What complaint Louis XVI to write steps in French explain any three
Answers
Answered by
0
Hello dear..............
To start with, coming up with an ideal solution to overcome the social inequality and corruptions would have been a really difficult task for Louis XVI. It would be right to say that it was close to impossible. But, I don’t think that there were none of solutions to think of. At least, there would have been some resolutions that could ‘revive’ the overall stability of France. And if these solutions listed below were powerfully pushed ahead under the command of Louis XVI, the France government could have prevented revolution from happening.
First, ‘before the outbreak of Revolution’, France should have stopped engaging in American Independence Revolution actively(This does not mean that I deny the noble value of American Independence Revolution). As the historical records claim, French government has invested most of the financial income in terms of keeping the armies in the America. Although the economy was worsening and the lives of French people were becoming deteriorated, Louis XVI failed to stop pumping money for army maintenance in the America. Some people say that the King tried to stop the French engagement to American Independence War, but this came to be miscarried since the King was turned out to be somehow irresolute. Once finance minister Jacques Necker stated: “Majesty, too much money is employed for the independence war. France is now in huge debt. We should stop the money outflow in maximum extent and try to consider the ways of overcoming these economical crisis.” (Common people of France trusted Necker due to his faithfulness and sincerity towards his work.)
Second, even after the outbreak of revolution, there was a solution: but not right after the occurrence of revolution but after when the constitutional monarchy was suggested by revolutionists. If Louis XVI had a intuition that the revolution based on the will of people were inevitable and the situation was irrevocable, he should have accepted the constitutional monarchy instead of trying hard to maintain his ‘absolute power’. ‘The theory of the divine Right of Kings’ was not a valid logic anymore; it had lost all its authority and cogency, thus consistently failing to get support from the majority of the ‘Third class people’(But Louis XVI was not a cruel person). Plus, he was caught up in Varennes when he was trying to flee to Austria, ultimately leading him to lose ground. If Louis had accepted the suggestion and found out a point of compromise with the people, the situation wouldn’t have become more unfortunate. If he accepted his status as a ‘Constitutional Monarch Louis’, he could have at least sustained his life; he would have avoided being guillotined as ‘Louis Capet’.
The aforementioned reasons may not be the only way of handling the problem at that time, so I still wonder if there’s another way of figuring out the problem
To start with, coming up with an ideal solution to overcome the social inequality and corruptions would have been a really difficult task for Louis XVI. It would be right to say that it was close to impossible. But, I don’t think that there were none of solutions to think of. At least, there would have been some resolutions that could ‘revive’ the overall stability of France. And if these solutions listed below were powerfully pushed ahead under the command of Louis XVI, the France government could have prevented revolution from happening.
First, ‘before the outbreak of Revolution’, France should have stopped engaging in American Independence Revolution actively(This does not mean that I deny the noble value of American Independence Revolution). As the historical records claim, French government has invested most of the financial income in terms of keeping the armies in the America. Although the economy was worsening and the lives of French people were becoming deteriorated, Louis XVI failed to stop pumping money for army maintenance in the America. Some people say that the King tried to stop the French engagement to American Independence War, but this came to be miscarried since the King was turned out to be somehow irresolute. Once finance minister Jacques Necker stated: “Majesty, too much money is employed for the independence war. France is now in huge debt. We should stop the money outflow in maximum extent and try to consider the ways of overcoming these economical crisis.” (Common people of France trusted Necker due to his faithfulness and sincerity towards his work.)
Second, even after the outbreak of revolution, there was a solution: but not right after the occurrence of revolution but after when the constitutional monarchy was suggested by revolutionists. If Louis XVI had a intuition that the revolution based on the will of people were inevitable and the situation was irrevocable, he should have accepted the constitutional monarchy instead of trying hard to maintain his ‘absolute power’. ‘The theory of the divine Right of Kings’ was not a valid logic anymore; it had lost all its authority and cogency, thus consistently failing to get support from the majority of the ‘Third class people’(But Louis XVI was not a cruel person). Plus, he was caught up in Varennes when he was trying to flee to Austria, ultimately leading him to lose ground. If Louis had accepted the suggestion and found out a point of compromise with the people, the situation wouldn’t have become more unfortunate. If he accepted his status as a ‘Constitutional Monarch Louis’, he could have at least sustained his life; he would have avoided being guillotined as ‘Louis Capet’.
The aforementioned reasons may not be the only way of handling the problem at that time, so I still wonder if there’s another way of figuring out the problem
Similar questions