European Studies

Read:  The End of World War One.  The link is to your right.

Read:  Finish Chapter 27 in the textbook.

The Gilded Youth

Freron gave the watchword to the “gilded youth” (jeunesse doree), as they called the group he had organized. As a rallying sign these young people wore their hair in what they called “victim style,” that is to say, well powdered and braided at the back of the head, in contrast to the style of the patriots, who wore their hair short and without powder. In imitation of the leaders of the Chouans and Vendee they wore coats with black collars; only a white cockade was missing for an open declaration of counterrevolution…

Freron’s army consisted of hot-blooded young men who had never had anything to lose, and who claimed to be pathetic victims of the Terror with a duty to avenge their relatives who had died on the scaffold…

This groupÕs duties were to police the Palais-Royal and the Tuileries gardens daily, and to sing the “People’s Awakening,” [Reveil du peuple] every verse of which called for the death of the republicans, whom they called ‘terrorists.’ The chorus ended with the words: “They shall not escape us!”

In their leisure moments they amused themselves with a sort of galop dance which they called a ‘farandole’… Anyone who refused to join in was grabbed and thrown into the water troughs. Exploits worthy of such an army!…

Freron altered his allegiance, but that did not alter his character. Still violent and inclined towards extremes, at the convention he demanded that the city hall of Paris be torn down because it had served as a shelter for Robespierre. He also wanted the Jacobins’ club demolished…

As a result of pressure from the jeunesse doree, the Paris Jacobin Club was closed down by the decree of 12 November 1794 (22 Brumaire Year III).

The united Committees of General Security, Public Safety, Legislation and the Army, decree:

Sessions of the Society of Jacobins of Paris are suspended.

The meeting hall of this Society shall immediately be locked and the keys deposited at the secretariat of the Committee of General Security.

The Convention is Weak

Having concluded our work with the Committee of Eleven, [Pierre] Daunou and I were named to the Committee of Public Safety. He was handed the trident [gavel], and I was charged with suppressing the civil unrest that was disrupting departments in the west. It was the end of Year III, and the Convention was no longer the formidable assembly that it was… Now it was nothing more than a spineless mob, a mass without cohesion, formed from the incoherent remnants of all the parties that had been successively removed and destroyed. The state of the Convention was a mirror image of that of France. The Committee of Public Safety, the true heart of the State and the only pillar onto which to hold, which alone could rally everyone and move them to action, had itself fallen into complete dissolution. Although I had been warned about this deplorable state, as soon as I saw the committee firsthand I thought I was entering the grave, buried under the rubble of France. I felt the most acute anguish that only a true friend of the homeland could feel when he sees it swallowed by the abyss.

The committee members only concerned themselves with their own business, or with the business of their friends or supporters. The only role they took in the Administration was to find a job for this person, or make that person pay something (which may or may not have been owed), etc. Each section of the Administration was given to one member in particular, and they managed it as they pleased. Only correspondence, to look official, had to be signed by two other members. But as I’ve already mentioned, it was not administration that took up our time. Moreover, as there was no unity in the committee, the administrative committees acted alone, in isolation, as they wanted and as best they could. I say as best they could, because procuring the two signatures needed to give orders, or answer them, which was very difficult to do for those members of the committee who still wanted to act amidst the chaos. Often it was necessary to wait several days before these two signatures could be obtained. These men, who only saw to their little schemes, were too busy with their own affairs to sign anything. When Daunou and I pressed them, telling them that it does not take long to sign, they objected that they didn’t want to sign something until they had read it, which is the right thing to do. But they used this as a pretext, saying they didn’t have time!… We shall soon see what they used this precious time for. That was the normal daily speed of the Committee of Public Safety when I arrived there. It remained that way until the end, which fortunately was not long in coming.

