Monday, January 19, 2009
Reading 732-742
The contrast between France's revolutions and England's reforms shows through the way their respective governments dealt with radicals marching in the streets. The book states that during the revolution of 1830, "three days of intense street battles followed in which the revolutionaries, fight behind hastily constructed barricades, defied the army and the police, neither of which was willing to fire into the crowds" (732). The apparent reluctance of these forces to use violence meant that the revolutionaries, who did not shy from fighting, had the upper hand in the streets. Their civilian status protected them, and they did not fear government authority, making the revolution moderately successful. Government authority in Great Britain, however, carried much more weight among radical fighters. The militia cavalry charge at St. Peter's Field in 1819, which resulted in civilian casualties, as well as the Six Acts, which restricted freedom of speech and assembly, shows that the British government was much more willing to crack down swiftly and harshly on radical elements and then gradually reform once the situation was contained. Government forces then seemed to inspire much more fear, as in the Chartist movement. The mobilization of troops under the famous Duke of Wellington to prevent a march on Parliament forced the Chartists into second thoughts: "Rain, poor management, and unwillingness on the part of many to do battle with the well-armed constabulary put an end to the Chartists' campaign" (736). The discipline of the government forces made them a much more formidable foe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does this then suggest that a major cause of revolution is not necessarily the zeal of the protestors but the weakness of the gov't and its response. If it is willing to assert itself, it has the power and resources of the state behind it to sustain itself. Compare what happens in France with what happens in Germany in 1848. Or Poland in 1830--a whole different kettle of fish... why?
ReplyDeleteWhile the zeal of the protesters is important, it seems like it is usually not the defining factor in a revolution. A prudent government response can avert a crisis, while a weak one can only make it worse. The people can force government into action, but the direction the revolution takes obviously depends most upon government response. In Germany, smaller principality governments instituted reforms to stave off revolutions that they could not crush; later, worse shows of violence came when there was no German national government to maintain order or make reforms. Poland, on the other hand, had its revolution crushed because it was dealing with a much better organized and disciplined army and government. Though it even had the advantage of having multiple classes banding together, it was no match for the Russian army and the ruthlessness of Russia; Nicholas was not about to be intimidated into giving up his territories. So although it is people marching in the streets that spurs governments to action or reaction, its response is what ultimately decides whether that revolution succeeds or fails.
ReplyDelete