by the middle of May 1793 I had made up my mind that the Girondists must be politically suppressed. The Convention was wasting time and force in vindictive factional recriminations, while the country was in crisis. Charles François Dumouriez, the senior commander of the Battles of Valmy and Jemappes, had deserted. The French armies were suffering a series of checks and reverses. A royalist rebellion was gaining formidable dimensions in the west. The Girondists were clamoring for the heads of me and my colleagues in the Mountain, but they would lose this struggle to the death.
the insurrection of 31 May 1793 and 2 June 1793, which ended in the purge of the Convention and the proscription of the Girondists. I afterwards spoke of myself as the author of this revolution, stung by some trait of factious perversity in the Girondists, I had openly cried out in the midst of the Convention, that if I could only find a hundred men, they would resist the oppressive authority of the Girondist commission of twelve. At any rate, I certainly acquiesced in the violence of the commune, and I publicly gloried in the expulsion of the men who stood obstinately in the way of a vigorous and concentrated exertion of national power.
unlike the Girondists I accepted the fury of popular passion as an inevitable incident in the work of deliverance. I as not an enthusiast of the Reign of Terror like Billaud Varenne or Jacques René Hébert; I saw it as a two-edged weapon to be used as little as necessary. at this time I was wishing to reconcile France with herself; to restore a society that, while emancipated and renewed in every part, should yet be stable; and above all to secure the independence of my country, both by a resolute defence against the invader, and by such a mixture of vigour with humanity as should reconcile the offended opinion of the rest of Europe.
The position of the Mountain had completely changed. In the Constituent Assembly its members had been a mere 30 out of the 578 of the third estate. In the Legislative Assembly they had not been numerous, and none of their chiefs held a seat. In the first nine months of the Convention they were struggling for their very lives against the Girondists. In June 1793, for the first time, they found themselves in possession of absolute power. Men who had for many months been nourished on the ideas and stirred to the methods of opposition suddenly had the responsibility of government. Actual power was in the hands of the two Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security. Both were chosen out of the body of the Convention.
I immediately after the fall of the Girondists (28 July 1793), had thrown myself with extraordinary energy into the work to be done. I was prominent in the task of setting up a strong central authority, taming the anarchical ferment of Paris. It was I who proposed that the Committee of Public Safety be granted dictatorial powers, and that it should have copious funds at its disposal. I was not a member of the resulting committee: in order to keep myself clear of any personal suspicion, I announced my resolution not to belong to the body which I had thus done my best to make supreme in the state. My position during the autumn of 1793 was that of a powerful supporter and inspirer, from without, of the government which I had been foremost in setting up.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
My Rise To Power
In the provisional executive government that was formed between the king's dethronement and the opening of the National Assembly (the formal end of the monarchy), I found myself allied with Jean Marie Roland and other members of the Girondist movement. Their strength was soon put to the test. The alarming successes of the Austrians and the surrender of two important fortresses caused panic in the capital; over a thousand prisoners were murdered. At that time, I was accused of directing these September Massacres, but modern scholarship has failed to show this.
The election to the National Convention took place in September 1792; after which the remnant of the Legislative Assembly formally surrendered its authority. The Convention ruled France until October 1795. I was a member; resigning as minister of justice, I took a prominent part in the deliberations and proceedings of the Convention.
Radical Paris was in my opinion the only force to which the National Convention could look in resisting Austria and its allies on the north-east frontier, and the reactionaries in the interior.
"Paris, is the natural and constituted centre of free France. It is the centre of light. When Paris shall perish there will no longer be a republic."
I voted for the death of Louis XVI in January 1793. After the execution had been carried out, I exlaimed "The kings of Europe would dare challenge us? We throw them the head of a king!"
When all executive power was conferred upon a Committee of Public Safety (6 April 1793), I had been one of the nine original members of that body. I was dispatched on frequent missions from the Convention to the republican armies in Belgium, and wherever I went i infused new energy into the army. I pressed forward the new national system of education, and I was one of the legislative committee charged with the construction of a new system of government.
The election to the National Convention took place in September 1792; after which the remnant of the Legislative Assembly formally surrendered its authority. The Convention ruled France until October 1795. I was a member; resigning as minister of justice, I took a prominent part in the deliberations and proceedings of the Convention.
Radical Paris was in my opinion the only force to which the National Convention could look in resisting Austria and its allies on the north-east frontier, and the reactionaries in the interior.
"Paris, is the natural and constituted centre of free France. It is the centre of light. When Paris shall perish there will no longer be a republic."
I voted for the death of Louis XVI in January 1793. After the execution had been carried out, I exlaimed "The kings of Europe would dare challenge us? We throw them the head of a king!"
