King Louis XVI, Deposed in the French Revolution

Louis XVI (born Louis-Auguste; August 23, 1754–January 21, 1793)  was the French king whose reign collapsed because of the French Revolution. His failure to grasp the situation and to compromise, coupled with his requests for foreign intervention, were factors that led to his execution by guillotine and the creation of the new republic. Fast Facts: King Louis XVI of France Known For:  King of France at the time of the French Revolution, executed by guillotineAlso Known As:  Louis-Auguste, Citizen Louis CapetBorn:  August 23, 1754 in Versailles,  FranceParents: Louis, Dauphin of France and Maria Josepha of SaxonyDied:  January 21, 1793  in Paris,  FranceSpouse: Marie AntoinetteChildren: Marie-Thà ©rà ¨se-Charlotte, Louis Joseph Xavier Franà §ois, Louis Charles, Sophie Hà ©là ¨ne Bà ©atrice de FranceNotable Quote: I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France. Early Life Louis-Auguste, the future Louis XVI, was born on August 23, 1754. His father, Louis, Dauphin of France, was the heir to the French throne. Louis-Auguste was the oldest son born to his father to survive childhood; when his father died in 1765, he became the new heir to the throne. Louis-Auguste was a keen student of language and history. He excelled at technical subjects and was deeply interested in geography, but historians are unsure about his level of intelligence. Marriage to Marie Antoinette When his mother died in 1767, the now-orphaned Louis grew close to his grandfather, the reigning king. At age 15 in 1770, he married 14-year-old Marie Antoinette, daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor. For uncertain reasons (possibly related to Louis’ psychology and ignorance, rather than a physical ailment), the couple did not consummate the marriage for many years. Marie Antoinette received much of the publics blame for the lack of children in the early years of their marriage. Historians postulate that Louis initial coolness to Marie Antoinette was due to his fear that she might have too much influence over him—as her family actually desired. Early Reign When Louis XV died in 1774, Louis succeeded him as Louis XVI, aged 19. He was aloof and reserved, but possessed a genuine interest in the affairs of his kingdom, both internal and external. He was obsessed with lists and figures, comfortable when hunting, but timid and awkward everywhere else (he watched people coming and going from Versailles through a telescope). He was an expert on the French Navy and a devotee of mechanics and engineering, although this may be overemphasized by historians. Louis had studied English history and politics and was determined to learn from accounts of Charles I, the English king who was beheaded by his parliament. Louis restored the position of the French parlements (provincial courts) which Louis XV had tried to reduce. Louis XVI did so because he believed it was what the people wanted, and partly because the pro-parlementary faction in his government worked hard to convince him it was his idea. This earned him public popularity but obstructed royal power. Some historians deem this restoration as one factor that helped lead to the French Revolution. Weak Ruling From the Start Louis was unable to unite his court. Indeed, Louis’ aversion to ceremony and to maintaining a dialogue with nobles he disliked meant that court took on a lesser role and many nobles ceased to attend. In this way, Louis undermined his own position among the aristocracy. He turned his natural reserve and tendency to be silent into an act of state, simply refusing to reply to people with whom he disagreed. Louis saw himself as a reforming monarch but took little lead. He allowed the attempted reforms of Turgot at the start and promoted the outsider Jacques Necker to be finance minister, but he consistently failed to either take a strong role in government or to appoint someone like a prime minister to take one. The result was a regime riven by factions and lacking a clear direction. War and Calonne Louis approved support of the American revolutionaries against Britain in the American Revolutionary War. He was eager to weaken Britain, Frances longtime enemy, and to restore French confidence in their military. Louis was determined not to use the war as a way of grabbing new territory for France. However, by refraining this way, France accrued ever greater debts, which dangerously destabilized the country. Louis turned to Charles de Calonne to help reform Frances fiscal system and save France from bankruptcy. The king had to call an Assembly of Notables in order to force through these fiscal measures and other major reforms because the traditional cornerstone of Ancien Regime politics, the relation between the king and the parlement, had collapsed. Open to Reform Louis was prepared to turn France into a constitutional monarchy, and in order to do so, because the Assembly of Notables proved to be unwilling, Louis called an Estates-General. The historian John Hardman has argued that the rejection of Calonne’s reforms, which Louis had given personal backing, led to the kings nervous breakdown, from which he never had time to recover. Hardman argues that the crisis changed the king’s personality, leaving him sentimental, weepy, distant, and depressed. Indeed, Louis had so closely supported Calonne that when the Notables, and seemingly France, rejected the reforms and forced him to dismiss his minister, Louis was damaged both politically and personally. Louis XVI and the Early Revolution The gathering of the Estates-General soon turned revolutionary. At first, there was little desire to abolish the monarchy. Louis might have remained in charge of a newly created constitutional monarchy if he had been able to chart a clear path through the momentous events. But he was not a king with clear, decisive vision. Instead, he was muddled, distant, uncompromising, and his habitual silence left his character and actions open to all interpretations. When his eldest son fell ill and died, Louis divorced himself from what was happening at key moments. Louis was torn this way and that by court factions. He tended to think long about issues. When proposals were finally put forward to the Estates, it had already formed into a National Assembly. Louis initially called the Assembly â€Å"a phase.