Congress accepts Colors of the French Republic 1796
Continue reading US Congress accepts Colors of the French Republic 1796
Tag Archives: French Revolution
Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789
Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789
Les Représentants du Peuple Français, constitués en Assemblée Nationale, considérant que l’ignorance, l’oubli ou le mépris des droits de l’Homme sont les seules causes des malheurs publics et de la corruption des Gouvernements, ont résolu d’exposer, dans une Déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l’Homme, afin que cette Déclaration, constamment présente à tous les Membres du corps social, leur rappelle sans cesse leurs droits et leurs devoirs ; afin que les actes du pouvoir législatif, et ceux du pouvoir exécutif, pouvant être à chaque instant comparés avec le but de toute institution politique, en soient plus respectés ; afin que les réclamations des citoyens, fondées désormais sur des principes simples et incontestables, tournent toujours au maintien de la Constitution et au bonheur de tous.
En conséquence, l’Assemblée Nationale reconnaît et déclare, en présence et sous les auspices de l’Etre suprême, les droits suivants de l’Homme et du Citoyen.
Art. 1er. Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l’utilité commune.
Art. 2. Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’Homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté, et la résistance à l’oppression.
Art. 3. Le principe de toute Souveraineté réside essentiellement dans la Nation. Nul corps, nul individu ne peut exercer d’autorité qui n’en émane expressément.
Art. 4. La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi, l’exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n’a de bornes que celles qui assurent aux autres Membres de la Société la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.
Art. 5. La Loi n’a le droit de défendre que les actions nuisibles à la Société. Tout ce qui n’est pas défendu par la Loi ne peut être empêché, et nul ne peut être contraint à faire ce qu’elle n’ordonne pas.
Art. 6. La Loi est l’expression de la volonté générale. Tous les Citoyens ont droit de concourir personnellement, ou par leurs Représentants, à sa formation. Elle doit être la même pour tous, soit qu’elle protège, soit qu’elle punisse. Tous les Citoyens étant égaux à ses yeux sont également admissibles à toutes dignités, places et emplois publics, selon leur capacité, et sans autre distinction que celle de leurs vertus et de leurs talents.
Art. 7. Nul homme ne peut être accusé, arrêté ni détenu que dans les cas déterminés par la Loi, et selon les formes qu’elle a prescrites. Ceux qui sollicitent, expédient, exécutent ou font exécuter des ordres arbitraires, doivent être punis ; mais tout citoyen appelé ou saisi en vertu de la Loi doit obéir à l’instant : il se rend coupable par la résistance.
Art. 8. La Loi ne doit établir que des peines strictement et évidemment nécessaires, et nul ne peut être puni qu’en vertu d’une Loi établie et promulguée antérieurement au délit, et légalement appliquée.
Art. 9. Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable, s’il est jugé indispensable de l’arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s’assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.
Art. 10. Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’ordre public établi par la Loi.
Art. 11. La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l’Homme : tout Citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l’abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la Loi.
Art. 12. La garantie des droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l’avantage de tous, et non pour l’utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.
Art. 13. Pour l’entretien de la force publique, et pour les dépenses d’administration, une contribution commune est indispensable : elle doit être également répartie entre tous les citoyens, en raison de leurs facultés.
Art. 14. Tous les Citoyens ont le droit de constater, par eux-mêmes ou par leurs représentants, la nécessité de la contribution publique, de la consentir librement, d’en suivre l’emploi, et d’en déterminer la quotité, l’assiette, le recouvrement et la durée.
Art. 15. La Société a le droit de demander compte à tout Agent public de son administration.
Art. 16. Toute Société dans laquelle la garantie des Droits n’est pas assurée, ni la séparation des Pouvoirs déterminée, n’a point de Constitution.
Art. 17. La propriété étant un droit inviolable et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si ce n’est lorsque la nécessité publique, légalement constatée, l’exige évidemment, et sous la condition d’une juste et préalable indemnité.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, French Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen, one of the basic charters of human liberties, containing the principles that inspired the French Revolution. Its 17 articles, adopted between August 20 and August 26, 1789, by France’sNational Assembly, served as the preamble to the Constitution of 1791. Similar documents served as the preamble to the Constitution of 1793 (retitled simply Declaration of the Rights of Man) and to the Constitution of 1795 (retitled Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Citizen).