Dismantling the Terror:  Parliamentarianism Reasserted

At that time, counting on the new principles of the National Convention, I thought I would be able to take advantage of the circumstances and go up to the rostrum to deliver a legitimate criticism of the Montagnards for their disgraceful practices towards the “people’s appellate” (i.e., in the trial of Louis XVI), and towards the Nation’s representatives who they had stifled. They suspected my intentions when they saw me at the rostrum, where no deputy from the Right had appeared in a long time. They did not want to hear me. But times had changed, and I forced them to give me the floor. My speech, which was nothing more that a motion calling for the freedom of opinion, was delivered on 4 Fructidor, Year II [21 August 1794], a little more than three weeks after the fall of Robespierre. I gave them nothing that they could use against me. I made them listen, however, to the truths that reminded several Montagnards how unjust a persecution is that can lead to the gallows simply for having an opinion. This reprimand was taken to heart, since Bentabolle, during this same session, took the floor and said: “Among the opinions offered to the Tribunal, I noticed Durand-Maillane’s, for which I request that he give us a report. Every honest man should want that the freedom of opinion never be jeopardized by unproven charges or invective. We should not swear at men whom we look upon as ‘weak beings’ in order to shackle the opinions that they only want to express for the good of the People. If someone here believes that they should make a serious reproach toward one of his colleagues, let him explain himself and stipulate the facts, not just offer insults. Let the accused be heard, and let us not seek to make people fear from threats. Only the conspirators should be afraid.” [Excited applause.] This is what is written in the Journal of Debate on the session of 4 Fructidor, Year II.

Bentabolle’s proposition requesting a report on my motion was rightfully argued against, since the freedom of opinion is the right of a representative of the people, and that without this freedom, the entire State would be oppressed. Also, far from wanting either a report or a decree on this matter, I proposed that only those who were against this sacred right receive a punishment. In addition, Bentabolle’s language made it clear how the Montagnards judged the silence of their colleagues on their right. They called them the “weak beings,” a name which, if they were right, was a serious charge against us, since we were sent by the Nation to uphold its interests. To neglect those interests, or sacrifice them through weakness, would have been a real failure to do our duty. But we only had the appearance of weakness, because, not being able to fight the follies of the Mountain under pain of death, our inertia was but a great strength. We preferred the dangers, the disrespect, the humiliations with which we were bombarded, than giving in to being accomplices of the Mountain for our own safety. Nothing was easier for us than to line up in the reassuring ranks of our dominators. But the price to pay for this peace was worse than death… There was, in the space that separated the Right from the Mountain, a spot in the hall that was called “the stomach.” Those that sat there were not of the Right, they did not share in our humiliations, but neither did they have the courage to disprove the evil done by the left side by sitting so close. They had nonetheless the silly pride to call themselves wiser that those on their right, even though they were less courageous, and alone deserved the name “weak beings.”

The Terror is over.  Robespierre is dead.  Come out of your covers and walk without fear.  Long Live France.

9 Thermidor:  The Conspiracy Against Robespierre

Meanwhile, the Reign of Terror was reaching its end. Robespierre had become unbearable, even to his own accomplices. The members of the committees were in a power struggle with him, and were afraid that sooner or later, they would become his victims. When faced with his tyranny in the Convention, everyone whimpered, not daring to attack him. But soon Robespierre, through his speeches and actions, would give “hope to the damned” for Tallien, Bourdon-de l’Oise, Legendre, Le Cointre, and others, who feared sharing the fate of Danton and Lacroix. Every tyrant who threatens but does not strike, is himself struck. Tallien, Bourdon and two or three other Montagnards who had been threatened could no longer sleep, so, to defend themselves, they formed a conspiracy against Robespierre. But how to go about overthrowing him? Robespierre was in charge of all of the Parisian authorities, all of the club agitators, and counted Henriot, the commander of the Armed Forces, among his devoted followers. Only a decree from the Convention could fell this Colossus, because nothing is more powerful than morality in a war of opinions. But there were other problems. The Right, with more votes, was, as they should have been, less a friend of the threatened Montagnards, who had often called for their arrest and indictment, than of Robespierre who had constantly protected them. (No doubt to keep them as a backup if the need ever arose.) However, since no other way existed, the Montagnards turned to us. Their emissaries came to us. They spoke with Palasne-Champeaux, Boissy-d’Anglas and myself, all of us former members of the Constituent Assembly, and whose example would convince others. They used everything they could to help us make up our minds…