When all executive power was conferred upon a Committee of Public Safety (6 April 1793), I had been one of the nine original members of that body. I was dispatched on frequent missions from the Convention to the republican armies in Belgium, and wherever I went i infused new energy into the army. I pressed forward the new national system of education, and I was one of the legislative committee charged with the construction of a new system of government.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
My Early Life
I was born in Arcis-sur-Aube in northeastern france, on october 26, 1759, I was born into a respectable yet not wealthy family. I was given a good education which helped in my career as an advocate of france. My first appearance in the revolution was marked as becoming the president of the Cordeliers club, witch was one of the many clubs formed during the time of the revolution, the Cordeliers like many other clubs were a centre for the "popular priciple" that France was to be a country of its people under popular sovereignty, the Codeliers were some of the earliest to acuse the royal court of being irreconcilably hostile to freedom, and proclaimed the need for radical action.
I was involved in the storming of the Bastille and the forcible removal of the court from Versailles to the Tuileries. In spring of 1790 I supported the arrest of Jean-Paul Marat. That autumn I was selected as commander of My district battalion of the National Guard. In the beginning of 1791 I was elected administrator of the département of Paris.
In June 1791, the King and Queen made a disastrous attempt to flee from the capital. They were forced to return to the Tuileries Palace, which effectively became their prison. The popular reaction was intense, and those who favored a constitutional monarchy, of whom the leader was Lafayette, became excited. A bloody dispersion of a popular gathering, known as the massacre of the Champ de Mars (July 1791), kindled resentment against the court and the constitutional party. I was, in part, behind the crowd that gathered, and fearing counter-revolutionary backlash, fled to England for the rest of the summer.
The National Constituent Assembly completed its work in September 1791. But I was not elected to its successor, the short-lived Legislative Assembly, and My party was only able to procure for me a subordinate post in the Paris Commune.
In April 1792, the Girondist government; still functioning as a constitutional monarchy; declared war against Austria.Parisian distrust for the court turned to open insurrection. On 10 August 1792, the popular forces marched on the Tuileries; the king and queen took refuge with the Legislative Assembly. My Role in this uprising was unclear. I may have been at its head; this view is supported because on the morning after the effective fall of the monarchy, I became minister of justice. This sudden rise from the subordinate office which I held in the commune is a demonstration of his power within the insurrectionary party.
I was involved in the storming of the Bastille and the forcible removal of the court from Versailles to the Tuileries. In spring of 1790 I supported the arrest of Jean-Paul Marat. That autumn I was selected as commander of My district battalion of the National Guard. In the beginning of 1791 I was elected administrator of the département of Paris.
In June 1791, the King and Queen made a disastrous attempt to flee from the capital. They were forced to return to the Tuileries Palace, which effectively became their prison. The popular reaction was intense, and those who favored a constitutional monarchy, of whom the leader was Lafayette, became excited. A bloody dispersion of a popular gathering, known as the massacre of the Champ de Mars (July 1791), kindled resentment against the court and the constitutional party. I was, in part, behind the crowd that gathered, and fearing counter-revolutionary backlash, fled to England for the rest of the summer.
The National Constituent Assembly completed its work in September 1791. But I was not elected to its successor, the short-lived Legislative Assembly, and My party was only able to procure for me a subordinate post in the Paris Commune.
In April 1792, the Girondist government; still functioning as a constitutional monarchy; declared war against Austria.Parisian distrust for the court turned to open insurrection. On 10 August 1792, the popular forces marched on the Tuileries; the king and queen took refuge with the Legislative Assembly. My Role in this uprising was unclear. I may have been at its head; this view is supported because on the morning after the effective fall of the monarchy, I became minister of justice. This sudden rise from the subordinate office which I held in the commune is a demonstration of his power within the insurrectionary party.
Friday, May 21, 2010
My Story
A lawyer like Robespierre, I rose to prominence after the fall of the Bastille in 1789. I quickly acquired both position and popularity because of my confident public-speaking. By 1790 I was a leading figure in the newly-formed Cordeliers Club; I also had a strong public following and worked alongside the likes of Marat and Camille Desmoulins. Despite my apparent popularity I also relied upon bribes to sustain my extravagant lifestyle - and most of these bribes came from the Duke of Orleans, brother of Louis XVI. Perhaps because of this I showed no support for republicanism in 1791-2, calling for Louis' abdication after the flight to Varennes but suggesting that the throne could pass to the king's young son. I was also opposed to war, backing Robespierre's opposition to it, however once the war began I put much energy into recruiting troops and forming a military response.
