#1793 to March 17 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

orthodoxydaily · 1 month ago

Text

SAINTS&READING: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2024

october 12_october 26

St MARTIN THE MERCIFUL, BISHOP OF TOURS (France_397)

Saint Martin the Merciful, Bishop of Tours, was born at Sabaria in Pannonia (modern Hungary) in 316. Since his father was a Roman officer, he also was obliged to serve in the army. Martin did so unwillingly, for he considered himself a soldier of Christ, though he was still a catechumen.

At the gates of Amiens, he saw a beggar shivering in the severe winter cold, so he cut his cloak in two and gave half to the beggar. That night, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to the saint wearing Martin’s cloak. He heard the Savior say to the angels surrounding Him, “Martin is only a catechumen, but he has clothed Me with this garment.” The saint was baptized soon after this, and reluctantly remained in the army.

Two years later, the barbarians invaded Gaul and Martin asked permission to resign his commission for religious reasons. The commander charged him with cowardice. Saint Martin demonstrated his courage by offering to stand unarmed in the front line of battle, trusting in the power of the Cross to protect him. The next day, the barbarians surrendered without a fight, and Martin was allowed to leave the army.

He traveled to various places during the next few years, spending some time as a hermit on an island off Italy. He became friendly with Saint Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (January 14), who made Martin an exorcist. After several years of the ascetic life, Saint Martin was chosen to be Bishop of Tours in 371. As bishop, Saint Martin did not give up his monastic life, and the place where he settled outside Tours became a monastery. In fact, he is regarded as the founder of monasticism in France. He conversed with angels, and had visions of Saints Peter and Paul (June 29) and of other saints. He is called the Merciful because of his generosity and care for the poor, and he received the grace to work miracles.

After a life of devoted service to Christ and His Church, the saint fell ill at Candes, a village in his diocese, where he died on November 8, 397. He was buried three days later (his present Feast) at Tours. During the Middle Ages, many Western churches were dedicated to Saint Martin, including Saint Martin’s in Canterbury, and Saint Martin-in-the-Fields in London.

In 1008, a cathedral was built at Tours over the relics of Saint Martin. This cathedral was destroyed in 1793 during the French Revolution, together with the relics of Saint Martin and Saint Gregory of Tours (November 17). A new cathedral was built on the site many years later. Some fragments of the relics of Saint Martin were recovered and placed in the cathedral, but nothing remains of Saint Gregory’s relics.

Saint Martin’s name appears on many Greek and Russian calendars. His commemoration on October 12 in the Russian calendar seems to be an error since ancient sources give the November date.

VENERABLE SYMEON, THE NEW THEOLOGIAN (1021)

Saint Simeon the New Theologian was born in 949 in Galatea (Paphlagonia) and educated at Constantinople. His father prepared him for a career in court, and the youth occupied a high position in the imperial court for a while. When he was fourteen, he met the renowned Elder Simeon the Pious at the Studion Monastery, who would majorly influence his spiritual development. He remained in the world for several years, preparing himself for the monastic life under the Elder’s guidance, and finally entered the monastery at the age of 27.

Saint Simeon the Pious recommended to the young man the writings of Saint Mark the Ascetic (March 5) and other spiritual writers. He read these books attentively and tried to put into practice what he read. Three points made by Saint Mark in his work “On the Spiritual Law” (see Vol. I of the English Philokalia) particularly impressed him. First, you should listen to your conscience and do what it tells you if you wish your soul to be healed (Philokalia, p. 115). Second, only by fulfilling the commandments can one obtain the activity of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, one who prays only with the body and without spiritual knowledge is like the blind man who cried out, “Son of David, have mercy upon me” (Luke 18:38) (Philokalia, p. 111). When the blind man received his sight, however, he called Christ the Son of God (John 9:38).

Saint Simeon was wounded with a love for spiritual beauty, and tried to acquire it. In addition to the Rule given him by his Elder, his conscience told him to add a few more Psalms and prostrations, and to repeat constantly, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me.” Naturally, he heeded his conscience.

During the day, he cared for the needs of people living in the palace of Patricius. At night, his prayers grew longer and he remained praying until midnight. Once, as he was praying in this way, a most brilliant divine radiance descended upon him and filled the room. He saw nothing but light all around him, and he was not even aware of the ground beneath his feet.

It seemed to him that he himself became light. Then his mind rose upward to the heavens, and he saw a second light brighter than the light which surrounded him. Then, on the edge of this second light, he seemed to see Saint Simeon the Pious, who had given him Saint Mark the Ascetic to read.

Seven years after this vision, Saint Simeon entered the monastery. There he increased his fasting and vigilance, and learned to renounce his own will.

The Enemy of our salvation stirred up the brethren of the monastery against Saint Simeon, who was indifferent to the praises or reproaches of others. Because of the increased discontent in the monastery, Saint Simeon was sent to the Monastery of Saint Mamas in Constantinople.

There he was tonsured into the monastic schema, and increased his spiritual struggles. He attained to a high spiritual level, and increased his knowledge of spiritual things through reading the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, as well as in conversation with holy Elders.

Around the year 980, Saint Simeon was made igumen of the monastery of Saint Mamas and continued in this office for twenty-five years. He repaired and restored the monastery, which had suffered from neglect, and also brought order to the life of the monks.

The strict monastic discipline, for which Saint Simeon strove, led to great dissatisfaction among the brethren. Once, after Liturgy, some of the monks attacked him and nearly killed him. When the Patriarch of Constantinople expelled them from the monastery and wanted to hand them over to the civil authorities, Saint Simeon asked that they be treated with leniency and be permitted to live in the world.

About the year 1005, Saint Simeon resigned his position as igumen in favor of Arsenius, while he himself settled near the monastery in peace. There he composed his theological works, portions of which appear in the Philokalia.

The chief theme of his works is the hidden activity of spiritual perfection, and the struggle against the passions and sinful thoughts. He wrote instructions for monks: “Theological and Practical Chapters,” “A Treatise on the Three Methods of Prayer,” (in Vol. IV of the English Philokalia) and “A Treatise on Faith.” Moreover, Saint Simeon was an outstanding church poet. He also wrote “Hymns of Divine Love,” about seventy poems filled with profound prayerful meditations.

The sublime teachings of Saint Simeon about the mysteries of mental prayer and spiritual struggle have earned him the title “the New Theologian.” These teachings were not the invention of Saint Simeon, but they had merely been forgotten over time.

Some of these teachings seemed unacceptable and strange to his contemporaries. This led to conflict with Constantinople’s church authorities, and Saint Simeon was banished from the city. He withdrew across the Bosphorus and settled in the ancient monastery of Saint Makrina.

The saint peacefully fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1021. During his life he received the gift of working miracles. Numerous miracles also took place after his death; one of them was the miraculous discovery of his icon.

His Life was written by his cell-attendant and disciple, Saint Nicetas Stethatos.

Since March 12 falls during Great Lent, Saint Simeon’s Feast is transferred to October 12.

Ephesians 6:18-24

18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints- 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 21 But that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother, and faithful minister in the Lord, will make all things known to you; 22 whom I have sent to you for this very purpose, that you may know our affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts. 23 Peace to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ sincerely. Amen.

Luke 9:12-18

12 When the day began to wear away, the twelve came and said to Him, "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding towns and country, and lodge and get provisions; for we are in a deserted place here." 13 But He told them, "You give them something to eat." And they said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish unless we go and buy food for all these people." 14 For there were about five thousand men. Then He said to His disciples, "Make them sit down in groups of fifty." 15 And they did so and made them all sit down. 16 Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude. 17 So they all ate and were filled, and they took twelve baskets of the leftover fragments. 18 And it happened, as He was alone praying, that His disciples joined Him,

#orthodoxy #orthodoxchristianity #easternorthodoxchurch #originofchristianity #spirituality #holyscriptures #gospel #bible #wisdom #faith #saints

3 notes · View notes

sensitiveuser · 2 months ago

Text

Hello, I'm a new user. My first post is dedicated to the memory and memorial uses of the Paris Commune, from 1871 until the First World War.