† Louis then misjudged and disappointed the radicalized Estates, proving inconsistent in his vision, and arguably too late with any response. Attempts at Reform Despite this, Louis was able to publicly accept developments like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and his public support increased when it appeared he would allow himself to be recast in a new role. There is no proof Louis ever intended to overthrow the National Assembly by force of arms—because he was afraid of civil war. He initially refused to flee and gather forces. Louis believed France needed a constitutional monarchy in which he had an equal say in government. He disliked having no say in the creation of legislation and he was only given a suppressive veto that would undermine him every time he used it. Forced Back to Paris As the revolution progressed, Louis remained opposed to many of the changes desired by the deputies, privately believing that the revolution would run its course and the status quo would return. As general frustration with Louis grew, he was forced to move to Paris, where he was effectively imprisoned. The position of the monarchy was further eroded and Louis began to hope for a settlement that would mimic the English system. But he was horrified by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which offended his religious beliefs. Flight to Vergennes and Collapse of the Monarchy Louis then made what would prove to be a major mistake: He attempted to flee to safety and gather forces to protect his family. He had no intention, at this moment or ever, of starting a civil war, nor of bringing back the Ancien Regime. He wanted a constitutional monarchy. Leaving in disguise on June 21, 1791, he was caught at Varennes and brought back to Paris. His reputation was damaged. The flight itself did not destroy the monarchy: Sections of the government tried to portray Louis as the victim of kidnapping to protect the future settlement. His flight did, however, polarize people’s views. When fleeing, Louis left behind a declaration. This declaration is often understood as damaging him; in fact, it gave constructive criticism on aspects of the revolutionary government that deputies tried to work into the new constitution before being blocked. Recreating France Louis was now forced to accept a constitution neither he, nor few other people, really believed in. Louis resolved to execute the constitution literally, in order to make other people aware of its need for reform. But others simply saw the need for a republic and the deputies who supported a constitutional monarchy suffered. Louis also used his veto—and in doing so walked into a trap set by deputies who wished to damage the king by making him veto. There were more escape plans, but Louis feared being usurped, either by his brother or a general and refused to take part. In April 1792, the French newly elected Legislative Assembly declared a pre-emptive war against Austria (which was suspected of forming anti-revolutionary alliances with French expatriates). Louis was now seen increasingly by his own public as an enemy. The king grew even more silent and depressed, being forced into more vetoes before the Paris crowd were pushed into triggering the declaration of a French Republic. Louis and his family were arrested and imprisoned. Execution Louis’ safety came further under threat when secret papers were discovered hidden in the Tuileries palace where Louis had been staying. The papers were used by enemies to claim the former king had engaged in counter-revolutionary activity. Louis was put on trial. He had hoped to avoid one, fearing that it would prevent the return of a French monarchy for a long time. He was found guilty—the only, inevitable result—and narrowly condemned to death. He was executed by guillotine on January 21, 1793, but not before ordering his son to pardon those responsible if he had the chance. Legacy Louis XVI is generally portrayed as the fat, slow, silent monarch who oversaw the collapse of absolute monarchy. The reality of his reign is generally lost to public memory, including the fact that he tried to reform France to a degree few would ever have imagined before the Estates-General was called. An argument among historians persists as to what responsibility Louis holds for the events of the revolution, or whether he happened to preside over France at a moment when much greater forces conspired to provoke massive change. Most agree that both were factors: The time was ripe and Louis faults certainly hastened the revolution. The ideology of absolute rule was collapsing in France, but at the same time it was Louis who consciously entered into the American Revolutionary War, incurring debt, and it was Louis whose indecision and mangled attempts at governing alienated the Third Estate deputies and provoked the first creation of the National Assembly. Sources EyeWitness to History. The Execution of Louis XVI, 1793. 1999.Hardman, John. Louis XVI:  The Silent King. Bloomsbury Academic,  2000.  Hardman, John. The Life of Louis XVI.  Yale University Press,  2016.

