How far could the historian make use of sources 6 and 7 together to investigate the impact that the reforms of the Constituent Assembly had on the people of France?
During the years 1789 to 1792 the Constituent Assembly looked to reform a lot of the inequalities and problems that had existed previously in the Ancien Regime. This reform took place in documents such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. This document involved policies such as reformed taxes, limiting the king’s powers and giving the people of France political rights. Sources 6 and 7 were both written around the time of these reformations and during the French revolution. The two sources could be seen as being useful to an historian looking to investigate the impact the reforms of the Constituent Assembly had on the people of France. Source 6 is written by a deputy of the Constituent Assembly (Adrien Duquesnoy) and was found inside his diary. As the source was written in his own personal diary the author is clearly not using this as any form of propaganda and instead is based on his own personal points and what he believes is correct against an opposition which he identifies as being wrong in how they perceive the reforms of the Constituent Assembly. Source 6 shows that the Assembly has done well and is defending himself because people are being critical of the Assembly. This is shown within the source when it states that Adrien had been receiving critics asking him and the Assembly “what has the Assembly been doing for six months?”. He states that they have abolished the Clergy and the Nobility and also their “provincial privileges” were gone. This is showing an Historian that the reforms of the Assembly already were benefiting ordinary French people as they had a lot more freedom than what previously existed during the Ancien Regime.
Source 7 however was from a revolutionary newspaper and it was an extract from one of the newspaper articles criticising the reforms of Constituent Assembly. Censorship of the press was no longer an issue due to a reform made by the Constituent Assembly so people could talk freely about those in charge without having to worry about possible punishments for doing so. It talks about the reforms of the Constituent Assembly only truly benefiting the rich and that nothing much has really differed for the workers and the extremely poor peasants. It states that ‘they no longer have to pay taxes, they have armed themselves for smuggling’. This shows that the changes made by the Constituent Assembly have benefited the Bourgeoisie to a much larger extent than the ordinary workers and peasants of France. Source 6 backs up this point as many ordinary people were asking the author of source 6 the question “what has the assembly been doing for six months?” showing that Source 7 was not the only group of people criticising the actions of the Assembly.
However, both sources cannot be as useful to an historian as they both seem. Like many sources they have their limitations. Source 6 was written by Adrien Duquesnoy and he had a close working relationship with Comte de Mirabeau who was a corrupt political figure at the time as he was subsidised by the royal family as an advocate for constitutional monarchy, as was Duquesnoy. He strongly disagreed with the idea of a republic and exaggerates his point of view in able to make the Constituent Assembly seem the most affect form of governing. This could mean as he was under the influence of Mirabeau he could have affected the way legislature was made and this led to a direct link on how the French people were affected overall. Also due to the fact that he was a member of the Constituent assembly he would want to portray himself as someone who knows what he is talking about and that he can govern effectively and properly and that he wasn’t a shame of the political scene. He wanted it to look as if he was actually helping ordinary people and it not to look like he was only helping himself, fellow deputies and those within the Bourgeoisie.
Source 7 also has its limitations and one of them was the fact it came from a revolutionary newspaper. This is a limitation itself as it is used for propaganda to get French revolutionaries to continue the revolution and make it go further than it currently was at the time the paper was published. Therefore, it only criticised the work of the Constituent Assembly to get people angry and on its side. That means the nature of the source is biased as it only mentions one side and fails to mention any positives on the reforms of the Constituent Assembly as all it wants to do it antagonise the readers of the newspaper. It also fails to mention that the Constituent Assembly made a lot of reforms that would have been accepted and respected by the majority of France. This shows that the newspaper is exaggerating its argument to make it seem as if more people are criticising the Constituent Assembly then actually are.
To conclude both sources are useful to an historian who is investigating the impact that the reforms of the Constituent Assembly had on the ordinary people of France despite their limitations. Source 6 may seem biased but includes a lot of information about reforms that were made during the period by the Constituent Assembly and notices the fact there were criticisms of the reformations but tries to defend himself by showing the more positive impacts that had taken place in ordinary French people’s lives. Source 7 however is biased as it only outlines one side of the argument but it does include quite a lot of accurate information and shows the negatives that had taken place in French people’s lives due to these reforms made by the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, an historian could use source 7 and find it quite useful to finding out the impact it had on ordinary French people as it highlights the opposite argument to source 6. Overall, an historian would find both sources very useful to investigating the impact that the reforms of the Constituent Assembly had on the ordinary people of France but would have to be wary on certain points of information within both sources which are exaggerated and also distinguish the difference between factual and twisted information.