"On ne peut pas tuer l'idée à coup de canon, ni lui mettre les poucettes", said Louise Michel in La Commune et ses souvenirs.

Published in 1898, La Commune et ses souvenirs is one of Louise Michel's last works. It can be said that her pen resurrects the Paris Commune of 1871. Her autobiographical work begins with this: "Writing this book is reliving the terrible days when freedom, brushing us with its wing, flew away to the slaughterhouse; it is reopening the bloody pit where, under the tragic dome of the fire, the beautiful Commune fell asleep for its wedding with death, the red wedding of martyrdom." She concludes that the repression of Bloody Week by the Versailles army can only fuel the coming revolt in spite of itself.

153 years separate us from these 72 days of 1871, during which Paris was the scene of a workers' insurrection that became emblematic for the national revolutionary movement. The time of forgetting has never imposed itself, and the fragments of this insurrection continue to be explored. These 72 days of hope, struggles, pain, joys, sacrifices, heroism, always fuel reflections, analyses, controversies. To study the social struggle of the Communards in 2024, it is a question of occupying the space of memory. Memory is a vital issue in the class struggle throughout History. Concerning the Paris Commune, the "Versaillais" of 1871, whether they were reactionaries and legitimists or moderate republicans (starting with Thiers!), immediately began their memorial work, developing a vision of the facts in accordance with their class interests. They want to erase from the collective memory any positive trace of the Commune.

There are three main components of the Paris Commune:

The Jacobins or "neo-Jacobins" are the most numerous. In this movement, we find in particular Charles Delescluze, veteran of the revolution of the Three Glorious Days and then of the revolution of 1848. Although their references are the Paris Commune of the French Revolution, and the Constitution of the year I granting many freedoms to local authorities, the Jacobins remain less centralist than the terminology used suggests. Among the neo-Jacobins we find journalists, artisans, artists, liberal professions, lawyers. They form more than a third of the members of the Commune. The Blanquists, in the absence of Blanqui, imprisoned in the provinces by the Thiers government since March 17, 1871, only bring together a small minority of Communards. They advocate authoritarian socialism and are in favour of a dictatorship in the name of the people. They are also inspired by the policy of 1793. This orientation will be manifested in the choice of investments within the Commune. The Blanquists conceive of communalism as being the free federation of producers, a thesis later taken up by the Jura federation. The main figures of the Blanquist movement are Emile Eudes, Emile Duval, Théophile Ferré, Raoul Rigault, Edouard Vaillant, and Frédéric Cournet.

There are "unclassifiable" characters, such as Gustave Flourens, Gustave Courbet, Auguste Vermorel who perished on a barricade, Jules Vallès (a must-read!). The confrontation of these forces during the 72 days that the struggle will last will highlight the specific political content and the real divergences will appear at the heart of the action, independently of the unity forged against the Versailles enemy, a unity that will not be denied when tested by the barricades of the Bloody Week.

On March 28th 1871, after the electoral vote, the Central Committee of the Federates of the National Guard proclaimed the Commune and handed over its powers. The Assembly was divided into a majority revolutionary bloc bringing together elected representatives from workers' societies, the Central Committee, the International, the Blanquists, or the Jacobins. There were 25 workers, coming from the world of crafts and not from large-scale industry. The other members were employees, teachers, journalists, and lawyers.

In 1880, Maxime Lisbonne, nicknamed "The d'Artagnan of the Commune", opened a "penal tavern", in reference to the penal colony of New Caledonia. The former director of the Folies Saint-Antoine under the Second Empire became captain of the National Guard during the siege of Paris, then colonel under the Commune, before fighting on various barricades during the Bloody Week (from May 21 to 28, 1871). On the walls of his tavern were hung paintings depicting the federates killed during the Commune, scenes from the penal colony. The penal colony tavern stirred up Paris, the good society that wanted to have a little fun did not disdain to associate with the former communards who frequented this place. However, the decor of the tavern clearly retraced the story of 1871 and the Bloody Week. The Père-Lachaise cemetery is the main place of remembrance of the Paris Commune. From 1880, people began to go in May to the "wall" and the mass grave of the federates. Henri Rochefort launched a memorial campaign in L'Intransigeant (a newspaper he created), for a "monument to the fighters of 1871", and the idea was revived a few years later, when the prefecture wanted to sell the land by private concessions. The erection of a monument was prohibited until 1908. The annual pilgrimage continued, focusing the memory of the Commune on Bloody Week. In 1908, in his Red Notebooks, Maxime Vuillaume, who had founded the newspaper Le Père Duchêne in 1871 with Alphonse Humbert and Eugène Vermersch, recounted how, after attending the funeral of “an old comrade,” he went with his friends to the “Wall.” He described: “A façade of red crowns, faded, dried out, with ribbons torn by the rain and wind,” “To the dead of 1871. Anniversary of Bloody Week. To the victims of the great massacre” (words taken up by historian Laure Godineau). Another source of inspiration for his Red Notebooks: Maxime Vuillaume went to rue Haxo, where fifty hostages were shot on May 26, 1871.

The macabre count of the Bloody Week mobilized the energy of the first writers of the Communard memory, as opposed to the reactionary memory of Versailles. Faced with the Versailles people who tried to erase all traces of the massacre of the insurgents, whose stories evaded the question of the number of summary executions during the Battle of Paris and staged their own martyrs, the vanquished tried to exhibit the intensity of the repression of May. Thus, Lissagaray counted 20,000 dead, Benoît Malon counted 25,000, Georges Jeanneret counted 30,000, and 40,000 according to Pierre Vesnier.

Consequently, throughout France, a "clandestine" memory was forged and expressed, having fun with censorship, notably in republican banquets. The opposition to the Moral Order and its inclinations towards monarchist restoration, associated Commune and Republic on the side of the radical republicans, with a particular intensity in the "Red South" (the socialist strongholds of the south of France) where the Commune was strongly associated with a democratic and social republic; moreover, the proclaimed federalism of the insurrection was praised there. These commemorations, in secret, took place in March and not in May, so as not to recall the mourning of the Bloody Week, but to celebrate the victory of March, and also to respond to the symbolic offensive of the Versaillais who, for expiatory purposes, insisted on the death of Generals Lecomte and Thomas on March 18, 1871.

In Paris, at the end of the 19th century, it proves to be at least difficult to celebrate the memory of the Commune, or at least to reject the memory of Versailles. Yet this memory is written on the walls, as these inscriptions testify: "Long live the Commune! Honour to the brave Ferré, Rossel, Crémieux and Dombrovski who died for the Commune".

For my first Tumblr post, I ask myself the following question, as a young man passionate (in both senses of the word, you will understand why) about the Commune and its memory: How was the memory of the Commune forged ?

From June 1871, Karl Marx wrote (in London) The Civil War in France. Marx considered that the insurrection was premature, provoked by an exceptional political context, and that a compromise could have been found, in order to avoid a bloody repression. In his text, he expressed his criticisms against Thiers, against the assembly elected on February 18, 1871, and against the Versaillais. According to Marx, the Commune was mainly a government of the working class, the result of the class struggle, the political form finally found which made it possible to achieve the economic emancipation of labor. Marx ends his work with these words: "Working-class Paris, with its Commune, will be celebrated forever as the glorious harbinger of a new society. The memory of the martyrs is piously preserved in the great heart of the working class. Its examiners, history has already nailed them to an eternal pillory, and all the prayers of their priests will not succeed in freeing them from it."