Navajo Soldiers World War II Code Talkers

World War II had no shortage of heroes, but the conflict likely would’ve ended on a completely different note for the United States without the efforts of the Navajo soldiers known as Code Talkers. At the onset of the war, the U.S. found itself vulnerable to Japanese intelligence specialists who used their English-speaking soldiers to intercept the messages issued by the U.S. military. Each time the military devised a code, Japanese intelligence experts deciphered it. As a result, they not only learned which actions U.S. forces would take before they carried them out but gave the troops bogus missions to confuse them. To prevent the Japanese from intercepting subsequent messages, the U.S. military developed highly intricate codes that could take more than two hours to decrypt or encrypt. This was far from an efficient way to communicate. But ​World War I veteran Philip Johnston would change that by suggesting that the U.S. military develop a code based on the Navajo language. A Complex Language World War II did not mark the first time the U.S. military developed a code based on an indigenous language. In World War I, Choctaw speakers served as code talkers. But Philip Johnston, a missionary’s son who grew up on the Navajo reservation, knew that a code based on the Navajo language would be especially difficult to break. For one, the Navajo language was largely unwritten at the time and many words in the language have different meanings depending on context. Once Johnston demonstrated to the Marine Corps how effective a Navajo-based code would be in thwarting intelligence breaches, the Marines set out to sign up Navajos as radio operators. The Navajo Code in Use In 1942, 29 Navajo soldiers ranging in age from 15 to 35 years old collaborated to create the first U.S. military code based on their indigenous language. It started off with a vocabulary of about 200 but tripled in quantity by the time World War II ended. The Navajo Code Talkers could pass messages in as few as 20 seconds. According to the official Navajo Code Talkers website, indigenous words that sounded like military terms in English made up the code. â€Å"The Navajo word for turtle meant ‘tank,’ and a dive-bomber was a ‘chicken hawk.’ To supplement those terms, words could be spelled out using Navajo terms assigned to individual letters of the alphabet—the selection of the Navajo term being based on the first letter of the Navajo word’s English meaning. For instance, ‘Wo-La-Chee’ means ‘ant,’ and would represent the letter ‘A.’† U.S. Triumphs With Code The code was so complex that not even native Navajo speakers comprehended it. â€Å"When a Navajo listens to us, he wonders what in the world we’re talking about,† Keith Little, the late code talker, explained to news station My Fox Phoenix in 2011. The code also proved unique because the Navajo soldiers weren’t allowed to write it down once on frontlines of the war. The soldiers functioned essentially as â€Å"living codes.† During the first two days of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the code talkers transmitted 800 messages with no mistakes. Their efforts played a key role in the U.S. emerging from the Battle of Iwo Jima as well as the battles of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, and Okinawa victoriously. â€Å"We saved a lot of lives†¦, I know that we did,† Little said. Honoring the Code Talkers The Navajo Code Talkers may have been World War II heroes, but the public didn’t realize it because the code created by the Navajos remained a top military secret for decades following the war. Finally in 1968, the military declassified the code, but many believed that the Navajos didn’t receive the honors befitting of war heroes. In April 2000, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico sought to change that when he introduced a bill authorizing the U.S. president to award gold and silver congressional medals to the Navajo Code Talkers. In December 2000, the bill went into effect. â€Å"It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose achievements have been obscured by twin veils of secrecy and time,† Bingaman said. â€Å"†¦I introduced this legislation – to salute these brave and innovative Native Americans, to acknowledge the great contribution they made to the Nation at a time of war, and to finally give them their rightful place in history.† Code Talkers Legacy The Navajo Code Talkers’ contributions to the U.S. military during World War II entered popular culture when the film â€Å"Windtalkers,† starring Nicolas Cage and Adam Beach, debuted in 2002. Although the movie received mixed reviews, it exposed a large swath of the public to World War II’s Native American heroes. The Navajo Code Talkers Foundation, an Arizona nonprofit, also functions to raise awareness about these skillful soldiers and celebrate Native American culture, history and heritage.