On 9 Thermidor, a few moments before the famous session, Bourdon-de-l’Oise met me in the gallery, touched me on the hand, and said, “Oh, how brave they are, those men of the Right.” I went up to the Hall of Liberty, where I strolled for a moment with Robere. Tallien approached us, but then immediately saw Saint-Just at the rostrum and left us saying, “There is Saint-Just at the rostrum, we must be done with this.” We followed him, and from his seat at the top of the Mountain, heard him sharply interrupt Saint-Just and start the attack. The stage thus set, Billaud-Varenne took over from Tallien and spoke even more vehemently.

Robespierre went up to the rostrum to defend Saint-Just. The only words that could be heard were: “Down with the tyrant! Arrest him!” Since the Mountain was still acting alone, Robespierre turned to us and said: “Deputies of the Right, men of honor, men of virtue, give me the floor, since the assassins will not.” He hoped to receive this favor as a reward for the protection he had given us. But our party was decided. There was no answer, just dead silence until the debate over the decree to arrest Robespierre and his accomplices, for which we all voted in favor, which made the decision unanimous.

Citizens!

The Revolution has suffered a great loss today. That Friend of the People, that champion of liberty, hero of the patrie, Jean-Paul Marat, was today MURDERED in cold blood by the traitorous, vengeful Corday, who played upon his heroism and concern for the patrie by making false promises to gain entry to the bath–the bath where he suffered, where he nursed his ailing self, sought comfort from the limitations of his physical body. Our hearts are rent asunder, but the Revolution must live on in his honor! We shall not forget and we shall not forgive! Corday must die at the guillotine tomorrow!

In His Own Defense by Jean-Paul Marat

IF, therefore, I appear before my judges, it is only that I may rise triumphant and confound imposture; it is to unseal the eyes of that part of the nation which has already been led astray on my account; it is to go out a conqueror from this imbroglio, to reassure public opinion, to do a good service in the fatherland, and to strengthen the cause of liberty.

Full of confidence in the enlightenment, equity, and civic spirit of this tribunal, I myself urge the most rigorous examination into this affair. Strong as I am in the testimony of my own conscience, in the rectitude of my intentions, in the purity of my civic spirit, I seek no indulgence, but demand strict justice.

The decree of accusation brought against me was carried without discussion, in violation of law and in contradiction to the principles of order, liberty, and justice. For it is a principle of right that no citizen shall be censured without having first been heard. This decree of accusation was brought against me by two hundred and ten members of a faction, contrary to the demand of ninety-two members of “the Mountain” that is to say, by two hundred and ten enemies of the country against ninety-two defenders of liberty. It was issued amid the most scandalous uproar, during which patriots covered the royalists with opprobrium, reproaching them with lack of civic spirit, with baseness, and with their machinations. It was issued in spite of the most marked manifestations of public opinion, and amid the noise of continuous hootings throughout the tribunes. It was issued in a manner so revolting that twenty members who had been deceived by this faction refused to vote for it, the decree not having been discussed. It was issued while one of them, yielding to the movement of an honest friend, cried out: “I do not vote, and I greatly fear, after all that I have seen, that I have been the dupe of a perfidious cabal.”

Originating with a committee of legislation almost entirely composed of my mortal enemies, all of whom were members of the faction, it was drawn with such want of reflection that it bears on its face all the characteristics of dense ignorance, falsehood, madness, fury, and atrocity. At a glance the act may be seen to be filled with glaring inconsistencies, or we should rather say with the spirit of contradiction to the “Decree of Accusation,” of which it served as the basis. It makes no mention of the address drawn up by the Jacobins, the signing of which they attributed to me as a crime; and yet this address was what caused the decree.

