Sunday, May 10, 2015

The Easter Rising Rebellion

Easter Rising
            A public opinion poll taken in Ireland outside the Northern half of the country, on the eve of the Dublin Easter Rising in 1916 would have shown most men and women in favor of Home Rule, some content with the status quo, and only a small minority thinking in terms of armed insurrection.[1] Nationalist sentiment against the British Crown was much stronger among Irish emigrants living in the United States, especially those whom had been driven off the island due to the Great Famine.[2] For Great Britain, this conflict couldn’t have come at a worse time. Europe was already heavily engaged in a battle for their lives during World War I and so they needed to squash this resistance before it got too out of hand. Ireland thirst for independence and they felt like they were being dealt a bad hand in this political poker game. So because of British rule, an armed rebellion was mounted by dissident Irish Republicans during Easter Week in Northern Ireland 1916. It was the most significant uprising against London since 1798.[3] This historical event contributed to the birth of modern Ireland as we know it today and helped set the seeds for a future Irish War of Independence.
            The Acts of Union 1800 legislation united Great Britain and Ireland into one government called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ending with the abolishment of the Irish Parliament.[4] Many Irish nationalists opposed such action, viewing it as outright exploitation by another colonial foreign power.[5] Ireland rallied around the idea of a purely Gaelic nation culturally separate from Great Britain, and so this led to the creation of the Sinn Féin League.[6] Irish Catholicism led the way for this perceived notion of independence. Protestants rejected these ideas. The Irish Republican Brotherhood or I.R.B. wanted to advance its own interests and last but not least; there was the formation of the Irish Citizen Army. The Irish Citizen Army was formed by trade unionists and as a result of their dispute with the British government, they along with other Irish Volunteers decided to take back their nation in what would later be called Easter Rising.[7]
            The Supreme Council of the IRB convened in September of 1914 just a month after Great Britain had declared war on Germany and a perfect opportunity had presented itself in the form of an alliance. At this meeting, the adopted plan was to mount an open rebellion and to accept any assistance from Germany.[8] Also present at the meeting were the Irish Volunteers, led by Patrick Pearse, as well as Joseph Plunkett (Director of Military Operations). During my research, I discovered that Plunkett had actually travelled to Germany to hatch a plan with the ambassador that involved the landing of German forces in Western Ireland with the help of Irish Volunteers subverting British attention in Dublin during the rising.[9] Then in 1916, James Connolly (head of the I.C.A.) met with I.R.B. leaders and decided to combine their forces.
            The build up to Easter Week was a tumultuous process, as it required coordination between local defense units and secrecy with the Irish Volunteers. Edward Malins, a prominent author of many books on Easter Rising once stated that “With over 100,000 Irishmen serving with forces of the Crown, it was not surprising that English politicians underestimated the passions of a new generation”.[10] Patrick Pearse, leader of the Irish Volunteers also said, “These Irishmen had grown up re-baptized in the Fenian faith”.[11] This unconscious mistake contributed to the events proceeding Easter Rising and would came back to haunt British lawmakers for years to come. Author of 1916: The Easter Rising, Tim P. Coogan states that the “1916 Rising was born out of the Conservative and Unionist parties’ illegal defiance of the democratically expressed wish of the Irish electorate for home rule”.[12] This new generation had become disillusioned with the British Empire and its “wish-y wash” way of promising reform, by never delivering on its obligations.
            Pearse then issued orders in April to commence a series of parades by the Volunteers for Easter Sunday. By catching the British off guard and making them think it was just a routine ceremony, the Irish rebels would mount the rebellion. Another important development taking place was the shipment of German weaponry that was about to land at County Kerry, stowed away on board the Aud.[13] Also known as the SS Castro, it travelled under the cover name Aud to deal arms to the Irish Volunteers but was ultimately sunk by its German crew once it became entangled by Royal Navy vessels after they failed to rendezvous at the drop point.[14] These series of blunders postponed Easter Rising by only one day and this meant that there would be far less numbers of Volunteers showing up for the rebellion. British Naval Intelligence was widely aware of the shipment through intercepted radio messages and by the time London had phoned its Dublin counterparts to arrest the Irish leaders, it was too late. The order had been given to commence Easter Rising.[15]
            On early Monday morning April 24th, 1916 about 1,200 Irish Volunteers along with the Citizen Army took up strong points in Dublin’s city center. It was decided by James Connolly, Patrick Pearse, Joseph Plunkett, and other volunteers that the General Post Office be the rebel headquarters. The Irish insurgents proclaimed an Irish Republic with Pearse as President and Connolly as Commander in Chief and throughout this week of siege, 16,000 British troops with naval and artillery rained down a barrage of fire upon Dublin.[16] The military campaign of the Irish rebels was organized by seven members of the Military Council and the Rising went on for almost a week. Constant gun battles took place in city streets and British government offices.[17] It could have been a successful rebellion against British authority but the military plan was lacking and this was most evident in the bloody skirmishes that occurred soon thereafter.
