and the person of the king inviolable, the
ministers alone being responsible for the measures of government.
To republican eyes these seem like mild measures of reform, though
they have been most severely condemned by the majority of writers
upon the French Revolution in monarchical Europe. If the nobles had
yielded to these reasonable reforms, the horrors which ensued might
have been avoided. If combined Europe had not risen in arms against
the Revolution, the regeneration of France might, perhaps, have been
peacefully achieved.[216]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account