The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), which were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right to participate in legislation directly or indirectly (Article 6); no one was to be arrested without a judicial order (Article 7). Freedom of religion (Article 10) and freedom of speech (Article 11) were safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law.” The document reflects the interests of the elites who wrote it: property was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state only if an indemnity were given (Article 17); offices and position were opened to all citizens (Article 6).
The sources of the Declaration included the major thinkers of the French Enlightenment, such as Montesquieu, who had urged the separation of powers, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote of general will—the concept that the state represents the general will of the citizens. The idea that the individual must be safeguarded against arbitrary police or judicial action was anticipated by the 18th-century parlements, as well as by writers such as Voltaire. French jurists and economists such as the physiocrats had insisted on the inviolability of private property. Other influences on the authors of the Declaration were foreign documents such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) in North America and the manifestos of the Dutch Patriot movement of the 1780s. The French Declaration went beyond these models, however, in its scope and in its claim to be based on principles that are fundamental to man and therefore universally applicable.
On the other hand, the Declaration is also explicable as an attack on the pre-Revolutionary monarchical regime. Equality before the law was to replace the system of privileges that characterized the old regime. Judicial procedures were insisted upon to prevent abuses by the king or his administration, such as the lettre de cachet, a private communication from the king, often used to give summary notice of imprisonment.
Despite the limited aims of the framers of the Declaration, its principles (especially Article 1) could be extended logically to mean political and even social democracy. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen came to be, as was recognized by the 19th-century historian Jules Michelet, “the credo of the new age.”
sans culotte
Sansculotte, French sans-culotte (“without knee breeches”), in the French Revolution, a label for the more militant supporters of that movement, especially in the years 1792 to 1795. Sansculottes presented themselves as members of the poorer classes or leaders of the common people, but during the Reign of Terror public functionaries and educated men also adopted the label to demonstrate their patriotism.
Jacques-René Hébert, engraving by M. Peronard, 19th century.
Courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
The distinctive costume of the typical sansculotte was the pantalon (long trousers) in place of the culotte (silk breeches) worn by the upper classes, as well as the carmagnole (short jacket) and the red cap of liberty. Jacques-René Hébert’s popular newspaper, the Père Duchesne, did much to spread the image of the sansculotte: a woodcut on the front page of each issue showed a man in Revolutionary costume, holding a musket and smoking a pipe.
The influence of the sansculottes declined sharply after Hébert’s execution in March 1794. The defeat of the desperate popular uprisings of Germinal and Prairial, year III (spring of 1795), marked the end of their public role.
The Reign of Terror
“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible”
Maximilien Robespierre
After the death of Louis XVI in 1793, the Reign of Terror began. The first victim was Marie Antoinette. She had been imprisoned with her children after she was separated from Louis. First they took her son Louis Charles from her (often called the lost dauphin, or Louis XVII). He disappeared under suspicious circumstances. Then she led off a parade of prominent and not-so-prominent citizens to their deaths. The guillotine, the new instrument of egalitarian justice, was put to work. Public executions were considered educational. Women were encouraged to sit and knit during trials and executions. The Revolutionary Tribunal ordered the execution of 2,400 people in Paris by July 1794. Across France 30,000 people lost their lives.
The Terror was designed to fight the enemies of the revolution, to prevent counter-revolution from gaining ground. Most of the people rounded up were not aristocrats, but ordinary people. A man (and his family) might go to the guillotine for saying something critical of the revolutionary government. If an informer happened to overhear, that was all the tribunal needed. Watch Committees around the nation were encouraged to arrest “suspected persons, … those who, either by their conduct or their relationships, by their remarks or by their writing, are shown to be partisans of tyranny and federalism and enemies of liberty” (Law of Suspects, 1793). Civil liberties were suspended. The Convention ordered that “if material or moral proof exists, independently of the evidence of witnesses, the latter will not be heard, unless this formality should appear necessary, either to discover accomplices or for other important reasons concerning the public interest.” The promises of the Declaration of the Rights of Man were forgotten. Terror was the order of the day. In the words of Maximilien Robespierre, “Softness to traitors will destroy us all.”
