|
|
Like the workers and small property owners in cities, peasants questioned
the settlement reached by the National Assembly in 1791. In contrast to
Parisian artisans, however, who began pushing for a more far-reaching
revolution in 179294, large numbers of cultivators hankered for
a return to stability in their villages. But this seemed a remote possibility
as the Revolution and its wars expanded.
For the peasantry, the foremost cause of instability during the Revolution
was the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790. The Civil Constitution,
like the Revolution itself, originated in the fiscal crisis that the National
Assembly inherited from the crown. Needing substantial revenues, the assembly
targeted church lands, which accounted for 10 percent of all landed wealth
in France. The legislature divested the church of its property and in
exchange took charge of its expenses and administration. The revolutionaries,
imbued with the Enlightenment's criticism of the Catholic religion, suspected
bishops and archbishops of resisting all change. To ensure the loyalty
of parish priests, the assembly (in whose employ the priests now found
themselves) added to the Civil Constitution a requirement that all clergy
swear an oath of allegiance to the nation. However, almost half refused
to do so. Because most "refractory priests" (those who refused
the oath) lived in the countryside, the Civil Constitutiondesigned
to promote national unity and prevent religion from becoming a source
of resistance to the Revolutioninstead generated considerable resentment
among the peasantry. This resentment increased with the decree of 9 March
1792, authorizing the confiscation of grain to prevent "hoarding."
Chapter 7 shows how this early hostility developed into an armed counterrevolution.
Thus in both towns and countryside, it seemed that the Revolution was
not producing the hoped-for results. Instead of bringing unity and a quick,
political resolution to the questions of 1789, as intended by its originators,
the Revolution was producing further conflicts. What had happened? Had
the revolutionaries expected too much? Did the fault lie with the new
political elite, because they excluded the lower classes from the optimistic
prospects for change? Or did the leaders, despite their commitment to
social equality, find it impossible to avoid making private property (and
the differences in wealth it necessarily generated) the cornerstone of
the new society? The events of the 1790s brought France no closer to determining
how and whether social equality could be achieved through political measures.
This very issue continues to vex modern societylong after the social
stresses of 1789 have dissolved into the dustbin of history. Indeed, it
remains one of the most vibrant legacies of the French Revolution.
|
|