            If civilians did not accept the rebellion as just, they were simply warded off with rifle butts to the face from some Irishmen.[18] There are even records of some people trying to dismantle barricades that were set up by the rebels. Not many gunshots were fired the first day of fighting and the British Army seemed uncoordinated during the battle on Mount Street where British Volunteer Training servicemen came across rebel positions; four of them were killed before reaching the Bush Barracks.[19] Most of the fighting took place in urban areas and dramatically escalated as the week proceeded forward. Snipers became a commodity for taking out rebel outposts. By Friday reinforcements had arrived and the British forces, roughly five times the size of the Irish fighters, launched a final assault on the post office. On Saturday, the rebels were forced to surrender with a white flag thrown up by Pearse as he stumbled out of the headquarters with other Volunteers.[20]
            The indiscriminate killing of civilians by British Army Regulars is highly controversial to this day and it made martyrs out of the Irish leaders, and their cause. The General Post Office was the only rebel outpost to be physically taken that week. The surrender document issued by Pearse read:
In order to prevent the further slaughter of Dublin citizens, and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers now surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered, the members of the Provisional Government present at headquarters have agreed to an unconditional surrender, and the commandants of the various districts in the City and County will order their commands to lay down arms.[21]
After the rising, General John Maxwell was made temporary governor of Ireland and there were several Irish rebellions not long after Easter Week in other cities that were put down by the British.[22] Pearse is also quoted saying, “Believe that we too love freedom and desire it. To us it is more desirable than anything in the world. If you strike us down now, we shall rise again and renew the fight. You cannot conquer Ireland”.[23]
Once the revolt was over, the British response was to execute all perpetrators for treason against the Crown. The diary of British Sergeant Samuel Lomas states that Pearse whistled on his way to one such firing squad.[24] Charles Blackader, the British officer who chaired Pearse's court-martial said, “I have just done one of the hardest tasks I have ever had to do. I had to condemn to death one of the finest characters I have ever come across”.[25] The fifteen Irish Leaders of the rebellion faced court martialing and were either hanged or shot over a nine-day period in May, including William Pearse (Patrick’s brother). In total: 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested. One Volunteer commander had escaped however, Earmon DeValera. The British did not want to execute an Irish-American for fear of alienating the United States.[26]
The 1916 Easter Rising on Monday commanded headlines all over the world. In the New York Times, it made the front page fourteen days in a row and read, “Irish revolt spreads west and south; whole island now under martial law”.[27] Another newspaper article stated that “Dublin still cut off. Troops have not yet regained possession of the capital”.[28] Until recently, witness accounts of the Rising had been sealed off from the public but the Irish military finally gave in and released all the documents they had in 2001. The most interesting one I came across was Capt. E. Gerrard of the 5th Division British Army recalling the executions of the 1916 Irish ringleaders, “Three refused to have their eyes bandaged…they died like lions. The rifles of the firing party were waving like a field of corn. All the men were cut to ribbons at a range of about 10 yards”.[29] The Irish Volunteers knew that Easter Rising was a lost cause so they settled for a symbolic act instead.[30] Not long after the executions, the Republican Party Sinn Fein won a landslide victory in the 1918 elections.[31]
In conclusion, this rebellion would singlehandedly mark the beginning of the era dubbed “The Troubles”. People living in Dublin and Belfast no longer wanted to be known as just another British colony. Easter Rising provided this escape from occupation which gave rise to a national sentiment that has never really left Ireland. For over sixty more years, newer groups like the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) came together using more sophisticated attacks against the British government, fighting for what they believe is the right to a free independent state separate in culture and identity from Great Britain. Easter Rising marked a period of significant upheaval vs. British rule. It was a moral victory for Ireland but a military win for the British government and Ireland isn’t the only nation asking for independence. If you haven’t already seen the news, so is Scotland. Today, the people of Ireland regard Plunkett and Pearse as heroes and parades are going on as we speak to mark the 99th anniversary of this historical event. It has shown England that it cannot rule Ireland on its own terms.



Bibliography




[1] A.P. Ryan. “The Easter Rising, 1916.” History Today Vol. 16, Issue 4. April 1966.
[2] 1
[3] Charles Townshend. “Soldiers Are We: Women in the Irish Rising”, History Today Vol. 56 Issue 4. April 2006.
[4] Professor Alan Macinnes. “Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom”. British Broadcasting Corporation, February 17, 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/acts_of_union_01.shtml>
[5] Oliver MacDonagh. Ireland: The Union and its aftermath (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1977), pp. 14-17.