Robespierre was the mastermind of the Reign of Terror. He was the leader of the Committee of Public Safety, the executive committee of the National Convention, and the most powerful man in France. He explained how terror would lead to the Republic of Virtue in a speech to the National Convention:
If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible…It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Maximilien Robespierre Speech on the Justification of the Use of Terror
The old maxim “the end justifies the means” describes Robespierre’s policy well.
Even the radical Jacobins, the supporters of Robespierre, come to feel that the Terror must be stopped. Danton rose in the Convention calling for an end to the Terror. He was its next victim. Fearful of Danton’s reputation for eloquence, the Convention passed a decree stating that any accused person who insulted the court should be prohibited from speaking in his own defense. Danton was not allowed to speak in his own defense. Nevertheless after the trial Danton asserted that “the people will tear my enemies to pieces within 3 months.” As he was led to the guillotine he remarked “Above all, don’t forget to show my head to the people – it’s well worth having a look at.” Modesty was never one of his virtues.
When Robespierre called for a new purge in 1794, he seemed to threaten the other members of the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobins had had enough. Cambon rose in the Convention and said “It is time to tell the whole truth. One man alone is paralyzing the will of the Convention. And that man is Robespierre.” Others quickly rallied to his support. Robespierre was arrested and sent to the guillotine the next day, the last victim of the Reign of Terror.
Danton
Georges Danton, in full Georges-Jacques Danton (born October 26, 1759, Arcis-sur-Aube, France—died April 5, 1794, Paris), French Revolutionary leader and orator, often credited as the chief force in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the First French Republic (September 21, 1792). He later became the first president of the Committee of Public Safety, but his increasing moderation and eventual opposition to the Reign of Terror led to his own death at the guillotine.
Early Years
Danton was the son of Jacques Danton, an attorney, and his second wife, Marie-Madeleine Camus. After attending school in Champagne, Danton was from 1773 educated by the Oratorians at Troyes. After obtaining his law degree in 1784 at Reims, he went to Paris to practice and in 1787 bought the office of advocate in the Conseil du Roi (council with legislative and judicial functions). He then married Antoinette Charpentier.
At the outbreak of the Revolution in July 1789, Danton enrolled in the garde bourgeoise (civic guard) of the Cordeliers district and was elected president of the district in October. In the spring of 1790, with some militants from his district, he founded the popular association that was to become famous as the Cordeliers Club. So far, however, Danton’s fame had been merely local. Elected a member of the provisional Paris Commune (city council) in January 1790, he was excluded from the council in its final form in September. Although elected administrator of the département of Paris in January 1791, he actually exercised no influence on that body.
Meanwhile, however, Danton shone at the Cordeliers Club and at another political association, the Jacobin Club, before both of which he frequently made speeches during 1791. During the crisis following Louis XVI’s attempt to leave the country in June, he became increasingly prominent in the Revolutionary movement. His signature, however, does not appear on the famous petition of the Cordeliers demanding the abdication of Louis XVI that, on July 17, resulted in the massacre of some of the petitioners by the national guard. During the repression following these events, Danton took refuge in London.
He returned to Paris to take part in the elections to the Legislative Assembly as elector for the Théâtre Français section, and in December 1791 he was elected second assistant to the procureur (public prosecutor) of the Paris Commune.
BRITANNICA STORIES
-
DEMYSTIFIED / TECHNOLOGY
How Does Wi-Fi Work?
-
SPOTLIGHT / SOCIETY
Happy Halloween
-
SPOTLIGHT / SCIENCE
The Fermi Paradox: Where Are All the Aliens?
-
DEMYSTIFIED / SOCIETY
Why Do We Carve Pumpkins at Halloween?
During the national crisis in the spring of 1792 (war was declared on Austria on April 20), Danton resumed his role of tribune of the people. On June 18 he attacked the marquis de Lafayette, an adviser of the king and a general, for using his position to play politics. Yet he took no part in the demonstrations before the royal palace of the Tuileries on June 20. Although his part in the overthrow of the monarchy by the insurrection of August 10, 1792, remains obscure, he was largely credited with its success.