When I see how ridiculous and destitute of foundation this act is, I feel ashamed of the committee. As the address of the Jacobins contains the sentiments of true republicans, and as it has been signed by nearly all of my colleags of “the Mountain,” the committee, forced to abandon the fundamental count in the accusation, was reduced to the expedient of citing some of my writings which had lain neglected for many months in the dust, and it stupidly reproduced the denunciation of some others of my writings, a subject which the Assembly refused to pursue, passing to the order of the day, as I shall prove in the sequel.

Let us prove now that that act is illegal. It rests wholly, as you have seen, on some of my political opinions. These opinions had been enunciated from the tribune of the Convention before they were published in my writings. My writings, the constant aim of which has been to reveal plots, to unmask traitors, to propose useful measures, are merely supplements to what I can not always fully explain in the midst of the Assembly.

But what will appear incredible is that the committee should call down, without ceremony, without shame, and without remorse, capital punishment on my head, and cite articles of the penal code, which, according to its interpretation, condemned me to death. I doubt not that such is the object which they have in view. How many statesmen have been tormented with despair as to keeping me in prison, smothering my voice, and restraining my pen? Did not one of them, the atrocious Lacaze, have the impudence to ask the Convention, as Dumouriez and Cobourg asked, that I should be outlawed? So that the act of accusation becomes a veritable “verdict rendered,” which has only now to be executed.

This act is a tissue of lies and fabrications. It accuses me of having incited to murder and pillage, of setting up a “Chief of State,” dishonoring and dissolving a convention, etc. The contrary can be proved to be true simply by reading my writings. I demand a consecutive reading; for it is not by garbling and mutilating passages that the ideas of an author are to be learned, but by reading the context; then the meaning may be judged.

Dear Citizens,

Do not turn your eyes away from the hand of justice.  Rest knowing that there can never be a hint of action against the Revolution, if the Revolution is to survive.  The virtuous are safe and need never fear the swift justice of the scaffold.  Long Live France!  Long Live the Revolution!

Robespierre

The Guillotine

In the centre of the hall, under a statue of justice, holding scales in one hand, and a sword in the other, with the book of laws by her side, sat Dumas, the president, with the other judges. Under them were seated the public accuser, Fouquier-Tinville, and his scribes. Three coloured ostrich plumes waved over their turned-up hats, a la Henri IV, and they wore a tri-coloured scarf. To the right were benches on which the accused were placed in several rows, and gendarmes, with carbines and fixed bayonets by their sides. To the left was the jury.

Never can I forget the mournful appearance of these funereal processions to the place of execution. The march was opened by a detachment of mounted gendarmes- the carts followed; they were the same carts as those used in Paris for carrying wood; four boards were placed across them for seats, and on each board sat two, and sometimes three victims; their hands were tied behind their backs, and the constant jolting of the cart made them nod their heads up and down, to the great amusement of the spectators. On the front of the cart stood Samson, the executioner, or one of his sons or assistants; gendarmes on foot marched by the side; then followed a hackney-coach, in which was the Rapporteur [recorder] and his clerk, whose duty it was to witness the execution, and then return to Fouquier-Tinville, the Accusateur Public [public prosecutor], to report the execution of what they called the law.

The process of execution was also a sad and heart-rending spectacle. In the middle of the Place de la Revolution was erected a guillotine, in front of a colossal statue of Liberty, represented seated on a rock, a Phrygian cap on her head, a spear in her hand, the other reposing on a shield. On one side of the scaffold were drawn out a sufficient number of carts, with large baskets painted red, to receive the heads and bodies of the victims. Those bearing the condemned moved on slowly to the foot of the guillotine; the culprits were led out in turn, and, if necessary, supported by two of the executioner’s valets, as they were formerly called, but now denominated eleves de l’Executeur des hautes oeuvres de la justice [students of the executor of the great works of justice]; but their assistance was rarely required. Most of these unfortunates ascended the scaffold with a determined step- many of them looked up firmly on the menacing instrument of death, beholding for the last time the rays of the glorious sun, beaming on the polished axe; and I have seen some young men actually dance a few steps before they went up to be strapped to the perpendicular plane, which was then tilted to a horizontal plane in a moment, and ran on the grooves until the neck was secured and closed in by a moving board, when the head passed through what was called in derision, la lunette republicaine [the republican telescope]; the weighty knife was then dropped with a heavy fall; and, with incredible dexterity and rapidity, two executioners tossed the body into the basket, while another threw the head after it.