Describe Sexual and Gender Identity, the Distinction Between Them Free Essays

In physiological side, the sex identity is regarding the appearance of the external sex organs at the birth of an infant. Hence, the sex identity of boy or girl is usually straight forward related to biological. On the other hand, the gender identity is more complicated. We will write a custom essay sample on Describe Sexual and Gender Identity, the Distinction Between Them or any similar topic only for you Order Now It cannot be focus on biological process and it may affect by many aspects. Firstly, the behavior of males and females always affect by different culture and society. Each culture has their own sex roles standards and can change as time goes on. For example, there is big difference viewpoint when we look at a transvestist nowadays. We can accept this is a trendy and they are fashionable. Even though many parents can gradually accept their son or daughter is a transgender, they will try their best to lead their children in the appropriate sex roles from infancy stage. Girl must wear dress in pink and play with their â€Å"Barbie† doll. Whereas, boy must play with their car or transformers toys. Also boy should be stronger than girl and protect them always. Crying is for girl only. Hence, the major influences on the child’s adoption of typical masculine or typical feminine are their parents’ attitudes. In general, tomboy is easier to accept by people than effeminate behavior for boys. The sex-roles of cultures that are radically different from our own. According to Margaret Mead’s studying of three tribes, the Arapesh, the Mundugumor and the Tchambuli, she found that few sex role differences in the Arapesh and the Mundugumor. The males and females of the Arapesh were passive, gentle and co-operative. The Mundugumor were aggressive, restrictive and fierce. The Tchambuli appeared to be a complete reversal of the typical male and female sex-roles as we know them. The women were independent and aggressive whilst the men were considered sentimental and emotional. Such finding indicated a great deal of cultural and social influences on the child’s formation of either male or female. By learning theory, the acquisition of gender roles was by teaching rather than biological. Bandura, the social learning theorist, believe that sex appropriate behaviors are learned like the other behaviors. They are both via imitation and reinforced by parents. Non-appropriate behaviors is not allowed or actively discouraged. From the infant was born, their parents started to instil sex appropriate behaviors consciously and unconsciously. Goldberg and Lewis in 1969 studying 32 girls and 32 boys with their mothers, they found that the emergence of sex-typed behaviors by the age of 13 months and indicated links between these sex-appropriate behaviors and the way in which these toddlers had been treated by their mothers. At the result, greater dependency on their mother which was showed by the girls at 13 months was due to the differences in handling at 6 months. Hence, it appears that early differences in handling may contribute to the emergence of sex-typed behavior. Some theorist believe that the biological factors still can explain why a child adopts a specific gender roles through two main ways. One is the effects of hormones and the other is the lateralisation of brain functions. Young and his associates used monkey for testing. They injected pregnant monkeys with testosterone (a male hormone) early in their pregnancy. They found that female offspring had some genital abnormalities and showed types of social behavior which were more characteristic of male monkeys. Later testing the female monkeys injected testosterone after birth but before puberty, they become much more assertive, and even becoming very powerful. From another theorist, John Money, he matched pairs of hermaphrodites, he concluded that it is the socially imposed identity which is the accepted one though there does appear to be a critical period between 18 months and 3 years after which sexual reassignment is unwise. Regard to the lateralisation of brain functions, two hemispheres of the brain specialize in different functions. In general, the left hemisphere is concerned with processing verbal material while the right hemisphere deals with spatial information. The other theorist, Bryden found that men are more specialised than women. That means men are more vulnerable to the effects of brain damage than women. For example, if a woman suffers damage to the left hemisphere she is less likely to suffer language impairment than a man with similar damage. Similarly, if a woman suffers damage to the right hemisphere she is less likely to show spatial problems than a man. As a result, the specialisation of the two hemispheres of the brain seem to indicate that some sex differences are inate. How to cite Describe Sexual and Gender Identity, the Distinction Between Them, Essay examples