Propser-Oliver Lissagaray can be considered as the first historian of the Commune. During the Commune, he was a journalist at L’Action and then at the Tribun du Peuple. After the Bloody Week, he went into exile in Belgium and then in England. In Brussels, he published his works: Les Huit Journées de mai derrière les barricades and Histoire de la Commune de 1871. This is a testimony on the Commune, a history based on the stories that Lissagaray collected from his “comrades”, the reestablishment of a truth. He clearly accuses “Versailles” of having precipitated the explosion, of refusing any element of pacification at the beginning and any attempt at conciliation afterwards, of having provoked the spiral of violence, and of having been extremely violent in the repression. In 1872, thanks to him, the Social Studies Circle of London decided to respond to the accusations of the parliamentary inquiry into the insurrection of March 18. Lissagaray sees the Commune's military wait-and-see attitude in March as evidence of weakness, as does the Commune's refusal to seize the gold of the Bank of France, echoing the analysis of Gustave Lefrançais, as well as that of Karl Marx in The Civil War in France.

The first proposals for amnesty were put forward in 1872 by Henri Brisson and Edmond de Pressensé, who nevertheless condemned the insurrection. These proposals were rejected. In 1876, Georges Clemenceau (deputy) and Victor Hugo (senator) addressed the question of the responsibilities of the Assembly of Versailles in the outbreak of the insurrection, and those of Jules Dufaure's government in the escalation of violence and the impossibility of finding a compromise. In this context, the harsh treatment suffered by the Communards in New Caledonia was mentioned. After 1876, as the Republic (Third Republic, "illegitimate republic") asserted itself, and as "socialist" groups expressed themselves more openly, debates and interventions on amnesty multiplied, in the chambers, in the press, through petitions. A new amnesty law was proposed by Louis Blanc in 1877.

Let us note that the brilliant career of Louise Michel, Edouard Vaillant, Elisée Reclus, Emile Eudes, Benoît Malon, Jean Allemane, Zéphirin Camélinat, and so many others, should not make us forget the fact that most of those amnestied returned to the anonymity of their previous career, emphasizing the extent to which the Commune was an "impromptu revolution, partly led by men with no militant experience" (Eric Fournier). In addition, among the 49 elected officials of the Commune, less than half had any visible political activity in the 1880s. I present the political activity of the few Communards mentioned (after the amnesty): After her return from New Caledonia, Louise Michel gave hundreds of conferences. In 1881, she went to Blanqui's funeral, then attended the International Anarchist Congress in London. A long period of activism followed, which I will discuss in a future post. On May 21, 1871, Edouard Vaillant, the Commune’s delegate for education, managed to escape to London, where he sat on the General Council of the First International. In 1872, the Versailles war council sentenced him to death. He then met Marx and began to be influenced by Marxism. In 1880, back in Paris, he founded with Auguste Blanqui (a year before the latter’s death) the newspaper Ni Dieu ni Maître, a reference for the anarchist movement. In 1884, he was elected municipal councilor, then deputy for the 20th arrondissement from 1889 until his death in 1915. Elisée Reclus, a geographer and communard supported by the scientific community (including Darwin), escaped deportation to New Caledonia, but was sentenced to ten years of banishment. He took refuge with his brother in Switzerland, then in Belgium. After Bakunin's death in 1876, Elisée Reclus ensured the vitality and visibility of anarchist thought. I quote his main testimonies: "My role during the Commune was officially null, I found myself in the anonymous crowd of fighters and the vanquished", "I traveled the world as a free man, I contemplated the world with a gaze that was both candid and proud". Benoît Malon took refuge in Switzerland. In November 1871, he participated in the Sonvilier Congress, and joined the Jura Federation, alongside Bakunin, James Guillaume, Adhémar Schwitzguébel, Errico Malatesta, Elisée Reclus. The Blanquist Emile Eudes founded the association "Ni Dieu ni Maître" in 1879, and joined the League for the Abolition of the Standing Army.

Benoît Malon took refuge in Switzerland. In November 1871, he took part in the Sonvilier Congress and joined the Jura Federation, alongside Bakounine, James Guillaume, Adhémar Schwitzguébel, Errico Malatesta and Elisée Reclus. He published The Third Defeat of the French Proletariat; according to him, the Commune was the third revolution of the 19th century, after the Canuts revolt and the crushing of the Revolution of 1848.

The Paris Commune constituted for the anarchists the first truly socialist and proletarian revolution, as a fight against the authority of the State, the Church, the army, and capitalism, and they recognized themselves in federalism, direct democracy, atheism. Among them, we find Louise Michel, Gustave Lefrançais, Elisée Reclus, Jean-Louis Pindy, Eugène Varlin. (I will present these characters in detail in a future post).

In his brilliant work The Paris Commune and the Notion of the State, published after his death by Elisée Reclus, Bakunin analyses the Commune as "a bold, well-pronounced negation of the State", and that Paris had dealt "a mortal blow to the political traditions of bourgeois radicalism". Thus, he analyses the Commune as the first revolutionary manifestation of anti-state socialism, the foundations of anarchism. Bakunin also explained why the Communards failed. If the Commune was not able to develop a radical program, this could be explained by the relatively negligible number of socialists, who had to wage a double war against the Prussians and the Versailles, in addition to a struggle against the Jacobins. Bakunin sees in the martyrdom of the Commune an event capable of mobilizing, the memory of which must be maintained: "The Paris Commune which, for having been massacred, stifled in blood by the executioners of monarchical and clerical reaction, has only become more alive in the imagination and in the heart of the proletariat of Europe."

In April 1871, James Guillaume considered anti-statism as the major characteristic of the Commune. He recalled that the federalism of the Commune, inspired by Proudhon, represented above all the rejection of the Nation and the State. "There is no longer a State, no longer a central power superior to the groups and imposing its authority on them. There is only the collective force resulting from the federation of groups. The centralized and national State no longer existing, and the Communes enjoying the fullness of their independence, there is truly anarchy" (words quoted by Jacques Rougerie). After the Bloody Week, two Communards, Arthur Arnould and Gustave Lefrançais, proposed their vision of the Commune. Arthur Arnould, in his Popular and Parliamentary History of the Paris Commune, writes this: "On March 18, the people broke definitively with the old monarchical and Jacobin tradition, equally maddened by unity, equally intoxicated by the poisonous idea of a strong Power. On March 18, the people declared that it was necessary to escape the vicious circle, to cut the evil at the root, no longer change masters, but to cease having masters, and with an admirable vision of the truth, of the goal to be achieved, of the means that could lead there, it proclaimed the autonomy of the Commune and the federation of the communes." According to Gustave Lefrançais, the Commune did not only have the objective of decentralizing power, but of making power itself disappear. In his articles published in the early 1880s, Pierre Kropotkine, the leading theoretician of libertarian communism, put forward the idea that "under the name of the Paris Commune a new idea was born, destined to become the starting point of future revolutions", and that due to the circumstances "the Commune of 1871 could only be a first draft". Kropotkin believes that the Paris Commune would have become a real social revolution if it had not been crushed. However, Kropotkin also described its limitations. According to him, "Indecision reigned in people's minds, and the socialists themselves did not feel bold enough to embark on the demolition of individual property, not having a well-defined goal before them", "They sought to consolidate the Commune first by postponing the social revolution, while the only way to proceed was to consolidate the Commune by the social revolution! The same happened with the governmental principle. In proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essentially anarchist principle; but, as at that time the anarchist idea had only weakly penetrated people's minds, they stopped halfway and, within the Commune, they still declared themselves in favor of the old authoritarian principle, by giving themselves a Council of the Commune, copied from the municipal Councils" (Pierre Kropotkine, The Paris Commune).