[6] Brian Feeney. Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years (Ireland: O’Brien Press, 2002), p. 22.
[7] Charles Townshend. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion (Maryland: Ivan R. Dee, 2011), p. 49.
[8] Max Caulfield. The Easter Rebellion (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1995), p. 18.
[9] Michael McNally and Peter Dennis. Easter Rising 1916: Birth of the Irish Republic (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007), p. 30.
[10] Edward Malins. “Yeats and the Easter Rising.” The Massachusetts Review Vol. 2, No. 2. 1966.
[11] 10
[12] Tim P. Coogan. 1916: The Easter Rising (London: W&N, 2005), pp. 2-10.
[13] Michael Tierney. Eoin MacNeill (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 199 & 214.
[14] H.B.C. Pollard. Secret Societies of Ireland, Their Rise and Progress (1922) (Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), p. 147.
[15] Leon Ó Broin. Dublin Castle and the 1916 Rising (United Kingdom: Helicon, 1966), p. 138.
[16] Dorney, John. “The Easter Rising”. The Irish Story, April 2011. <http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/04/22/the-easter-rising-%E2%80%93-a-brief-overview/#.VSVdvPnF83l>
[17] Francis X. Martin. Leaders and Men of the Easter Rising: Dublin 1916 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 105.
[18] Fearghal McGarry. The Rising, Ireland: Easter 1916 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 142-143.
[19] Paul O’Brien. Blood on the Streets: 1916 and the Battle for Mount Street Bridge (Cork: Mercier Press, 2008), pp. 22-23.
[20] Thomas M. Coffey. Agony at Easter: the 1916 Irish Uprising (Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 1969), pp. 244-247.
[21] “Dublin may seek surrender letter.” BBC News, January, 2006. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4594388.stm>
[22] Fearghal McGarry. The Rising, Ireland: Easter 1916 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 203-204.
[23] Notes for Revolutionaries Vol 2, Foilseacháin an Ghlór Gafa, Nova Print, Belfast, 2006, p. 65.
[24] James O’Shea. “Patrick Pearse whistled on his way to execution.” Irish Central News, April 29, 2015. <http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/Patrick-Pearse-whistled-on-his-way-to-his-execution-says-British-diary.html>
[25] Frank M. Flanagan. “Patrick H. Pearse.” Internet Journal of Philosophy, Minerva 1, November 1997.  
[26] Oliver MacDonagh. Ireland (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp. 328-334.
[27] Sheila Langan. “The 1916 Easter Rising made the front page of the New York Times 14 days in a row.” Irish Central News, April 11, 2015. <http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/The-1916-Easter-Rising-made-the-front-page-of-the-New-York-Times-14-days-in-a-row.html>
[28] 27
[29] Patrick Counihan. “Witness accounts of 1916 Rising and War of Independence unveiled.” Irish Central News, August 7, 2012. <http://www.irishcentral.com/news/witness-accounts-of-1916-rising-and-war-of-independence-unveiled-165250256-237520421.html>
[30] Denis Cummings. “On This Day: Birth of the Irish Republic Declared in Easter Rising” Dulcenia Media, April 24, 2011. <http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/March-April-08/On-this-Day--Irish-Nationalists-Begin-Easter-Rising.html>
[31] 30

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Return of the Irish Republican Army

          




         A new generation of fundamentalists and rebellion aspirations against the British government is emerging in the return of the Irish Republican Army or I.R.A. Easter Rising's centennial anniversary is in 2016, thus creating this state of paranoia and anxiousness we are beginning to see; reminiscent of the "The Troubles". I am a proud Irish-American and I fully embrace my Gaelic culture. Sometimes even my professors and friends can overhear my accent come out. Nonetheless, I am watching and listening to the news in amazement as to the situation in Northern Ireland today.                      
       Recently, I watched a documentary on Irish-British relations and it said that the U.K. actually fears the I.R.A. more than they do ISIS. This is not exactly surprising given the history. However, you cannot blame Ireland for wanting to be united and independent, or Scotland for that matter. Their people have endured so much, only to have their piece of the freedom pie carved out by another nation. Armed struggle therefore will continue as long as the idea for freedom is there. If you piss off a snake long enough, it is bound to bite back. This is what we are seeing today in Northern Ireland. Ten years ago you would never think to hear that the I.R.A. was a problem considering the Good Friday Agreements were just signed in 1998. The combining of the Real I.R.A. and Republican Action Against Drugs in 2013 signals a shift more in favor of Irish Republican activism. 