Elected to the National Convention, I sat in the high benches of the Montagnards and was soon elected as first chairman of the Committee of Public Safety. This honour came largely because I had demonstrated obvious skill in managing the war effort. I voted for the execution of the king, gave tacit support to the massacres in Paris in 1792 and, in time, sought the suppression and removal of the Girondinists from the National Convention. If viewed at the end of 1792, I looked every bit the devout Jacobin, however my position changed in the course of the following year: I began to think that ending the war would be better policy, while I thought the Reign of Terror to be rather counter-productive. my popularity and oratory were my strengths, and could be powerful weapons inside the chamber of the National Convention. my colleagues on the Committee of Public Safety, particularly Robespierre, began to view me as a threat to the CPS's executive power. Documents appeared alleging me to be part of a royalist plot and in receipt of bribes and gratuities .
Elected to the National Convention, I sat in the high benches of the Montagnards and was soon elected as first chairman of the Committee of Public Safety. This honour came largely because I had demonstrated obvious skill in managing the war effort. I voted for the execution of the king, gave tacit support to the massacres in Paris in 1792 and, in time, sought the suppression and removal of the Girondinists from the National Convention. If viewed at the end of 1792, I looked every bit the devout Jacobin, however my position changed in the course of the following year: I began to think that ending the war would be better policy, while I thought the Reign of Terror to be rather counter-productive. my popularity and oratory were my strengths, and could be powerful weapons inside the chamber of the National Convention. my colleagues on the Committee of Public Safety, particularly Robespierre, began to view me as a threat to the CPS's executive power. Documents appeared alleging me to be part of a royalist plot and in receipt of bribes and gratuities .
Friday, February 12, 2010
the elightenment part 2
The radical effects of the elightenment movemnet did not lie solely in its political agenda ut more so in its creation of a more general questioning spirit, a 'toolkit of ideas' that could turn upon contemporary society. this idea/movement taught people that there is nothing that can't be questioned and also taught them how to question.
in his Persian letters (1721), Montesquieu adopted the technique of the 'ingenuous outsider', a supposed foreigner who had observed the french society and makes devastating comments upon its injustices and vanities, apparently in innocent incomprehension. Of course, the Persian never existed although this fictional character provided Monequieu with a postition in which he could view the society with fresh eyes and willingly question what was taken for granted. when the 'Persian' mocked the laziness and uselessness of the court nobility, he was eroding nad weakening the habit of respect that formed the very basis of the culture of deference.
The closest thing the philosphers had to critique in relation ot the old regime was the churnch. they justifiably attacked the churches inequalities, especiallty the upper clergy's wealth and uselessness.they rejected religious orthadoxy, the idea that one religion can be proclaimed 'right'and all other religions 'wrong'.they also condemned the church for their intollerance, particually towards prostants and jews, who were allowed to work and live in france but unable to register their birth with the catholic church, therfore they were unable to gain employment by the state.
on occasions the philisophers would take a more direct approach, such as when Voltaire defended the cause of Jean Calas, a prostestant who had been wrongfully exacuted in 1762 for the alleged murder of his suicidal son. Voltaire secured posthumous justice for Calas in 1765, he he gained considerable public sympathy for htwe impoverished family and increased awareness of both religious and judicial incompetance of the old and deteriating regime.
while some historians believe that criticism of the old regime from the phiospohers and its collapse must be linked, whereas others have questioned whether critical or suversive ideas by themselves have the power to actually cause a revolution.
Revisionist historian Willian Doyle challanges this argument by asking how we know that , even if the philospohers had not written a single word that, the french revolution might not hve happened anyway. the revisionists argue that the philosophers were not actually revolutionary but quite conservative and that very few of their ideas could actually be seen as advocating the massive changes that occurred in the revolution of france.
Revisionist historian Timothy Blanning believes that the enlightenment was not opposed to the idea of the regime but its abuses. By the 1780's many of the leading philosophers were dead, and those who were still alive had been safely intergrated into high society of the old regime backing up the idea that the philosophers were against its abuse not the old regime itself.
the readers of the philosophers were a small, fashionable, social elite of nobles and bourgeois. very few if any at all actually reached the vast majority of the population, although the peasants in the countryside would manage ot formulate radical thoughts and undertake revolutionary action without ever having read any of the works of these philosophers.
