Process
Status Items Highlights Done See section below Claims None Questions None Output None
Highlights
Time 0:01:17
Enlightened Absolutism vs. Traditional Privileges
- In pre-revolutionary France, reform efforts were met with resistance from those benefiting from the existing system.
- This led to a clash between those advocating for enlightened absolutism and those defending traditional privileges.
- Both sides had valid points, but their conflict hindered substantial reform until it was too late. Transcript: Speaker 1 Both were partly right. Both were partly wrong. And combined, they ensured that nothing of great substance was done, until it was wa too late.
Time 0:02:08
Enlightened Absolutism
- 18th-century European philosophes, including Voltaire, favored strong monarchies to enact reforms.
- This contrasts with American Enlightenment figures like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, who became republicans.
- European thinkers believed a powerful executive was essential for modernizing their kingdoms.
- This concept is called enlightened absolutism where a powerful monarch enacts reforms based on philosophies of the englightenment. Transcript: Speaker 1 Because as it turns out, most of the philosophs running around out there, including, for example, voltaire, were in favor of strengthening the monarchy, not weakening it. My european friends out there won’t find this the least bit surprising, but it’s a little off kilter for us americans, because the guys who represent the american enlightenment guyes Like franklin and jefferson and madi, they all wound up republicans. But back in the old world,
Time 0:12:39
Mopu’s Failed Reforms
- Initially, Mopu’s judicial reforms in France were met with resistance, but also relief from some in the legal community who saw them as more rational and equitable.
- However, Mopu’s heavy-handed tactics and the framing of the reforms as a battle between tyranny and liberty eroded support.
- After Louis XV’s death, Louis XVI scrapped the reforms, sacked Mopu, and reinstated the parliament.
- This damaged the monarchy’s prestige and created internal divisions within the parliament between those who resisted and those who had adapted.
- Ironically, Mopu technically remained Lord Chancellor, as he refused to resign, until the office was abolished in 1790. Transcript: Speaker 1 So with each passing year, support for mopu’s grand reorganization dwindled, especially because backers of the parliament were, as i said, quite adept at framing all this as a battle, Not between a modernizing ministry and selfish defenders of old privilege, but rather as a battle between a tyrannical ministry and the great defenders of french liberty. When louis the fifteenth finally died in may 17 74, it swept away the last political leg mopu and his allies had to stand on. After a few months, the new 19 year old king, louis the sixteenth, was convinced to scrap the whole reform project, sack mopu and his ministry and retate the arlament to their former Positions. But though the return of the parliament was greeted with great public fanfare, the whole business left everyone just a little worse for the wear. The prestige of the monarchy was damaged by mopu’s heavy handed tactics, and the parliament were now divided internally between those in the legal community who had fought the good Fight and those who had tried to reconcile themselves to the new order, leading to petty squabbles when the old order was reinstated. That didn’t make anyone look good. One final note on this, just for the sake of historical triviu, is that mopu wound up being the last lord chancellor of france, because when he was dismissed, he refused to resign his Office, and was still technically lord chancellor when the office was abolished by the constituent assembly in 17 90.
Time 0:14:41
Physiocracy
- Physiocracy is an economic theory between mercantilism and classical liberalism.
- It posits that a nation’s wealth is rooted exclusively in land and agricultural labor, not gold or trade balances.