           Why is this? Well, the answer is simple. If you give somebody a strong enough will or belief to fight in, they'll go down with it. Especially if the conflict has been timeless, spanning multiple centuries. This long fight against British occupation can be traced all the way back to 1916 when Patrick Pearse and others were either hanged or shot by firing squads for treason. This historic event made a martyr out of the cause itself, a cause which is apparently gaining ground all over again. Today, the I.R.A. membership has swelled to hundreds and it has proven to be a huge thorn in the Crown's side. About a month ago, U.K. special forces stepped foot back into Ireland; a move not seen in over twenty years. The threat of an attack in Northern Ireland by dissident Irish Republicans is right now listed as "severe". One thing is for sure though and that is the return of the I.R.A. 

Age of Enlightenment

The French Enlightenment


            The Age of Enlightenment was a period of cultural and intelligent significance. It challenged the old authority which had been in place for centuries through absolutism and royal monarchies. Most famously, this was the case in France. Great thinkers like Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Voltaire, and even Montesquieu would help bring about this change. The question is how did they accomplish and help to spur on such thinking which was once considered radical at the time? The answer is simple, by staying the course and not following the traditional way of thinking. The idea was to lead, not follow. As Immanuel Kant states in his essay publication, “It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable”.[1] Together, the philosophers of the French Enlightenment would seek to undermine the power of the centralized government in France, the nobility, and Catholic Church especially. They used reason, science, and their minds to gain followers or listeners but to do this they needed the freedoms they were given as natural born citizens of the state. In this paper I am going to discuss Pre-Enlightenment France, the philosophers behind it, and what this concept of reason meant politically. I will also be touching on the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance, and how the Thirty Years’ War affected the Enlightenment socially. All three of these historical events took place between the 14th and 17th centuries, so to truly understand the point of enlightenment we must first look at how it came into being in the first place.
The Renaissance in France
The French Renaissance would end up being one of the most important and influential times for literature, philosophy, and socially. It would last from the mid-15th century to the 17th century and it grew to include art and poetry. Just as France in the 16th century became involved in wars in Italy they brought back with them not just art treasures but new ideas of thought and perception. In essence, the Italian Renaissance influenced France the most along with England’s Enlightenment and it’s no secret that the French monarchs of this period made great headway into restoring royal power to what it once was before the Hundred Years War. The creation of new sovereign courts called “parlements” in Dijon, Aix, Bordeaux, Rennes, and Rouen; are the most visible examples of this process at work.[2] This however does not mean the King had complete authority over his subjects or that it would represent progress to the people of France. He had to use propaganda and sometimes rituals to get his point across. This in turn angered much of the literary poets and philosophers of the Renaissance and even later on, the Enlightenment.
            The French word Renaissance did not actually come into being until 1855 when historian Jules Michelet wrote the History of France, in English its translation is “rebirth”.[3] The Renaissance wouldn’t truly begin to catch on in France until the late 15th century after the Black Death receded from Europe and the Hundred Years War was over, restoring France to a colonial power. Another huge contributing factor to the French Renaissance was the fall of Constantinople in 1453 which helped to disperse scholars and manuscripts throughout France.[4] What’s even more interesting is that the Catholic Church was pretty lenient to everything that was being published throughout this time. It wasn’t until later during the French Revolution when they assumed supremacy over the Protestants. This is the period where they would really seek to clamp down on works being published by authors such as Kant and Voltaire (whom argued for the separation of church and state).
            Another topic I’d like to discuss is the effect this Renaissance had on literature and art. The three kings mostly associated with art during this period were as follows: Francis I (1515-1547), Henry II (1547-1589), and Louis XIII (1589-1643). Francis I encouraged humanism learning and once invited Leonardo Da Vinci to France. His son, Henry II would translate this form of art into architecture and borrowed from Italian classical influence. France, following Italy’s lead did little to encourage this sort of learning amongst their populations and tended to skew historical events; focusing more on art than anything else. Germany however did not, leaning more towards the Reformation. Dr. Ellis Knox writes that “They turned universal history to patriotic ends, so that the German Empire appeared as the product and culmination of history. They admired and published a good deal of medieval Germanic literature. They often portrayed Germany as the protector of learning in the age of darkness”.[5] Whenever other historians talk about the Reformation in France they refer to it as the “Protestant Reformation” because the French tended to lean more towards the Catholic Church. Of course the King would side with Protestant Lutherans in Germany but this was done only to cause disruptions to the Germanic Empire before the start of the Thirty Years’ War.
The Reformation in France
France came fairly close to becoming Protestant during the Reformation. It produced one of the major figures of this movement in John Calvin and in the 1590s; it nearly had a Protestant King.[6] The Reformation was led by Martin Luther and lasted from 1517 to 1648. It gave Enlightenment thinkers like Kant and Voltaire a reason to defy royal authority because so many years before a man by the name of Martin Luther had done the exact same thing, so you can see how these two movements along with the Renaissance are linked. However, those who were unable to read the works of Martin Luther which was the case for nearly all lower class Frenchmen had to hear the “truth” from the educated man in the village.[7] This clash of religious philosophies reached a boiling point when the Roman Catholic Church decided to argue a Counter-Reformation, which was initiated through the Council of Trent in Northern Italy.