In 1874, the anti-authoritarian split in the International (founded two years earlier at the Congress of Saint-Imier) affirmed that the massacres of Bloody Week and the deportations to New Caledonia had made any conciliation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat impossible.

Jean Grave, close to Kropotkin, journalist at La Révolte and Le Révolté, explained the link between the Commune and the aspirations for a social republic, and deplores in his memoirs the lack of revolutionary sense of the Central Committee of the National Guard.

From the 1890s, the generation of direct action or propaganda by the deed is borrowed from a certain imaginary of the Commune. The anarchist militants intend to avenge the Commune. In 1892, Ravachol leaves a pot filled with dynamite at the home of the investigating judge Benoît. He is executed after having pronounced "Long live Anarchy" and sung a song by Père Duchesne, very anticlerical. Ravachol's avengers pay homage both to the martyred comrade, and to the avengers of Gustave Flourens, a general who worked for La Marseillaise, killed in April 1871.

Now, let's go back in time, in order to retrace the significant moments, associated with the memory of the Commune... Evoking these historical facts in chronological order seems to me the most obvious (not necessarily the most relevant, and in this case it will be up to you to judge...)...

In 1879, an amnesty law was passed that pardoned 3,300 Communards, including Jean-Baptiste Clément, Nathalie Le Mel, Henri Brissac, Antoine Dumay, Eugène Dangers. The latter met in 1880 in an initiative committee (chaired by Jean-Baptiste Clément and Antoine Demay), forming the group of the Combatants of 1871. On July 13, 1880, on the eve of the first celebration of the "national holiday", these former Proscrits set themselves the goal of developing a revolutionary socialist program for the elections of 1881.

Léon Gambetta, president of the Assembly, had the plenary amnesty law for the Communards voted on July 11, 1880. Following this law, former Communards returned to French soil. Returning from New Caledonia, Louise Michel was acclaimed by 20,000 people; among the crowd, she was awaited by Louis Blanc, Henri Rochefort, but also Georges Clemenceau. In 1880, when the memory of Bloody Week prevailed over the hopes of March, the conditions were right for the wall to become a place of remembrance of the Commune. In May, the organizers, gathered around the newspapers L’Egalité and Le Prolétaire, decided that the commemoration of the 34,000 people shot in May 1871 would take place at the Mur des Fédérés. The red flag, defined as the official flag of the Commune on March 18, 1871, was unfurled. The police massacred the demonstrators. The “red immortelle” flowers landed on the mass grave. During the 1881 elections, nine former elected representatives of the Commune, including François Jourde, Emile Eudes, Jean Allemane, Félix Gaillard, Alphonse Humbert, Arthur Piéron, stood, but received very few votes. Clovis Hugues, who took part in the Marseille Commune in 1871, was the only socialist deputy elected. The conservative newspaper Le Temps states that "the Communard past is buried, the ghost of the Commune disappears, the revenants of the Commune must fade away". The electoral failure, associated with the divisions between socialists, puts an end to the association of the Combatants of 1871. Following this, the Solidarity of the Proscribed of 1871 was founded, initially bringing together the Blanquist Henry Champy, François Josselin, Jules Martelet, Olivier Pain.

In 1882, speeches were tolerated for the first time, and twenty speeches were given. I recall that within the socialist movement, the Federation of Socialist Workers of France was divided between the Marxists led by Jules Guesde who created the Workers' Party at the Congress of Saint-Etienne, and the Blanquists led by Edouard Vaillant who founded the Central Revolutionary Committee. The Workers' Party did not adopt the socialist political program of the Council of the Commune, except that Jean Allemane took a position for a "federative socialism", and that the Workers' Party was in favor of the "municipalization of public services". In the Society of the Proscribed, some conflicts arose. During a meeting, Piéron presented the program of the Workers' Party, advocating the mobilization of all workers' forces. Eugène Dangers proposed to reconstitute a central committee within the Solidarity of the Proscribed of 1871; he was therefore threatened with exclusion. Hippolyte Ferré, brother of Théophile Ferré, recalled that the Society of the Proscribed should not form an organized workers' or revolutionary party. Hippolyte Ferré proposed to bring together the Communards in a "group of social studies and revolutionary action. In 1889, Henry Champy constituted the Fraternal Society of Veterans of the Commune.

In 1883, the administration of the Père-Lachaise cemetery considered removing the insurgents' tomb. This decision aroused strong opposition from the Paris city council. Jules Joffrin, city councilor and member of the Workers' Party, obtained the abandonment of the project. Henri Rochefort, disliked by the former insurgents, proposed building a man for the republicans arbitrarily and savagely shot in 1871 for having defended the Republic "against the Prussians and the monarchists". The newspapers Le Prolétaire and La Bataille, then the mutual aid society of veterans of the Commune, relaunched the project of a commemorative monument at the foot of the wall. Eugène Pottier became the main promoter of the place of memory, notably through his propaganda works. He believed that the wall was enough to commemorate and glorify the Commune. This partisan valorization of the wall could accommodate the duty to forget, as well as reassure those who feared a monument exciting revolutionary groups. Consequently, the wall of the federates became a sanctuary. Encouraged by the poems of Eugène Pottier, and by the socialist and anarchist newspapers, more and more workers' activists went to the foot of the Wall (4000 in 1882, 5000 in 1883, 10000 in 1884).

Now, I'm going to present you the best songs dedicated to the memory of the Paris Commune.

Le Temps des Cerises (https://youtu.be/Zhum-7DDlNk). This song by Jean-Baptiste Clément is dedicated to an ambulance driver he met during the fighting on Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi.

La Semaine sanglante (https://youtu.be/Zhum-7DDlNk). This tragic song evokes the last days of the Commune: Jean-Baptiste Clément drew on his own experience to write his lyrics, shortly after having witnessed the atrocities committed by the Versaillais against the Parisian people. His refrain nevertheless includes a note of hope, proclaiming that "the bad days will end!".

L’Internationale (https://youtu.be/Ykln5iQqw1E). This timeless anthem of the workers' movement was written by Eugène Pottier, probably in the weeks following the Paris Commune. The Internationale would not be published until many years later, before being set to music in 1888. This song, inspired by anarchism, was sung at the congresses of the Internationale. Taken up by the communists from 1917, and translated into Russian, it would then become the national anthem of the USSR until 1944. The Internationale is among the most translated political songs in the world, as a symbol of social struggle throughout the world.

Le Drapeau Rouge (https://youtu.be/ESU-V6cFT3o). Already present during the Revolution of 1848, the red flag, from March 18, 1871, became the symbol of socialism and the workers' movement throughout the world. This song was written by Paul Brousse in 1877. L’Insurgé (https://youtu.be/ff5mRDGe1Xo). L’Insurgé is said to be a tribute to Auguste Blanqui, a key figure in the popular struggles of the 19th century. The latter was not able to participate directly in the insurrection: arrested by Thiers on March 17, 1871, he was then the most valuable political prisoner of the opponents of the Commune.

From the end of the 1880s, the memory of the Commune was divided and became a subject of conflict. There were therefore ruptures between the bearers of the Communard memory. How can this be explained? Some former Communards rallied to General Boulanger; these were Henri Rochefort, Clovis Hugues, Pierre Denis, Ernest Granger. On May 27, 1888, the anarchist Lucas, a member of the Ligue des Antipatriotes, at the top of the wall, black flag in hand, shoots a Blanquist who had become a Boulangist. In 1891, socialists, supported by the population of Montmartre opposed to the construction of the shameful Sacré-Coeur basilica, wanted to commemorate the death of Eugène Varlin by demonstrating on the Butte Montmartre. This demonstration was dispersed by the police. In this case, in addition to a memorial fight, it was an anticlerical fight. A clear hardening of police repression must be observed following the accession of Louis Lépine to the police prefecture in 1893. The only right he granted to the heirs of the Commune was the right to be forgotten. Each year, 550 municipal guards supervised the procession. Only funeral wreaths are allowed to commemorate the memory of the Commune. Any message that is too lenient towards the Communards risks infuriating him, the only messages tolerated being "To the federates" and "To the executed". In 1899, the police snatched the wreath "To the brothers assassinated by the Versailles troops" from the hands of the demonstrators, then the one holding the message "To the victims of militarism" in 1900.