Freedom from noble blood does not always equal freedom from corruption–even those who appear to support our cause must be suspect, as these conspirators demonstrate! 10,000 heads are not too many if liberty is the result!

~ A Friend of the People

Come one, come all, to view the executions of these betrayers tomorrow at dawn!

Ting the Fishwife

Maggie the Fishwife

Brooks the Fishwife

Ethan the Sans-Culottes

“Olympe de Gouges” Muller

Dear Citizens,

The beast of the Revolution feeds on the blood of its traitors!  Let the sins of the tepid drip into the trough of the Republic!

A Friend of the People

The guillotine hungers for the blood of the following unvirtuous collaborators!

Jules First Estate Delegate

Calvert Second Estate Delegate

Deane Pless Second Estate Delegate

Lady Sarah Rutland

Sir Matthew Gilliland

Sir Vincent Hickl

Dear Friends,

Bend your ears to the wise words of Monsieur Saint-Just.  His argument for the death of Citizen Louis is grounded on inescapable logic.  He draws on the mighty teachings of the great thinkers of the modern era.  Citizen Louis has long taken part in the fermentation of a counter-revolution.  He should be held accountable to the law like any other citizen.  He does not deserve special treatment.  It should not required special courage on the behalf of the deputies of the Nation Convention to formulate the proper response to such a clear and simple case of treason.  Equality in justice can only be thus when it is inflexible and swift.  Long Live France!  Long Live the Republic!

Robespierre

Dispatch from the Convention: “I do not recognize a humanity that massacres the people and pardons despots!” Robespierre, that faithful bastion of revolutionary ideal, urged the execution of the King, the foremost symbol of all that is stale and rotten in France, and his traitorous wife. The Convention answers the call! The traitors shall be guillotined tomorrow at dawn. But I say to you, this is not enough. We must continue to root out enemies and spies to the “Austrian Committee.” The Queen’s Ladies-in-Waiting, Natalia and Elizabeth, must die with those they serve! Vive la Revolucion!

Saint-Just (13 November 1792)

I shall undertake, citizens, to prove that the King can be judged…

I say that the King should be judged as an enemy and that even more than judge him, we must fight him. Also, in that he was not a party to the contract that unites all French people, the judicial procedure to follow is not to be found in Civil Law, but rather in Common Law.

…Perhaps one day, men as far removed from our prejudices as we are from those of the Vandals will be astonished by the barbarity of an age in which the judging of a tyrant was thought to be something sacred. Where the people, having a tyrant to judge, raised him to the rank of citizen before investigating his crimes and were more concerned about what would be said about them than about the task at hand. And where a guilty man who belonged to the class of oppressors, the lowest class of humanity, became a martyr to their pride.

One day men will be astonished by the fact that humanity in the eighteenth century was less advanced than in the time of Caesar. Then a tyrant was slain in the midst of the Senate with no formalities but thirty blows of a dagger and with no other law save the liberty of Rome. And today we respectfully conduct a trial for a man who assassinated a people, caught in flagrante delicto, his murderous hands soaked with blood!

