The French and American revolutions took area for several years in France and in American lands. They had several similarities in phrases of organization and interest that inspire the people to fight fiercely to guard their interest or territory. Additionally, there are easy comparisons that can be made from the two struggles. The two revolutions took area towards the end of 18th century and they each went against the monarchical system of governments that had lengthy occupied the states. The revolutions brought the rule of law guided by way of the constitution and democracy. There are also similarly differences and similarity as discussed below.
The French and American revolutions took vicinity as a result of economic conditions in the two countries. In the early part of the 18th century, both France and America faced a lot of economic challenges that negatively affected the growth of their economies (Spielvogel, 2014). The people were therefore in daring need of changes that could bring to an end; the economic struggles hence the rise of the wars. Both the revolutions were initiated by the poverty-stricken and hungry peasants that wanted freedom of labor and fair wages amidst the amount of work they were exposed to. The two revolutions also came as a result of the financial struggles that arose from the colonial powers; the two countries were therefore on the verge of eradicating the links and financial interest of the colonial powers who continued to dominate the two nations.
The two revolutions are also different in terms of the financial issues or woes placed by the colonial masters. The Americans were under pressure due to the financial pressures that were placed by the British in the Global financial system. The Britain was majorly depended on its colonies and it continued taxing them even after the independence. The French revolution took place as a result of high taxes imposed by the Monarchs in order to pay off debts from the international trades. The French nationals also felt that the taxes collected were not used for good economic growth.
Cahier explains several grievances that are related to tax among the king’s subjects. People advocated for equal pay and taxes among the businessmen and women in the entire kingdom, there was also the demand for equal rights of properties. One of the tax-related grievances discussed in the above exempt is The Third Estate of Dourdon. It contained several grievances that were meant to bring equality among the Kings subjects (Lecturers on the modern European intellectual history, n.d.). There was the demand of equality of all the citizens who appear before the king without any distinction which may render them be considered as common citizens. Equal taxation also came up in the grievances in the cahier report. The cahier report suggested the abolishment of personal taxes; the capitation and the accessories were to be merged with the vingtiemes on the tax from lands or the nominal properties. The tax collection was distributed equally among the subjects without distinction by the social economic status and the kind of properties obtained by different individuals. Even the feudal were to be engaged in the tax collection.
The French tax system was only subjected to the peasants and not all the classes of people in the country (Lecturers on the modern European intellectual history, n.d.). The demand of tax payment placed pressure on the kings to review the tax collection systems in order to include everybody, the businessmen as well as the workers. The French taxes were distributed to all the individuals irrespective of their level of income and that every individual had to pay according to their level of income. There were several reforms needed in this systems some of the included the justice reforms to ensure that taxpayers are protected by the law. The reforms on the protection of properties were also needed to ensure that the property owners are taxed according to their incomes. The justice systems were strengthened to protect the rights of the business owners.
The Third State had the responsibility of integrating the nation and providing the legal mechanisms of maintaining the state’s resources. The state also had the responsibility of administering the rule of law and the adherence to the constitution. The Third State also had the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of the people and integrating them under common laws and rules, and that everyone had to adhere to the well-laid principles of the state (Sieyes, 1963).
The first and second States protected the individual interests and not the collective interest of the nation. Although there were rights accorded to the individuals, there were no corporate organizations that could serve the interest of the people. The first and second states encouraged the division of the people and they were not perceived as one country or nation. The first and second state served the interest of the king and not the public interest. The above scenario resulted in the division of the people. The Third State brought inclusion in the governance; it is the form of government that brought about the French revolution towards the end of 18th century.
Spielvogel, J. J. (2014). Western civilization. Cengage Learning.
Sieyes, A. (1963). What Is the Third Estate? 1789. The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History. Retrieved from:https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/modsbook13.asp
Lecturers on the modern European intellectual history. (n.d.). The Cahier de Doléances (1789). Retrieved from: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/cahiers.html#thir