The Overthrow Of The Monarchy
Speaking before the Revolutionary Tribunal, Danton boasted that he had “been responsible for” the events of August 10; that insurrection, however, was not the result of the efforts of Danton or any other man but, rather, the collective act of obscure militants from all over the city. However small a part he played in removing the king, he was elected minister of justice by the Legislative Assembly. Though not officially its president, Danton dominated his colleagues by his strength of character, the aura of his Revolutionary past, and his ability to make swift decisions.
When the news arrived that Longwy had been taken by the invading armies (Prussia had allied itself with Austria in July) on August 25, 1792, and Jean-Marie Roland, minister of the interior, proposed that the government should move from Paris to Blois, Danton objected vigorously. The proclamation he then caused the Executive Council to adopt bears his stamp: it was a summons to battle. On the morning of September 2, when it was learned that Verdun was besieged and while the populace broke into the prisons to search for suspects and traitors, Danton, in the Legislative Assembly, delivered the most famous of his speeches: “To conquer the enemies of the fatherland, we need daring, more daring, daring now and always, and France is saved!”
The Massacres Of September 1792
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
Before They Were World Leaders: Middle East Edition
While Danton was delivering this speech, the prison massacres began for which the Girondins, the moderate wing of the Revolution, charged Danton with responsibility. There is no proof, however, that the massacres were organized by him or by anyone else, though it is certain that he did nothing to stop them. Just as in the case of the August insurrection, the September massacre was not the act of one man but of the people of Paris.
BRITANNICA LISTS & QUIZZES
-
SCIENCE QUIZTypes of Chemical Reactions
-
PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION LIST11 Egyptian Gods and Goddesses
-
LITERATURE & LANGUAGE QUIZLatin American Authors
-
GEOGRAPHY LISTHow 9 Famous Cities Got Their Nicknames
On September 6 Danton was elected deputy for Paris to the National Convention. He immediately made every effort to end all the disputes between the Revolutionary parties, but his policy of conciliation was thwarted by the Gironde, which demanded that he render an accounting when he left his post as minister of justice. Danton could not justify 200,000 livres of secret expenditures. He emerged from this conflict embittered and with his political prestige diminished.
Sent on a mission to Belgium, Danton took no part in the opening of Louis XVI’s trial in the Convention. He was present, however, on January 15, 1793, and voted for death without reprieve. Although absent from the trial, Danton had played a part in it since the autumn of 1792. According to the Mémoires of Théodore, comte de Lameth, a former Revolutionary, Danton wanted to spare the king. It seems that, having failed, despite strenuous efforts, to gain the support of the Girondins, Danton plotted with General Charles-François du Périer Dumouriezto obtain the intervention of the English government by bribery. Only when the plan miscarried did he vote for the death of the king.
Danton remained in the mainstream of the Revolution, not without often engaging in intrigue. His dealings with Dumouriez, who commanded the army of Belgium, have never been clarified. After the defeat of Neerwinden (March 18, 1793), when Dumouriez went over to the Austrians, the Gironde accused Danton of complicity with the General. Boldly turning the tables, Danton made the same accusation against the Girondins. The break was irreparable.
Danton’s Committee Of Public Safety
On April 7, 1793, Danton became a member of the first Committee of Public Safety, which, created the previous day, became the executive organ of the Revolutionary government. For three months Danton was effectively the head of the government, charged especially with the conduct of foreign affairs and military matters. During this second period in the government he pursued a policy of compromise and negotiation. He tried in every direction to enter into diplomatic conversations with the enemy. No doubt he could in all honesty think it useful to negotiate in an attempt to dissolve the allied coalition or even to obtain a general peace. By the spring of 1793, however, a policy of negotiation was no longer conceivable: it was useless to try to disarm the enemy by concessions when he was victorious. On July 10, when the Committee of Public Safety’s term expired, the Convention elected a new committee without Danton.
Leader Of The Moderate Opposition
CONNECT WITH BRITANNICA
From that time Danton’s political conduct became more complex. On various occasions he supported the policy of the Committee of Public Safety though at the same time refusing to play a part in it—which would have stabilized the political situation. Danton still reappeared from time to time as the tribune of the people, voicing the demands of the masses. He quickly showed, however, that he sought to stabilize the Revolutionary movement; very soon—whether he wanted it or not—he appeared as the leader of the Indulgents, the moderate faction that had risen out of the Cordeliers.