            This fight over which religion should remain dominant in France reigned in the Wars of Religion in 1562, starting with the Massacre of Vassy on March 1st  by armed troops who took it upon themselves to murder Huguenot worshippers and even regular citizens. The 17th century was essentially torn by witch-hunts, wars of religion, and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any.[8] Some people actually think the St. Bartholemow’s Day Massacre was the only bloody event that occurred between Catholics and Protestants. This is incorrect. The very reason I bring this up is because this is where witness accounts begin to diverge so we cannot say for sure what happened during that week of August 22-24 in 1572. All we know is that the battle between Catholics and Protestants was about to implode.
An angry Catholic mob carrying on orders from the King (Charles IX at the time) decided to strike the first blow by massacring some 5,000 Huguenot leaders and followers alike. Another reason this massacre was necessary in the eyes of the French king was to avoid a long civil war. Catherine, the King’s mother felt compelled to inform Charles IX of this and she was the other party who made the decision to eliminate the threat.[9] The last thing I’d like to point out is the picture drawn by Francois Dubois of the massacre. Dubois was a Huguenot thinker and artist but he was also influenced by the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. This new way of seeing the world through open eyes is evident in his work. After these two massacres it was imprinted on all the Protestants minds in Europe that Catholicism was an evil religion.[10] This would also be a contributing factor to the Thirty Years War which was about to engulf Europe in a firestorm by the beginning of the 17th century.
The Thirty Years’ War
Besides World War I and II, the Thirty Years War turned out to be one of the most longest and destructive conflicts in European history. The body count is almost endless, with the war engulfing central and southern Europe as a whole. Thus, we can conclude this war started over economic, social, and cultural differences between colonial empires in the coming Middle Ages. Not quite. Most recently this view has been altered to reflect the view that this war began over “religious antagonists” as Professor Peter H. Wilson puts it in his abstract article regarding the Thirty Years’ War.[11] The reason I mention this is because it’s been proven throughout history that the reason this war started in the first place was the bitterness between Catholics and Protestants towards the end of the 16th century.
            In these next few paragraphs I am now going to talk about the Thirty Years’ War, its belligerents, the results, and how this inspired many of our Enlightenment thinkers to think differently about the world. Leaders would now face a new challenge from philosophers to give cause to their greedy ambitions.
            No war in history has ever lasted this long, not even Vietnam. By the time it was over nearly 60% of Germany’s population was wiped out or decimated.[12]  It ended with the rise of absolutism in the majority of Europe’s great empires. Due to several sources that were finally made available in English we are able to study this war more thoroughly than ever before. It first began during the Second Defenestration in Prague when Catholic Habsburgs and Protestants were feuding with each other.[13] Afterwards, they began recruiting familiar allies and getting ready for war so you see the religious aspect of this conflict already becoming the fire starter for this bloody conflict. All it needed now was a match to light that fire. Conflict in the Holy Roman Empire also played a big part in escalation and even helped to provoke a civil war in Bohemia in 1618.[14] Therefore, a coalition of alliances which poured money and mercenaries into Bohemia’s war would only further worsen the situation at hand.
            Just two years after the incident in Prague, Catholics consolidated their power after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. This is widely known by historians as the first battle in the Thirty Years’ War.[15] Outnumbered, the German Catholic League and what remained of the Holy Roman Empire would overcome Bohemia’s army. With Bohemia already spiraling out of control the attention now turned to the Danish and their interference within the private affairs of Germany. Denmark was a largely Protestant nation at the time and they feared they would be next if they didn’t intervene in the war between Germany and Bohemia. So in 1625, the Danes led an invasion force of over 14,000 men into Germany accompanied by French, British, and Scottish mercenaries.[16] Quickly nations became more involved and the Protestant population wanted to strike back following their humiliating defeat at the Battle of White Mountain.
            Europe was coming apart quicker than anyone had anticipated and Ottoman intervention would prove to be another determining factor in prolonging the agony of the Thirty Years’ War. Plans were made to reinforce the borders of what is now modern day Turkey. Bohemia, now aligning itself with the Ottoman Empire gathered up all their forces for an invasion of Poland with over 400,000 men; triggering a Polish-Ottoman War in 1620.[17] The invasion proved successful and the Poles were defeated rather easily, caught off guard by their invaders. The Spanish Empire also became more involved, aiding the Catholics. Pretty soon so would Sweden and France; directly siding with the Protestant armies. These wars continued well into the 1630s since new players were just on the horizon. Sweden and France were pretty much in the same boat at this time so they became close allies during the Thirty Years’ War. Sweden, about to side with the Catholics chose to take advantage of the disruptions in Germany and wage war against them instead. France, although it was split between Catholics and Protestants sided with the Protestants because they were already embroiled in a war with the Spanish and Holy Roman Empire. It’s quite interesting to see where all these pieces land by the end of the war in 1648 when the Peace of Westphalia is agreed to.