From 1905 (date of the founding of the SFIO during the Globe Congress), the increasingly visible authority of the SFIO over commemorations led to remarkable demonstrations of force, ultimately tolerated by a Republic struggling to impose consensus through forgetting! What must be understood is that the organization of commemorations in memory of the Commune was led by the SFIO, which imposed its authority on the other revolutionary groups heirs of the Commune and managed the balance of power with the police. Thus, in 1905, socialism in France was rebuilt outside the action of the fighters of 1871. Jean Jaurès, hostile to any revolutionary action, was reserved about the ideals of the Commune. Edouard Vaillant explained that it was not a question of knowing what the Commune had actually done or not done, but he concluded that "it had fought and that was enough". In 1906, for the first time, the word “Commune” was authorized on the tomb of the Allemanist Champy, in Pantin.

The inauguration of the commemorative plaque in 1908 brought together 10,000 people (that's what the mayor of Paris was happy to authorize!). That year, the Tiger brigades savagely repressed the worker activists of Draveil and Villeneuve-Saint-Georges. In 1909, the presence of Lépine, who had also banned the singing of the Internationale, was a provocation. Incidents broke out at the exit of the necropolis. Faced with this police pressure, the SFIO increased its hold on the climb to the wall in 1910 thanks to its security service inspired by the methods of German socialism (!). The SFIO asserted its hegemony over the memorial processions, discipline was required during the demonstrations. Nevertheless, let's take into account the good deeds. In 1911, the "trusted men" expelled young activists suspected of supporting Gustave Hervé's ideas. A year earlier, Eugène Faillet, close to Varlin during the Commune, had stated that France's moral superiority would prevent French socialism from being subjected to the Workers' International. Subsequently, one of the SFIO's objectives was to integrate the homage to the Communards into the ongoing socialist mobilization against the Barthou government's law extending military service to three years instead of two. The newspaper L'Humanité, founded by Jean Jaurès, highlighted the direct link between the legacy of the Commune and the anti-militarist struggle. The destruction of the Vendôme Column was a symbol of the struggle against the army, the Vendôme Column being a "symbol of brute force and false glory, an affirmation of militarism, a negation of international law, a permanent insult from the victors to the vanquished" (Official Journal of the Paris Commune, April 13, 1871). The 1914 commemoration brought together 40,000 faithful and took place without any incident.

How, after the First World War, the October Revolution, and the founding of the Third International, did the communists appropriate the memory of the Commune? This is the question I will address in my second post. Thank you for reading my first post :) I will devote other posts more focused on the different communards and the role of women (including the Pétroleuses) during the Commune. Feel free to comment :)

5 notes · View notes

millenialmfa · 8 months ago

Text

Bridgerton Astrology & Chinese Zodiac Signs

I tried my best to make this as accurate as possible, but there was some conflicting information. Unfortunately not everyone’s birthdays are known, so not all have an astrology sign. I have bolded my personal guess for those that have a few possibilities in their signs.

Edmund Bridgerton

1764

Monkey

Violet Bridgerton

April 11, 1766

Aires, Dog

Anthony Bridgerton

September 17, 1784

Virgo, Dragon

Kate Sharma

1793

Benedict Bridgerton

July/August 1786

Cancer/Leo/Virgo, Horse

Sophie Beckett

1794

Tiger

Colin Bridgerton

March 2, 1791

Pisces, Pig

Penelope Featherington

April 8, 1796

Aires, Dragon

Daphne Bridgerton

August/September 1792

Leo/Virgo/Libra, Rat

Simon Basset

1784

Dragon

Eloise Bridgerton

April 1796

Aires/Taurus, Dragon

Phillip Crane

1794

Tiger

Francesca Bridgerton

April 1797

Aires/Taurus, Snake

John Stirling

1792

Rat

Michael Stirling

1791

Pig

Gregory Bridgerton

January/February 1801

Capricorn/Aquarius/Pisces, Monkey/Rooster

Lucy Abernathy

1807

Rabbit

Hyacinth Bridgerton

May/June 1803

Taurus/Gemini/Cancer, Pig

Gareth St. Clair

1797

Snake

7 notes · View notes

theravenclawrevolutionary · 2 years ago

Note

Hello! So uh I’m trying to write a musical about Max, but there’s literally so much about him I don’t know how to simplify everything. How would you summarize Max’s life in about 26 bullet points?

Oh boy. That's tricky. But thanks for the ask and props to you for taking on such a big but really cool task! I could absolutely never lol. Hopefully I can help though (This is assuming you want your musical to cover the span of his entire life in the way my book does/did. and is trying to put emphasis on his life during the revolution.) Obviously this list doesn't exhaust all important events in Max's life, but these are the ones I personally believe are most relevant to telling his story and the story of the revolution.

At 6, child Robespierre loses his parents (death and desertion) and moves in with his grandparents. (1764)

Leaves Arras and attends school at Louis-le-Grand in Paris. Friendship with Camille forms. (1769-1781)

Max's law career back home in Arras after graduation. (1781-1789

Estates-General is called to meet. Max is elected as a deputy for the Third Estate of Artois (April 1789)

Estates-general meets. Tennis Court Oath. (May-June 1789)

Storming of the Bastille. (July 14 1789)

Joins the Jacobin club. Meets Danton a few months before. (November 1789)

Elected president of the Jacobin club (March 31 1790)

Louis and the royal family flee Paris. Calls for the deposition of the king to the Jacobins. (June 1791)

Champ de Mars massacre. (July 17 1791)

Max moves in with the Duplays. Begins to establish a close relationship with them. (Late July. Sometime in the aftermath of the massacre.)

Makes speeches against war in the Jacobin club (December 1791)

War is declared on France (June 1792)

Overthrow of the king/storming of the Tuileries. (August 10 1792)

September Massacres (2-6 September 1792)

Elected as deputy to the National Convention. Meets SJ around this time. (Sept 5 1792)

King's trial and execution (January 14-21 1793)

Appointed to the Committee of public safety. Becomes president 2 months later. (July 27 1793)

Camille attacks Max and the government in the Vieux Cordelier. The friendship ends. (Dec 24 1793)

Arrests and executions of the Dantonists (March 13-24 1794)

Assassination attempts (May 23-24 1794)

Festival of the Supreme Being (June 8 1794)

Law of 22 Prairal (June 10 1794)

Speeches before the Convention and the Jacobin Club. Is refused to be heard and arrested.

Events at the Hotel de Ville

Execution

#robespierre #maximilien robespierre #french revolution #frev #ask #answered ask #advice

22 notes · View notes

anotherhumaninthisworld · 3 months ago

Note

Was suicide really seen as noble during the French Revolution? Was there any recorded tension regarding this cultural shift with more religious or less revolutionary people/groups? Thanks!

In the book La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député 1792-1795 (2015) can be found a list of all the deputies of the National Convention that died unnatural deaths between 1792 and 1799. Of the 96 names included on it, 16 were those of suicide victims, and to these must also me added a number of botched suicide attempts as well.