These same men who are to judge Louis also have a Republic to create. Those who attach any importance to the King receiving a fair punishment will never be able to create a Republic. For us, the sensitivity of our minds and character is a great obstacle to liberty. We make all error seem more attractive and, more often than not, truth for us is only the seduction of our tastes…

We must therefore courageously advance toward our goal, and if we desire a Republic, we must be serious about it. We judge ourselves severely, I would even say with rage. We think only of tempering the energy of the People and of liberty, whereas we hardly reproach our common enemy. And everyone, either from weakness or because they stand with the accused, look at each other before striking the first blow. We seek liberty, and we are becoming each other’s slaves! We seek nature, and live armed, like wild savages. We desire a Republic, independence, and unity, but we are divided and treat a tyrant with gentleness…

It would seem that we are searching for a law that would allow us to punish the King…

The social contract is between citizens, not between citizens and government. A contract is useless against those who are not bound by it. Consequently, Louis, who was a party to it, cannot be judged by Civil Law. The contract was so oppressive that it bound the People, but not the King. Such a contract was necessarily void since nothing is legitimate that is not sanctioned by ethics and nature.

These reasons lead you all not to judge Louis as a citizen, but as a rebel. But besides these reasons, by what right does he demand to be judged by Civil Law, which is our obligation toward him, when it is clear that he himself betrayed the only obligation that he had undertaken towards us, that of our protection? Is this not the last act of a tyrant, to demand to be judged by the laws that he destroyed? And Citizens, if we were to grant him a civil trial, in conformance with the laws and as a citizen, it would be him who would be trying us. He would be trying the People themselves.

For myself, I can see no middle ground. This man must reign or die. He will prove to you that all he has done, he has done to uphold his office with which he had been entrusted. By discussing this with him, you cannot make him incriminate himself for his hidden malice. He will lead you in a vicious circle created by your very accusations…

I will say more: a constitution accepted by a King did not bind the citizens. They had, even before his crime, the right to banish him and send him into exile. To judge a King as a citizen… that would astound a dispassionate posterity. To judge is to apply the law. A law is linked to justice, and common to mankind and kings? What does Louis have in common with the French people that they should treat him well after he betrayed them? …

It is impossible to reign in innocence.  The folly of that is all too evident. All Kings are rebels and usurpers. Do Kings themselves treat otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority? Was not Cromwell’s memory brought to trial? And certainly Cromwell was no more usurper than Charles I. For when a people is so weak as to yield to the tyrant’s yoke, domination is the right of the first comer, and it is no more sacred or legitimate for one than for another. These are the considerations that a generous and republican people must not forget when judging a King.

You will be told that the verdict is to be ratified by the People. If that is to be, why can they themselves not pass judgment? If we did not sense the weakness of such ideas, whatever form of government we might adopt would find us slaves. The sovereign would never be in his place, nor the magistrate in his, and the people would have no guarantee against oppression.

Citizens, the tribunal which must judge Louis is not a judiciary tribunal… it is a council… it is the People… it is you. And the laws that must guide us are those of citizens’ rights. A civil trial would be unjust since the King, deemed to be a citizen, cannot be judged by the same men who have accused him. Louis is a foreigner among us. He was not a citizen before his crime: he could not vote, he could not bear arms. He is even less a citizen since his crime, and by what abuse of justice would you make him a citizen in order to condemn him? As soon as a man is found guilty, he leaves the polity, but quite to contrary, Louis would gain entry by his crime. I would go even farther… if you declare the King to be a citizen, he will slip from your grasp. Which of his obligations would you rely on in the current state of things?…

I shall forever contend that the spirit in which the King will be judged is the same spirit with which the Republic will be established. The theory behind your verdict will be that of your public offices, and the measure of your philosophy in the verdict, will be the measure of your liberty in the constitution…

You will never see my personal will oppose the general will. I shall desire what the People of France, or the majority of its representatives, desire. But, as my personal will concerns a portion of the law which has not yet been written, I open myself to you in all frankness…

It is therefore you who must decide if Louis is the enemy of the French people, if he is an alien. If the majority of you decide to absolve him, then that verdict would have to be ratified by the People, for if no act of the sovereign can truly constrain a single citizen to pardon a King, even less could an act of the magistracy constrain the sovereign!…