            Next, I am going to discuss the consequences and results of the Thirty Year’s War. All nations were wounded, especially Germany; whom had been invaded by nearly three different nationalist armies. Sweden and France wanted to continue the fight but many of the warring parties grew tired, understandably so.
            If there’s one successful thing that came out of the peace treaties signed during the end of the Thirty Years’ War, it’s the fact that sovereign states had a right to participate in international world order. This is still up for some dispute among historians. But these treaties did not restore order and peace in Europe. France would still have its revolution in the late 1700s. Nothing could change that, not even the Thirty Years’ War. However, before multiple sovereign states could be recognized the authority given to the Pope and Emperor had to be undermined conceptually.[18] This would drive Enlightenment thinkers in England and France to doubt what their royal monarchies were saying or doing.
            The results of these three separate treaties signed included the decline of feudalism, Protestants were allowed to continue their practice, and the recognition of the Dutch Republic by the Spanish Empire.[19] After the war, France rose to become the strongest colonial power in Europe but soon and undeniably so the Swedish Empire consolidated power; riding the coat tails of the French.[20] Speaking in general terms of suffering and consequences, Europe’s colonial powers put themselves into tremendous debt by continuing to wage war for nearly thirty years and it still wasn’t over. This put a drain on the system so the monarchies decided to levy these taxes on the peasants to pay for it all.[21] Then there came an abundant number of uprisings throughout Europe and France especially, which was just a shadow of things to come.[22] Another important detail we must not forget is the rampant disease, crop devastation, famine, and death that occurred during this period. Much of this would occur in Germany but other nations were affected too.
The Enlightenment
            After being at war for nearly thirty years and another one already beginning to take shape between the Spanish and French empires, the Enlightenment was now in full swing with thinkers questioning both their religious leaders and monarchies. Why so much bloodshed? Was it all worth it in the end? These were the questions on everyone’s minds in Europe that needed to be answered.
            During the late 1600s and early 1700s the growing nobility of France caused a threat to the monarch in power, Louis XIV at the time.[23] After the Thirty Years’ War, the French adopted absolutism as their main form of government and power was instated in the central core.[24] The idea that the monarchy could have total and complete dominion over subjects is something that goes against what was originally intended for the powers of a limited monarchy. French Historian Tocqueville noted that even before the Revolution, the French government “was already highly centralized and all-powerful”.[25] During this period, Enlightenment thinkers printed pamphlets to try and convince the French that they were no longer living underneath a system of feudalism or limited monarchy, but that it was quickly transitioning into a dictatorship. Clash was inevitable. In Revolutionary France, there were estates. This meant that economic classes and those of nobility were separated by traditional and political value. The First Estate consisted of Church/Clergy, the Second Estate was comprised of Nobility, and the Third Estate was usually reserved for French citizens or peasants.[26] (sentence out of place)
Finally, I am going to talk about the influence Enlightenment thinkers had on European politics, religion, and their thoughts during the start of the French Revolution. The Enlightenment would last from 1650 to around the late 1780s.
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who was born in Russia and considered a humanist at the time of the French Revolution.[27] Rejecting the skepticism view of David Hume, Kant stressed that it was human experience which prompted a person to question the order of things.[28] He is most famous for writing The Critique of Pure Reason and What is Enlightenment, both written just before the outbreak of war in France. During my research I also came across another document Kant wrote in 1795 titled Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Kant wrote these works mainly to promote the Enlightenment and its social views. His pamphlets were widely known to be controversial at the time.[29] He believed that the Revolution was just, ignoring the policies of the monarchy and believing that if a state cannot serve its people it should be overthrown.[30] His quote from Perpetual Peace is one that resounds more towards the Thirty Years’ War and you can really tell this just by his tone, “No state shall by force interfere with the Constitution or Government of another state”.[31] Throughout this whole scripture it was very telling how much he cared about the human spirit. Kant was just a magnificent philosopher and already one of my favorites.
What you must understand about the Enlightenment is that these philosophers back came from England, essentially going off the ideas from other thinkers who had been through exactly what the people in France have as well. The next philosopher I am going to be talking about is Rene Descartes.  Rene Descartes differed fundamentally from those who came before him. He warned historians not to revert back to older times, stating that "the well-ordered world in which every object and every being has perfectly marked boundaries”.[32] Descartes was born in France but remained in the Dutch Republic his entire life and he is mostly known for making the important connection between algebraic equations and geometry.[33] He was and still is one of the leading men during the Scientific Revolution. However, not everyone agreed with his way of thinking. David Hume for example discounted Descartes’ views and offered his own take.