Only a single one of these suicides appears to have been driven by something outside of politics, that of the deputy Charlier, who shot himself in his apartment on February 23 1797, two years after the closing of the Convention. The rest of the suicides are all very clearly politically motivated, more specifically, deputies killing themselves just as the machinery of revolutionary justice was about to catch up to them. There’s those who killed themselves while on the run and unsheltered from the hostile authorities — the girondin Rebecqui who on May 1 1794 drowned himself in Old Port of Marseille, Pétion and Buzot who on June 24 1794 shot themselves after getting forced to leave the garret where they for the last few months had been hiding out, Maure who shot himself while in hiding on 3 June 1795 after having been implicated in the revolt of 1 Prairial, Brunel, who on May 27 shot himself after failing to quell a riot in Toulon, and Tellier, who similarily shot himself on September 17 1795 due to a revolt directed against him in the commune of Chartres. Barbaroux too attempted to shoot himself on June 18 1794 but only managed to blow his jaw off. He was instead captured and guillotined. There’s those that put an end to their days once cornered by said authorities — Lidon, who on November 2 1793 shot himself after having been discovered at his hiding place by two gendarmes (he did however first fire three shots at said gendarmes, one of whom got hit in the cheek) and Le Bas who shot himself in the night between July 27 and 28 1794 as National guardsmen stormed the Hôtel de Ville where he and his allies were hiding out (according to his wife’s memoirs, already a few days before this he had told her that he would kill them both right then and there wasn’t it for the fact they had an infant son). In an interrogation held two o’clock in the morning on July 28 1794, Augustin Robespierre too revealed that the reason he a few hours earlier had thrown himself off the cordon of the Hôtel de Ville was ”to escape from the hands of the conspirators, because, having been put under a decree of accusation, he believed his death inevitable,” and there’s of course an eternal debate on whether or not his older brother too had attemped to commit suicide at Hôtel de Ville that night or if he was shot by a guard (to a lesser extent, this debate also exists regarding Couthon). There’s those who committed suicide in prison to avoid an unfriendly tribunal — Baille who hanged himself while held captive in the hostile Toulon on September 2 1793, Condorcet who took poison and was found dead in his cell in Bourg-la-Reine on 29 March 1794 (though here there exists some debate on whether it really was suicide or if he ”just” died from exhaustion) and Rühl, who stabbed himself while in house arrest on May 29 1795. On March 17 1794, Chabot tried to take his life in his cell in the Luxembourg prison by overdosing on medicine (he reported that he shouted ”vive la république” after drinking the liquor) but survived and got guillotined. Finally, there’s those who held themselves alive for the whole trial but killed themselves as soon as they heard the pronounciation of the death sentence — the girondin Valazé who stabbed himself to death on October 30 1793 and the so called ”martyrs of prairial” Duquesnoy, Romme, Goujon, Bourbotte (in a declaration written shortly before his death he wrote: ”Virtuous Cato, no longer will it be your example alone that teaches free men how to escape the scaffold of tyranny”), Duroy and Soubrany who did the same thing on June 17 1795 (only the first three did however succeed with their suicide, the rest were executed the very same day).

To these 24 men must also be added other revolutionaries that weren’t Convention deputies, such as Jacques Roux who on February 10 1794 stabbed himself in prison, former girondin ministers Étienne Clavière who did the same thing on December 8 1793 (learning of his death, his wife killed herself as well) and Jean Marie Roland who on November 10 1793 ran a sword through his heart while in hiding, after having been informed of his wife’s execution, Gracchus Babeuf and Augustin Darthé who attempted to stab themselves on May 27 1797 after having been condemned in the so called ”conspiracy of equals,” but survived and were executed the next day, as well as two jacobins from Lyon — Hidins who killed himself in prison before the city got ”liberated,” and Gaillard who did the same thing shortly after the liberation, after having spent several weeks in jail.

With all that said, I think you could say taking your life was considered ”noble” in a way, if it allowed you to die with greater dignity than letting the imposition of revolutionary judgement take it instead did. It was at least certainly a step up compared to before 1789, when suicide (through the Criminal Ordinance of 1670) was considered a crime which could lead to confiscation of property, opprobium cast on the victim’s family and even subjection of the courpse to various outrages, like dragging it through the street. To nuance this a bit, it is however worth recalling that this was only in theory, and that in practise, most of these penalties had ceased to be carried out already in the decades before the revolution, a period during which suicide, in the Enlightenent’s spirit of questioning everything, had also started getting discussed more and more. The word ”suicide” itself entered the French dictionary in 1734. Most of the enlightenment philosophes reflected on suicide and the ethics behind it. There’s also the widely spread The Sorrows of Young Werther that was first released in 1774. Furthermore, most revolutionaries were also steeped in the culture of Antiquity, where suicide was seen as an admirable response to political defeat, perhaps most notably those of Brutus and Cato the younger, big heroes of the revolutionaries. Over the course of the revolution, we find several patriotic artists depicting famous suicides of Antiquity — such as Socrates (whose death is considered by some to have been a sort of suicide) (1791) by David, The Death of Cato of Utica (1795) by Guillaume Guillon-Lethière, and The death of Caius Gracchus (1798) by François Topino-Lebrun. According to historian Dominique Godineau, the 18th century saw ”the inscription [of suicide] in the social landscape, at least in large cities: it has become “public,” people talk about it, it is less hidden than at the beginning of the century,” and she therefore argues that the decision to decriminalize it in the reformed penal code (it didn’t state outright that suicide was now OK, but it no longer listed it as a crime) of 1791 wasn’t particulary controversial.

Furthermore, that committing suicide was more noble than facing execution was still far from an obvious, universal truth during the revolution. In his memoirs, Brissot does for example recall that, right after the insurrection of August 10, when he and other ”girondins” discussed what to do was an act of accusation to be issued against them, Buzot argued that ”the death on the scaffold was more courageous, more worthy for a patriot, and especially more useful for the cause of liberty” than committing suicide to avoid it. The feared news of their act of accusation did however arrive before the girondins had reached a definitive conclusion on what to do, leading to some fleeing (among them Buzot, who of course ironically ended up being one of the revolutionaries that ultimately chose suicide over the scaffold) and some calmly awaiting their fate. In her memoirs, Madame Roland did her too consider going to the scaffold with her head held high to be an act of virtue — ”Should I wait for when it pleases my executioners to choose the moment of my death and to augment their triumph by the insolent clamours of the mob to which I would be exposed? Certainly!” In his very last speech to the Convention, convinced that his enemies were rounding up on him, Robespierre exclaimed he would ”drink the hemlock,” a reference to the execution of Socrates. The girondin Vergniaud is also said to have carried poison on him but chosen to have go out with his friends on the scaffold, although I’ve not yet discovered what the source for this is. It can also be noted that the number of Convention deputies who let revolutionary justice have its course with them was still considerably higher than those who attempted to put an end to their days before the sentence could be carried out.

According to Patterns and prosecution of suicide in eighteenth-century Paris (1989) by Jeffrey Merrick, there was indeed tension regarding the rising amount of suicides in the decades leading up to the revolution. Merrick cites first and foremost the printer and bookseller Siméon Prosper Hardy, who in his journal Mes loisirs ou journal des evenements tels qu'ils parviennent a ma connaissance (1764-1789), documented a total of 259 cases of Parisian suicides. Hardy saw these deaths as an unwelcome import from the English, who for their part were led to kill themselves due to ”the dismal climate, unwholesome diet, and excessive liberty.” He also blamed the suicides on "the decline of religion and morals," caused by the philosophes, who in their ”bad books” popularized English ways of thinking and undermined traditional values. He was not alone in drawing a connection between the suicides and the new ideas. According to Merrick, the clergy in general ”denounced the philosophes for legitimizing this unforgiveable crime against God and society, which they now associated with systematic unbelief more than the traditional diabolical temptation.” In practice, many parish priests did however still quietly bury the bodies of persons who killed themselves. The future revolutionary Louis Sébastien Mercier did on the other hand blame the government and its penchant for inflated prices and burdensome taxes for the alleged epidemic of suicides in his Tableau de Paris (1782-1783).

