The Decree That Outlived Its Author
A revolutionary government in 1793 abolishes feudal dues without compensation, imposes price controls on grain, and conscripts unmarried men into the army. Its price controls are enforced by local committees; hoarders face execution. Within two years the government falls, price controls are repealed, and the currency collapses. Twenty years later, a restored monarchy accepts that feudal dues will not be reinstated, and a land registry confirms peasant ownership of former noble land. A later regime keeps conscription in a modified form. The grain trade is fully liberalised and stays so. Historians debate whether the revolution 'ended' in 1795, 1815, or later.
1. Sort the revolution's measures into those that were reversed, those that persisted, and those that were transformed. What does the pattern suggest about revolutionary consequence?
Read the worked answer
Reversed: price controls and the enforced currency. These were emergency instruments tied to war and scarcity; once the government fell and the currency collapsed, they were dismantled and liberalisation held.
Persisted: the abolition of feudal dues without compensation and peasant ownership of former noble land. The restored monarchy's acceptance twenty years later is decisive evidence: even a regime with every incentive to reverse the change ratified it, because property had already changed hands and could not be unwound without massive disruption.
Transformed: conscription, which survived in modified form - the principle of the state's claim on citizens' service outlasted the specific decree.
The pattern suggests that consequences are best judged by irreversibility, not by the intentions of the revolutionaries. Measures that redistributed property durably outlasted the regime that made them; emergency controls did not. This also bears on the 'when did it end' debate: if we date the revolution by its durable legacies, 1795 is too early, because the land settlement was still being secured and ratified decades later.
2. A historian argues the price controls 'failed' because they were repealed. Assess this judgement.
Read the worked answer
Repeal is evidence of abandonment, not necessarily of failure. The controls were introduced under extreme conditions - war, scarcity, collapsing assignats - and the relevant question is what they achieved while in force. If they kept bread within reach in cities and prevented the army from starving during a campaign, they partly succeeded even though they could not be sustained. A policy can be effective in the short term and unsustainable in the long term.
There is also a counterfactual problem: we do not know what would have happened without them. Perhaps the same famine would have occurred sooner, or perhaps controls suppressed supply and deepened shortage by discouraging farmers from bringing grain to market. Both are plausible; the evidence given does not decide between them.
The better judgement distinguishes the policy's internal logic from its political fate. Repeal came with the fall of the government and the collapse of the currency, which are political and monetary events, not a verdict on price control as such. A student should also note that 'failure' is a normative word that smuggles in a standard the historian has not stated.
3. How should the debate over the revolution's end date be resolved, or should it be?
Read the worked answer
It should be reframed rather than resolved by fiat. The question 'when did the revolution end?' has no single answer because 'revolution' names several different things: a period of revolutionary government, a process of institutional transformation, and a set of durable social settlements.
By the first criterion, 1795 is defensible - the government fell. By the second, the transformation continued through the Napoleonic consolidation of law and administration. By the third, the relevant date is when the land settlement became irreversible, which the evidence places at least twenty years later, when a restored monarchy ratified it.
A strong answer states the criterion explicitly and then applies it consistently, and notes that the choice of criterion is itself an interpretive act with consequences. It also observes that the debate is productive: asking 'ended when?' forces historians to specify what they think a revolution is, which is the real analytical work.