- While prioritizing agriculture, physiocrats also believed in free markets for manufacturing and trade, opposing guilds, internal customs barriers, and indirect taxes. Transcript: Speaker 1 Physiocracy was an economic theory that existed in between the dying theory of mercantileism and the rising classical liberalism that adam smith was currently hard at work on up in Scotland. The physiocrats believed first and foremost that the wealth of the nation was rooted exclusively in the land. It wasn’t about amassing gold wor having a favorable balance of trade with rival powers. It was about agricultural labor. Everything else was merely a secondary offshoot. But when it came to those secondary offshoots, like manufacturing in trade, the physiocrats further believed that the economy should be as free as possible. So they believed, for example, that the guild system was an anachronism that needed to die, that the web of internal customs barriers was crippling trade, and that all the indirect Taxes on consumer goods hurt the entire commercial chain, from producer all the way to consumer. It was, in fact, one of the leading physiocrats, a guy named vassan de guarne, who allegedly coined the term lase fare, which roughly translates as let do as in, let the economy run itself. So as said, our new controller, general tergot, was into all this stuff. Having fallen in with the physiocrats back in the 17 fifties, tergot began publishing his own works on economics and philosophy. And like many other contemporary philosophes, including his great friend voltaire, contributed articles to the encyclopaedia. But it was his work
Time 0:19:19
The Flour War (1775)
- In 1774, Turgot, the French finance minister, deregulated the grain trade, aiming to boost the agricultural economy.
- The timing coincided with poor harvests in some regions, leading to price spikes as landowners sold grain to areas with deficits.
- Peasants, accustomed to a “moral economy” where the king protected them from price gouging, felt abandoned by the deregulation.
- This sparked the Flour War of 1775, with uprisings targeting those perceived as profiting from the grain shortage, including landowners, merchants, and officials.
- The peasants believed that the king had a duty to prevent such exploitation, and their unrest reflected their disillusionment with the free trade system. Transcript: Speaker 1 Be better off. Unfortunately for tergot, he launched this project in late 17 74, just as france was being hit by bad harvests, at least bad harvests in some areas and good harvests in other areas. With all the previous restrictions on the grain trade lifted, those with a grain surplus were now free to sell to those with a grain deficit at exactly the kind of premium you might expect. It’s called supply and demand. It’s new, but you’ll get used to it. But it was not just the hard hit areas that paid the premium free of regulation. The landowners with plenty of grain to sell were all too happy to move their entire pply out of the home province to fetch the higher prices. Unless, of course, you’d care to match the price i’m getting over there. The peasants did not take kindly to these sorts of arbitrary price hikes. And though the terminology wasn’t around yet, the peasants had a rudimentary belief in the so called moral economy, where the king, as father protector, was supposed to make sure his Subjects were not gouged by unscrupulous profiteers in times of want. So to the average peasant, by following tergo’s new free trade system, the king was failing to perform his most basic duty to his subjects. And when that happened, they felt perfectly justified in taking action, which is how we get to the flower war of 17 75. The flower war was a widespread series of uprisings in april and may 17 75, the targeted landowners, merchants, traders, bakeries, royal
Time 0:20:35
The Flour War (1775)
- The Flour War, a series of uprisings in April-May 1775, targeted those perceived to be profiting from grain shortages.
- Peasants believed in a “moral economy” where the king protected them from price gouging.
- They felt justified in taking action when Turgot’s free trade policies led to price increases.
- The uprisings were fueled by the “famine pact” conspiracy theory, which alleged that landowners and officials were intentionally withholding grain. Transcript: Speaker 1 And when that happened, they felt perfectly justified in taking action, which is how we get to the flower war of 17 75. The flower war was a widespread series of uprisings in april and may 17 75, the targeted landowners, merchants, traders, bakeries, royal officials and any one else who seemed to be Unjustly profiting from the depleted grain supply. These uprisings were driven in part by a reoccurring paranoid fantasy within the peasantry that the price increases could not simply be about abstract laws of supply and demand working Themselves out.
Time 0:25:12
Turgot’s Paradoxical Resistance
- Unlike Maupeou, Turgot’s reforms faced resistance not from the privileged but from the least privileged.
- Enlightened absolutism required a ruler both tough and far-sighted, able to overcome complaints from courtiers and peasants alike.
- Louis XV lacked interest, and Louis XVI lacked experience and decisiveness to implement these reforms effectively. Transcript: Speaker 1 The interesting thing though is that in the flower war, tergot faced resistance, not from the most privileged classes, but from the very least privileged classes. So successfully establishing the kind of enlightened absolutist regime advocated by the philosophs required a king who was as tough as he was far sighted, someone who was willing To