Responsible for the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am”, Descartes was a firm believer in faith and religion, something most Enlightenment thinkers weren’t too fond of.[34] It’s interesting that Descartes was one of the only scientific researchers besides Francis Bacon (another Scientific Revolution contributor) who acknowledged God’s existence. To distinguish the idea of a supreme being creating Earth vs. science must have been tough for the both of them. Not to mention the French Monarchy breathing down their neck twenty four hours seven days a week. Religion and science are both controversial topics even to this day but Descartes still managed to print his essays and mathematical equations to a general public fed up with the government of France.
            The next Enlightenment thinker I am going to discuss is Charles-Louis Montesquieu. Simply referred to as Montesquieu by many historians, he was an astute student of law who graduated from the University of Bordeaux in 1708.[35] His major works include The Persian Letters and The Spirit of the Laws. These works which he is vastly famous for included the idea that government should have a separation of powers through three different branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church placed his works on the list of “Forbidden Books” in 1751.[36] The United States government itself was built on the very foundation of Montesquieu’s ideas of checks and balances. Undoubtedly, he has had a profound impact in political science and history.
Widely known as a French writer and public activist, Voltaire stands apart from every other Enlightenment philosopher there is.[37] Writing more plays, poetry, and short stories than actually philosophical essays; he was a firm believer in the natural science.[38] An outspoken critic of the monarchy and aristocracy in France, Voltaire found them to be too corrupt for their own good. On the other hand he also distrusted democracy and once stated that “Democracy seems to suit only a very small country. Discord will prevail in it, as in a convent of monks”.[39] Emphasizing reason over virtue, Voltaire believed that every institution in France was a contradiction because reason was not enthroned in the place of authority within the state.[40] He was an also an avid believer in the freedom of religion and expression.
Jean Jacques-Rousseau’s political contributions during the French Revolution would echo throughout history. Probably the most famous out of all philosophers, he was considered a national hero in much of Paris after the Revolution. Rousseau emphasized that in the modern world one must work to achieve and protect freedom.[41] In addition to political science, Rousseau was also a famous music theorist; composing several songs.[42] Theorizing that it wasn’t nature which made humankind evil but society, Rousseau set upon proving this by writing The Discourse in 1750.[43] These ideas most notably had a profound impact on Karl Marx when he set about writing The Communist Manifesto in 1848. The most famous body of work Rousseau is known for is The Social Contract, published in 1762. In it Rousseau stated “I enter upon my task without proving the importance of the subject. I shall be asked if I am a prince or a legislator, to write on politics. I answer that I am neither, and that is why I do so”.[44] Rousseau here is clearly questioning the legitimacy of the state and even its authority over individual rights. The importance of this document and many others written by Rousseau cannot be more overstated.
The last two thinkers from the Enlightenment I will be talking about are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who in 1651 published The Leviathan, based mainly on the principles of liberal thought and self-indulgence.[45] In history he translated Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War into English.[46] A vast intellectual even from birth, he set upon his journey with both eyes forward. This began in 1620, when he was endowed as a secretary for Sir Francis Bacon.[47] Along with Voltaire, Hobbes was also influential in building the Social Contract Theory and was marked as a “champion of absolutism for the sovereign”.[48] Another fellow Englishmen by the name of John Locke agreed with most of these theories. Locke can be hailed for his liberal theories which are reflected in the United States’ Declaration of Independence.[49] This is why Hobbes and Locke are often grouped together as one set of ideas they put forth. I won’t go into much detail with Locke considering it would just be a restatement of the evidence I just stated, but I will say that many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers got their ideas from these two brilliant thinkers and Locke is considered by many to be an empiricist. Together they represent the very best the Enlightenment had to offer in terms of overall contribution.
Changes after the Enlightenment began included the influence people had on governments and religious ideals. They finally had a say in what was once a demonic structure of estates which you were bound to for life, whether it be a peasant or nobleman. There was ample room for opportunity to advance in not just currency, but property as well. These rights are the very thing Enlightenment thinkers felt were under threat so in their minds they had no choice but to act.
I have now given a detailed fifteen page rendition about the French Enlightenment and the people behind it, touching upon what sparked this great exchange of ideas. Literature, art, history, and philosophy were all affected by Europe’s culture and when these very things which make us human were under threat all kinds of people stepped up to the plate. Kant, Descartes, and Montesquieu are all names which should be remembered throughout history for helping to preserve liberties and life as we know it today. Not only did these men and women put their reputation at stake but their lives as well. It takes great courage to publish works outlawed by a monarchy wanting to take over and rule over all its subjects, spreading propaganda instead of educating its citizenry.