During the great Parisian popular demonstrations of September 4 and 5, 1793, Danton spoke eloquently in favour of all the popular demands. Yet at the same time he tried to set bounds to the movement and keep it under control. He demanded, for instance, that the meetings of the hitherto permanent sectional assemblies be reduced to two per week.
Disapproval Of Terror
Danton’s moderate position became more marked in the autumn of 1793. He did not, however, intervene personally but left it to his friends to criticize the policy of the government. His disapproval of the terrorist repression had become so strong that he withdrew from political life, alleging reasons of health or of family. Of the Girondins he is reported to have said to a friend at the beginning of October 1793, “I shall not be able to save them,” and to have burst into tears. On October 12 he obtained leave from the Convention and left for his native town. He returned on November 21, although the reasons for his return remain ambiguous.
Danton at once resumed political activity. He vigorously supported the Committee of Public Safety against excesses of the anti-Christian movement and later opposed the abolition of the salaries of constitutional priests and hence the separation of church and state. Danton’s support of the governmental policy of stabilization was doubtless not without ulterior motives, both personal and political; he was determined to save friends of his who had been arrested or who were in danger of arrest. But he also wanted to slow the Revolutionary drive of the government. The Dantonist policy was opposed in all points to the program of popular extremism supported by Jacques Hébert and his Cordeliers friends: extreme terror, war to the hilt.
Danton defined his moderate political line on December 1, 1793, when he informed the Revolutionary radicals that their role was ended. From then on, whether such had been his intention or not, he was looked upon as the leader of the moderate opposition. At the beginning of 1794, Danton and his friends took an even more critical attitude, with the Revolutionary journalist Camille Desmoulins, of Le Vieux Cordelier, serving as their spokesman. They were challenging not only the system of the terror of Robespierre but the whole policy of the Revolutionary government, while awakening the hopes of the opponents of the regime.
Once the government realized it could not allow itself to be overwhelmed from the right, however, the tide turned abruptly. When Fabre d’Églantine, the dramatist and zealous Revolutionary, compromised in the affair of the Compagnie des Indes, was arrested in January 1794, Danton tried to defend him obliquely by demanding that the arrested deputies should be judged before the people. “Woe unto him who sat beside Fabre and who is still his dupe!” cried a deputy, clearly threatening Danton himself.
The incident signalled more than the defeat of the offensive of the Indulgents, for, already compromised, they were themselves soon threatened by the counteroffensive of their adversaries, Hébert’s ultraleft faction, the Exagérés, or Enragés. When the crisis, however, became more acute and the Exagéré opposition hardened its position, the government lost its patience: in March 1794, Hébert and the principal Cordeliers leaders were arrested. Sentenced to death, they were executed on March 24. The Indulgents, believing that their hour had come, increased their pressure. The government, however, had no intention of letting itself be overwhelmed by the moderate opposition of the right. Warned several times of the threats that hung over him, Danton remained unafraid: “They will not dare!” Finally, during the night of March 29–30, 1794, he and his friends were arrested.
Trial Of Danton
Before the Revolutionary tribunal, Danton boldly spoke his mind. To silence him, the Convention decreed that a suspect on trial who insulted national justice be excluded from the debate. “I will no longer defend myself,” Danton cried. “Let me be led to death, I shall go to sleep in glory.” Danton was guillotined with his friends on April 5, 1794. “Show my head to the people,” he said to the executioner. “It is worth the trouble.”
Assessment
Denigrated during the first half of the 19th century, Danton was rehabilitated under the Second Empire and enshrined as a hero under the Third Republic. A chief controversy about him is the problem of his wealth and, hence, of his venality. To his contemporaries, Danton’s venality was obvious, even though, for lack of documentation, it was not proved during his lifetime. It is now generally accepted that Danton was used as an informer by the court and that in return he received payments from the funds of the Civil List. At the same time, however, his attachment to the nation and to the Revolutionary cause is beyond doubt.
Danton was a leader of men. More than any other Revolutionary leader, he could enter into communion with the sansculottes—the Revolutionary have-nots—to share their passions. He pleased the people by his generosity, his indulgence, his verve. All these were characteristics that won him the sympathy of the people and that, during the crisis of the summer of 1792, enabled him to serve the Revolution well.
OMAHUNG WORLD 