The economy was reliant on agriculture and during the 1780s there were disastrous harvests causing prices to rapidly increase in urban areas. It is evident that the effects were so extreme that by 1789 a labourer was spending 88% of his daily wage on bread. As a result of this, protests sparked up in the city amongst workers and the tensions and unrest amongst the Parisians was further exacerbated when the government made no attempts to introduce new reforms to deal with the economic crisis when the Estates-General met in May 1789. Another factor which worsened the situation was the presence of Louis’s troops stationed around Paris. The King’s strategy of military force was believed to be necessary due to the third estate rebelling and breaking away from the Estates-General in June 1789.
Henry David Thoreau believed the government to be an unjust institution; he believed people should first do what they think is right, and not abide by the laws of the government. This meant at all cost Henry would not follow the laws formatted into the constitution,
This period of time is called the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was not justified because it was not what the people of France wanted, the government was not giving rights or actions they promised, and both sides of the fight were put in serious danger. One reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was that it is not what the people of France wanted. Particularly in the Vendee region rebels fought against laws. The laws they fought against were laws against Christianity.
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
Locke and Montesquieu believed that limited government (government has limits and every person has rights) was best. Montesquieu thought that governments such as monarchies and despots caused conflict between the people and the government. Limiting the government’s power over the people would take away the chances of a monarchy or despotism forming, and the best way to do that would be to divide the government into three different branches. Dividing the government into three branches will make sure one branch is not becoming more powerful than another, eliminating the chances of it becoming ruled by a monarch or despot. Locke believed that the government should never even be given such a great amount of power.
At the time the United States was hoping to use their alliance with France to gain an advantage over the British, but did not want to lose their much needed trade with the British. At the beginning of the revolution, the Americans were enthusiastic and hoped that the revolution would strengthen their alliance with the French against the British. It was the violent nature of the conflict that divided the United States’ views. The changes in France caused the already present political divisions in the United States to grow. Because Jefferson believed the French had supported the United States during their revolution against the British, the pro-French Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson should in return support the ideals of the French
Unity or independence was very important to the colonists before the Revolutionary War because they didn’t have the rights we do today. Colonists couldn’t trade with the world, weren’t protected of their rights, imposed taxes, and a lot more. The king of the colonies had treated them with a lot of disrespect. He had not given them any freedom whatsoever, and had just made them follow his unjust rules and law. Although they knew the consequences or punishments for doing so, the colonists had found ways to smuggle.
King points out, “I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” (218). An unjust law, to Martin Luther King Jr., is not a law that people should follow. Martin Luther King Jr. disobeyed the laws and protested did sit-ins and even spoke against the white people. Although he felt he was exercising his right to freedom of speech, everyone else felt he was breaking the laws by speaking out and not obeying the segregated areas. This led to the assassination of King in
Meanwhile, Anti-Federalist believed power should remain with the states. As you can see the Anti-Federalist was against the constitution. “New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and Despotism“. The main reason they revoked the constitution is bad is because it divided the powers amount the government in 3 branches (Judicial, Legislation, Executive), so NO ONE had supreme power over. Anti-Federalist didn’t approved they wanted a bill of right instead.
This has worried human rights activists as such active surveillance will erode the freedom of ordinary people. Such forms of surveillance is more of a restriction to the people’s rights and choices to act freely, confining them to agree with the Government, never to question them. Such is an act of oppression that does not work in the ‘best interest’ of the people. By Locke’s take on the social contract, since the State has “ceased to uphold its end of the” social contract, the people own the right to revolt and overthrow the (State)” which “makes the contract void”3. The State, is therefore stripped of its right to interfere with the private lives of