Bibliography


[1]Kant, Immanuel. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment (Konigsberg, Prussia; 1784), p. 1.
[2] Holt, Mack P. Renaissance and Reformation France: 1500-1648 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 7.
[3] Murray P. and Murray L., The Art of the Renaissance (London: Thames and Hudson, 1963), p. 9.
[4] MacCaffrey, James. History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution: Volume 1 (Bibliolife, 2008), p. 21.
[5] Dr. Ellis Knox, “Historiography of the Idea of Renaissance”, Boise State University, 1994. <https://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/latemiddleages/renaissance/historyren.shtml>.
[6] Dr. Ellis Knox, “The Reformation in France,” Boise State University, 1994. <https://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/reformation/france/16thc.shtml>. 
[7] H. Hauser, The French Reformation and the French People in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1899), p. 219.
[8] Paul Brians, “The Enlightenment,” Washington State University, 2000. <http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html>.
[9] Goyau, Georges. “Saint Bartholomew’s Day”, The Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume 13 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912).
[10] Chadwick, H. and Evans, G.R. Atlas of the Christian Church. (London: Facts on File, 1987), p.113.
[11] Wilson, H. Peter. “Causes of the Thirty Years War: 1618-1648,” The English Historical Review (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 554-586.
[12] MacDonald, Michael J. “Europe – The Thirty Years’ War,” (bookoflife.org, 2004) <http://bookoflife.org/history/europe/europe_the30yearswar.htm>.
[13] Gutmann, Myron P. “The Origins of the Thirty Years War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History: Vol. 18 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988),pp.  749-770.
[14] Ibid
[15] Gould, Stephen Jay. “The Diet of Worms and the Defenestration of Prague.” Natural History Vol. 105 (1996): 18.
[16] Rickard, J. “Thirty Years War (1618-48)”, (historyofwar.org, 2002). <http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_thirtyyears.html>.
[17] Ibid
[18] Croxton, Derek. “The Peace of Westphalia and the Origins of Sovereignty.” The International History Review Vol. 21 (1999): 569.
[19] Spahn, Martin. “The Thirty Years War,” The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 14 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912).
[20] Ibid
[21] Phyllis A. Corzine. The French Revolution (San Diego: Lucent Books, 1995), p. 20.
[22] John P. McKay, Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler. A History of Western Society 6th edition (Bedford: St. Martins, 2006), p. 545.
[23] Timothy J. Shannon. “Pre-Enlightenment France,” Gettysburg University. <http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site6/enlightenment_in_france.htm>
[24] Swann, Julia. Provincial Power and Absolute Monarchy: The Estates General of Burgundy, 1661-1790 (London: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 2.
[26] Phyllis A. Corzine. The French Revolution (San Diego: Lucent Books, 1995), pp. 15-16.
[27] McCormick, Matt. “Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sacramento State University. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/>.
[28] Ibid
[29] Rauscher, Frederick. "Kant's Social and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-social-political/>.
[30] Ibid
[31] Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: Philosophical Sketch, 1795. Translated by Vincent Ferraro, Mt. Holyoke College. <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm>.
[32] James B. Collins. 1998. “The Culture of Merit: Nobility, Royal Service, and the Making of Absolute Monarchy in France, 1600-1789”.  Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 19, no. 1: 109-110.
[33] Smith, Kurt. "Descartes' Life and Works", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/descartes-works/>.
[34] Deem, Rich. “Famous Scientists Who Believed in God”, (GodandScience.org, 2005). <http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html>.
[35] Bok, Hilary. "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/montesquieu/>.
[36] Ibid
[37] Shank, J.B., "Voltaire", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/voltaire/>.
[38] Ibid
[39] William F. Fleming trans. A Philosophical Dictionary Derived from The Works of Voltaire (South Australia: University of Adelaide, last updated December 22, 2014), eBook edition. <https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/index.html>.
[40] Philip G. Neserius. 1926. “Voltaire’s Political Ideas”, The American Political Science Review Vol. 20, no. 1: 31-51.
[41] Bertram, Christopher. "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/rousseau/>.
[42] Ibid
[43] Cameron, J’anet. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau – We are Good by Nature but Corrupted by Society”, 2013. <http://decodedpast.com/jean-jacques-rousseau-good-nature-corrupted-society/3811>.
[44] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, translated with an Introduction by G.D. H. Cole (London and Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1923). <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/638>.
[45] Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne. "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/>.
[46] Duncan, Stewart. "Thomas Hobbes", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/hobbes/>.
[47] Ibid
[48] Manent, Pierre. An Intellectual History of Liberalism, translated by Rebecca Balinski (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 20-38.
[49] Carl Lotus Becker, “The Declaration of Independence: A Study on the History of Political Ideas” (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1922). <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1177>.