In La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député, 1792-1795 it is also established that there weren’t that many participants of the king that killed themselves once the wind started blowing in the wrong direction, but that is not to say they didn’t exist. As example is cited the case of a man who in April 1793 shot himself on the Place de la Révolution, before having written ”I die for you and your family” on a gravure representimg the head of Louis XVI. There’s also the case of Michel Peletier’s murderer Philippe Nicolas Marie de Pâris, royalist and former king’s guard, who, similar to Lidon, blew his brains out when the authorities had him cornered a week after the murder.

Sources:

Patterns and prosecution of suicide in eighteenth-century Paris (1989) by Jeffrey Merrick

Pratiques du suicide à Paris pendant la Révolution française by Dominique Godineau

La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député, 1792-1795 (2015) by Michel Biard, chapter 5, ”Mourir en Romain,” le choix de suicide.

Choosing Terror (2014) by Marisa Linton, page 276-279, section titled ”Choosing how to die.”

#well. this is depressing 😀#frev #french revolution #ask #would tag everyone that (tried to) killed themselves but that would take ages

58 notes · View notes

intriguingpeoplebyangelafloyd · 6 months ago

Text

GEORGIANA CAVENDISH

GEORGIANA CAVENDISH, DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE

7 June 1757 - 30 March 1806

THE DUCHESS

Georgiana Cavendish was a British socialite who is best known for wearing fashionable clothing, her big hair, throwing parties, and gambling.

Georgiana was born into a noble family, the Spencer family and is related to Diana, Princess of Wales.

Georgiana, 17, was married to William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire who took her best friend Elizabeth ‘Bess’ as his long-term mistress (and married her after Georgiana died). Behind Georgiana smiling face, there was a person who suffered from great unhappiness. Georgiana was popular with everyone but her husband who showed little interest in her. He did his duty and the couple had many miscarriages, but had four surviving children, she had three with her husband and one with her lover, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey.

She was close to her sister Harriet whose husband abused her so badly on one occasion that she nearly died. Georgiana had to nurse her back to health. Georgiana was a friend of Marie Antoinette who heard the news of the French queen’s execution in 1793.

She was interested in science, politics (she campaigned for the Whig party) and music and was also a writer.

Georgiana fell ill (possibly jaundice), her health deteriorated and Harriet looked after her at the end of her life. She suffered from fevers and shivering fits (one lasted for 8 hours), and the doctor had to shave her hair off. She died in 1806, aged 46, and is buried at Derby Cathedral.

#georgianacavendish #georgianacavendishduchessofdevonshire #theduchess

#georgiana cavendish #georgianacavendish #georgiana cavendish duchess of devonshire #the duchess

0 notes

litea · 11 months ago

Text

Study memo: the French Revolution

Book<The Oxford History of the French Revolution>

Read on 2024/1/

*Introduction:*

Embark on a captivating exploration of the tumultuous era that defined France's destiny - the French Revolution. Unravel the layers of history as we delve into the pivotal moments that shaped a nation.

**1. France under Louis XVI**

- Step into the challenges of Louis XVI's reign, where soaring flour and bread prices ignited protests, unveiling deep-seated social issues.

**2. Enlightened Opinion**

- Immerse yourself in the world of Enlightenment thinkers whose progressive ideas rewired the fabric of governance, society, and individual rights.

**3. Crisis and Collapse**

- Navigate the storm as France faced formidable problems, triggering a cascade of events marked by uncertainty and instability.

**4. The Estates-General, September 1788-July 1789**

- Witness the birth of change as representatives from diverse social groups convened, laying the groundwork for a transformative journey.

**5. The Principles of 1789 and the Reform of France**

- Encounter the revolutionary principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity that emerged in 1789, sparking reforms to address social inequalities.

**6. The Breakdown of the Revolutionary Consensus, 1789-1791**

- Navigate through internal conflicts among revolution supporters, revealing the challenges within the heart of change.

**7. Europe and the Revolution, 1788-1791**

- Explore the ripple effect as other European nations keenly observed and responded to the revolutionary waves, shaping international relations.

**8. The Republican Revolution, October 1791-January 1793**

- Witness the metamorphosis from monarchy to republic, a monumental shift in governance that echoed across the pages of history.

**9. War against Europe, 1792-1797**

- March alongside France as it engages in conflicts with neighboring nations resisting revolutionary ideas, a chapter defined by war.

**10. The Revolt of the Provinces**

- Feel the pulse of regional discontent as various parts of France express their rebellion against central authority.

**11. Government by Terror, 1793-1794**

- Enter a phase marked by a potent government response, including the stark reality of the guillotine, designed to suppress opposition and maintain control.

**12. Thermidor, 1794-1795**

- Experience a period of transformation following intense government control, signaling a departure from extreme measures.

**13. Counter-Revolution, 1789-1795**

- Witness the opposition that brewed against revolutionary changes, leading to counter-revolutionary movements.

**14. The Directory, 1795-1799**

- Explore the emergence of a new governance model striving to stabilize France after the turbulent storms of revolution.

**15. Occupied Europe, 1794-1799**

- Follow France's expansion of influence, as it extends its grasp over parts of Europe during this defining period.

**16. An End to Revolution, 1799-1802**

- Witness the gradual conclusion of the revolutionary era, marking a transition towards a more stable phase in history.

**17. The Revolution in Perspective**

- Reflect on the entirety of the revolutionary canvas, evaluating its profound impact and drawing lessons from its enduring legacy.

*Conclusion:*

Conclude our journey through history, summarizing the poignant moments and enduring impact of the French Revolution that continue to echo through the corridors of time.

#studyblr #study blog #notes #study notes

1 note · View note

packedwithpackards · 2 years ago

Text

"A man of wealth": Samuel Packard, the Rhode Island slaver [part 1]

In March 2018, I first wrote about Samuel Packard, my great-great-great-great-great grand uncle, and his role in the transatlantic slave trade as a slaver, otherwise known as a slave trader. [1] Thanks to a new database, Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade, I found that Samuel's role as a slaver was much more extensive than I had originally believed. His acts helped reinforce what Isabel Wilkerson describes as a racial caste system that uses rigid, arbitrary boundaries to keep groupings of people apart. [2] Such a system reinforces a social order supported by culture and passes through the generations, with the signal of one's rank in the hierarchical system as determined by race, with terms like "black" and "white" applied to people's appearance. However, Wilkerson argues that caste is rigid and fixed, while race is superficial and subject to change to meet the needs of the dominant caste within the United States. Ultimately, inherited physical characteristics are used to differentiate "inner abilities and group value" and maintain and manage the caste system within the United States. In the case of Samuel, he was part of this system, reinforcing it with his actions time and time again, like some of my other ancestors. [3] However, as I noted in the past, that he was not a slaveowner. This article aims to pull away the false narrative used to cover up the history of enslavement and how offensive the institution of slavery was itself, noting the part Samuel played in this history, recognizing who he is as a person, following the advice of Beth Wylie, a White female genealogist. This article also aims to not make White people comfortable with the past or sugarcoat anything, but challenge existing notions, as suggested by Black genealogist Adrienne Fikes in early June.