The Enlightenment had begun in the 1720's (Monequieu's 'Persian Letter') and had reached its peak by the 1770's (Diderot's encyclopedia 1751-1772).
although many of the philosophers were dead by the time the revolution came about, the men and women of 1789 had all read the great works of theelightenement and had learnt how to think critically about there own society. the suggestions brought about by the philosophers themselves were mainly about reform not revolution.
in his Persian letters (1721), Montesquieu adopted the technique of the 'ingenuous outsider', a supposed foreigner who had observed the french society and makes devastating comments upon its injustices and vanities, apparently in innocent incomprehension. Of course, the Persian never existed although this fictional character provided Monequieu with a postition in which he could view the society with fresh eyes and willingly question what was taken for granted. when the 'Persian' mocked the laziness and uselessness of the court nobility, he was eroding nad weakening the habit of respect that formed the very basis of the culture of deference.
The closest thing the philosphers had to critique in relation ot the old regime was the churnch. they justifiably attacked the churches inequalities, especiallty the upper clergy's wealth and uselessness.they rejected religious orthadoxy, the idea that one religion can be proclaimed 'right'and all other religions 'wrong'.they also condemned the church for their intollerance, particually towards prostants and jews, who were allowed to work and live in france but unable to register their birth with the catholic church, therfore they were unable to gain employment by the state.
on occasions the philisophers would take a more direct approach, such as when Voltaire defended the cause of Jean Calas, a prostestant who had been wrongfully exacuted in 1762 for the alleged murder of his suicidal son. Voltaire secured posthumous justice for Calas in 1765, he he gained considerable public sympathy for htwe impoverished family and increased awareness of both religious and judicial incompetance of the old and deteriating regime.
while some historians believe that criticism of the old regime from the phiospohers and its collapse must be linked, whereas others have questioned whether critical or suversive ideas by themselves have the power to actually cause a revolution.
Revisionist historian Willian Doyle challanges this argument by asking how we know that , even if the philospohers had not written a single word that, the french revolution might not hve happened anyway. the revisionists argue that the philosophers were not actually revolutionary but quite conservative and that very few of their ideas could actually be seen as advocating the massive changes that occurred in the revolution of france.
Revisionist historian Timothy Blanning believes that the enlightenment was not opposed to the idea of the regime but its abuses. By the 1780's many of the leading philosophers were dead, and those who were still alive had been safely intergrated into high society of the old regime backing up the idea that the philosophers were against its abuse not the old regime itself.
the readers of the philosophers were a small, fashionable, social elite of nobles and bourgeois. very few if any at all actually reached the vast majority of the population, although the peasants in the countryside would manage ot formulate radical thoughts and undertake revolutionary action without ever having read any of the works of these philosophers.
The Enlightenment had begun in the 1720's (Monequieu's 'Persian Letter') and had reached its peak by the 1770's (Diderot's encyclopedia 1751-1772).
although many of the philosophers were dead by the time the revolution came about, the men and women of 1789 had all read the great works of theelightenement and had learnt how to think critically about there own society. the suggestions brought about by the philosophers themselves were mainly about reform not revolution.
chapter 3 - the elightenment
the elightenment movment is what is thought to have sparked the revolution of france, the movement known as the elightenment was a europe wide movement, which found its most powerful expression through the works of such writters as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.although their ideas of change were greatly varied but all seemed to emphesise using science, progress and reason to create a more humane world. these writters were known s philosophes this is not translated into english as it losses its meaning when made into philospher they were called 'critical thinkers', they saw themsleves as 'anti-philosophers' because thye do not use abstract systems of thought but rather use reason as a means of solving the problems that face humanity.
the english writter endmand burke belived that philosophers had undermined the old regime and caused the revolution, the revolutionaries themselves had later claimed that they had been inspired by the enightenment. apparent;ly confirming Diderot's belief in the subverse power of ideas (sunverse meaning: designed to overthrow a government or other institution). very few philosophers were alive by the time the revolution
came to pass, but their ideas were adopted by the revlutionists themselves, giving authority to their reforms.
later historians such as Norman Hampson confidently stated that the elightenment was the main cause for the revuolution to begin,(the authority of louis XIV was based on a certain unquestionability, which was steadily eroded during the 18th century (due to the elightenment).
the english writter endmand burke belived that philosophers had undermined the old regime and caused the revolution, the revolutionaries themselves had later claimed that they had been inspired by the enightenment. apparent;ly confirming Diderot's belief in the subverse power of ideas (sunverse meaning: designed to overthrow a government or other institution). very few philosophers were alive by the time the revolution
came to pass, but their ideas were adopted by the revlutionists themselves, giving authority to their reforms.
later historians such as Norman Hampson confidently stated that the elightenment was the main cause for the revuolution to begin,(the authority of louis XIV was based on a certain unquestionability, which was steadily eroded during the 18th century (due to the elightenment).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
