Revolution, Rebellion, or Rambling?

I was going to write something based on our government today, but I think I took care of that with my comment on 'Will You Storm That Bastille?'. So, yes, I made my comment for the week. XD And I'm just going to discuss my views on the French Revolution.

This Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections', seems to be a pretty angry man -- and with reason, no doubt. The French Revolution seemed to take place with little forethought to how things would be handled when/if the people were 'successful' in their actions. Stuff happened, things were overthrowned, the Bastille was stormed, and the king and queen were, as termed, "cashiered", or ushered away in shame to be rid of their lives shortly after. The 'Third Estate', now the National Assembly, felt they needed to do something new: they chose to take matters into their own hands, and overturn an aging governmental system of nobles and important family lines. Down with the old; let the people have their own power; let us rid of the system we have now so that we can freely choose to handle things our way!

Well la de da. They managed to turn their world upside-down. Now what?

Okay, so it wasn't an entirely bad idea. They eliminated an absolute monarchy that would have otherwise kept the general public from making any nominal advancements into a position of power, or to use their voice to better situations, such as we can do, and such as the people of the Third Estate were aiming to be able to do. But the American 'Revolution' (with the term used lightly, as discussed in class) wasn't so much a parting of all things old, and instead a process of liberation with a new system installed to govern over themselves. The French lacked that last little bit apparently: a plan for "after the storm", and people who had some degree of experience in the workings of a government.

At least that's what Burke felt was the case.

I'm a little torn between ideas, because there was the "Declaration of the Rights of Man", which Burke does seem to comment on to a degree, criticizing some of its aspects. But for whatever reason, Burke seems supportive of the idea that the old way, the system of "entailed inheritance", was acceptable -- far more so than the results of their Revolution. Eh, perhaps in the sense that there was something that had 'worked' just fine for so long, but that kind of is like saying a changing of ways -- yes, even a full-fledged bloody revolution -- is always a bad approach, although he supported the American Revolution.

Well then, what became of all this after the fact anyway?

Studying up on the French Revolution in more detail (yeah, Wikipedia... whatever; I can get away with it while blogging, haha), things didn't seem to go so hot for awhile afterward. In the end, it does seem as if the Revolution as a whole was a bit too hasty. Perhaps one (rather, a bunch of 'ones') can't exactly plan in enormous detail before heading out to overthrow their government, but it does seem that irrationality and pompous attitudes took over after people got their way, thus thrusting in an age of continual revolt, a constitutional crisis, public upheaval, and more crap that just made every day miserable for the French for awhile.

So (unless I messed up something; someone speak up if there is any inaccuracy in details above), do you think the French Revolution was a good event? My views on it are iffy, mostly because I don't have an abundant amount of knowledge on the event. But from what I have looked up, it does look like one Edmund Burke had a few good points, even though his views seemed awfully biased on certain things. I think he was just a bit too angry at it all. That's my theory. In the end, the Revolution doesn't look like it was beneficial in the long-run for the French, and I believe a little more thought and sensible collaboration amongst the National Assembly could have ensured a better outcome for things.