Of the 402 ships which sailed from Rhode Island to Africa from 1784 and 1807, 55 of them came from Providence, accounting for 14 percent of the state's slave trade. [4] One of those ships was a sloop named General Greene, registered in Providence. On November 16, 1793, it began sailing from Rhode Island. The ship was owned by Samuel Packard, Cyprian Sterry, Philip Allen, and Zachary Allen. [5] Helmed by a captain named "Ross," the General Greene arrived in Gorée, Senegambia sometime in 1793, with 101 souls loaded onto the ship by force. By the time the ship had reached the Dutch colony of Suriname, sometime in April 1794, only 84 enslaved Black people, who had been trafficked across the Atlantic Ocean, were remaining. This meant that 17%, or 17 people, died during the Middle Passage. In Suriname, enslaved Black people were needed, as were Indigenous people, to make the colony viable, even though enslaved Black people were treated terribly, and many escaped their plantations. [6] The Zachary Allen noted here was undoubtedly the father of the textile manufacturer born in 1795, who was born in 1739. He has been described as a "successful merchant" who amassed a great quantity of capital. It is not known who the "Philip Allen" was and whether the said person was related to the manufacturer born in 1785.

On July 12, 1794, the General Greene returned to its home port somewhere in Rhode Island. The owners had been paid, the ship was not captured, and the enslaved Black people disembarked. In this trip and for all slave ships, the captain was completely in charge, with the duty to "navigate an efficient course, maintain authority over the crew, fill the vessel to capacity with enslaved peoples, and negotiate a high sale price for the enslaved cargo at port markets." [7] Sadly, we do not know the names of the 101 people who were aboard the General Greene in bondage at the beginning of the journey, nor those at the end, we only know the number of those aboard the vessel.

A slave trader of Gorée, engraving of c. 1797, by Jacques Grasset de Saint-Sauveur, via Wikimedia, but in public domain

Gorée is infamous for being the House of Slaves, which was built between 1780 and 1784 by an Afro-French family, the Métis. It has been described as having "one of the slave warehouses through which Africans passed on their way to the Americas," symbolic no matter how many Africans passed through, especially when it comes to its "door of no return." In the case of Senegambia (present-day Senegal, The Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau, portions of Mauritania, Mali, and Guinea), in 1794, it was partitioned between the French and British. This journey may also be the one the Philadelphia Inquirer referred to in September 1794 when it talked about a Captain Samuel Packard traveling from Barbados, which was then part of the British West Indies. [8] As for Cyprian, he was one of the biggest slave traders in Providence, he "financed at least 18 voyages that transported more than 1,500 enslaved persons to the southern United States and the Caribbean during the 1790s."

Later that year, on November 28, 1794, the GeneralGreene departed once more from Rhode Island, this time with John Stanton as the captain. [9] It would go on a 196 day voyage. The ship reached Iles de Los sometime in 1795, with 99 souls forced aboard. When it reached Savannah, Georgia in May of that year, only 88 remained, meaning 11% had died when trafficked across the Atlantic. The General Greene returned back to Rhode Island sometime after June of the same year. Iles de Los is a set of Islands off Conakry, Guinea. At the time, there was a trading post employing workers who repaired ships, and pilots for rivers, on the island. It would be controlled by the British beginning in 1818 and ending in 1904, later to be part of French Guinea from 1904 to 1958. Those on the islands were the Baga people and spoke the Baga language, specifically a Kaloum or Kalum dialect. That same year as the General Greene left the state, the African Union Society of African descendants in Rhode Island was organized in Providence to serve the needs of Black people in the state itself. [10] In Georgia, slavers from Rhode Island, especially in the early 1790s, dominated the slave trade to the state. Samuel and Cyprian were integral to this trade, with the latter described as the "wealthiest ship owner and most active slave trader" in the state. Again, the names of those on the ship were not listed, so we only know the number of those on the ship.

Sometime in 1795, James Earl, a Massachusetts-born artist, released his unsigned 35 x 29 oil painting, on canvas, of Samuel, then 45 years old. RISD described this painting as signaling his "social and professional role in the new republic," as he sits in a Windsor Chair, noting his waistcoat indicates he is "a man of wealth," with the background referring to his "interests in maritime trade." The museum also calls him a "merchant and talented mariner," who owned 39 vessels that sailed from Providence itself. Of course, his role in the slave trade is never mentioned. This is not a surprise, as the 1942 profile of Samuel in the Rhode Island History notes the same. [11] Furthermore, the absence of the slave trade from Earl's painting is not unique. As Edna Gabler points out, Black people in paintings by Charles Wilson Peale, John Trumbull, and others, "occupy subordinate positions, are rarely identified by name, and are most often used as props, background accessories, or foils," or, in this case, not mentioned at all.

The following year, on October 24, 1795, the Ann, a ship registered in Providence, and owned by Samuel and Cyprian, departed from Rhode Island. [12] Unlike the other journeys, Samuel was the captain. The ship would land somewhere on the African continent, with 133 people forced aboard. 70% of these African captives were men, about 26% were boys, and around 4% were women. Almost 26% of those aboard were children. 13 of these souls, 10% to be exact, would die during the Middle Passage. When the ship arrived at Spanish-controlled city of Havana, in Cuba, sometime in August 1796, only 120 remained, and all those in bondage disembarked there, with Samuel and the ship returning to Rhode Island. At the time, Havana was one of "the largest slave markets in the world," with over 600,000 Africans taken from West Africa and shipped to Cuba over three centuries. The Ann would later be sold in Havana, seemingly in September 1796. [13] Like with the other ships noted in this article, those in bondage aboard the Ann are not named, a clear form of dehumanization.

An enslaved Afro-Cuban in the 19th century, via Wikimedia Commons

At the time, landowners were beginning to win concessions that would change how land would be owned in Cuba, a process that would continue until 1820. [14] Values of land were rising and Cuban planters were consolidating their power on the island, importing machines from other European colonies, like those in the British West Indies, to strengthen the sugar industry. When Samuel landed in Cuba, he would have seen the beginning of changes in Cuban society, with population numbers beginning to rise, as did profits and agricultural production, with new position for the class of Cuban Creoles. The number of enslaved Black people on the island increased as demand for more workers continued to grow, especially after the import of White workers wasn't successful. An average of 1,143 enslaved Black folks in chains were brought into Cuba each year, between 1763 and 1789. The plantations in the British West Indies, including Barbados, the Leeward Islands, Jamaica, Ceded Islands, Trinidad, and British Guiana, were very profitable, with the average rate of profit being 6.1% between 1792 and 1798, based on the plantations studied. [15] Even so, the end of a sugar boom in the 1790s led politicians and planters to demand that the slave trade be ended once and for all.

On January 9, 1796, the James, a schooner registered in Providence, owned by Samuel and Cyprien, with Albert Fuller as the captain, departed from Rhode Island. [16] It went on a 216-day voyage. Once in Africa, 119 souls were forced aboard the ship in bondage. By the time it arrived in Savannah, Georgia, in mid-August 1796, only 98 enslaved Black people were remaining. As a result, 17.5%, or 21 people, had died along the way. The ship returned to Rhode Island by late October 1796. The ship later had Nathan Sterry as its captain when registered in January 1797, with Samuel as its owner. Sterry would also be the captain of a ship, the Mary, upon which three enslaved Black people attempted a mutiny to escape their conditions by taking control of the ship, even though this was, unfortunately, not successful. In this last illegal slave trading expedition which Samuel was involved in, those in chains, aboard the James, were again only listed as a number, but no names were provided.

Painting of Moses Brown via NPS

On March 11, 1797, the Providence Abolition Society petitioned then-Attorney General Charles Lee, charging that the Ann, a ship of Cyprian and Samuel, had sailed under Samuel's command to travel to the African coast for enslaved people, even though this violated Rhode Island law. [17] A law had been passed in 1774 which made it illegal for citizens of the state to bring enslaved people into the state unless they had a bond to "bring them out again within one year" and those people brought to the state in defiance of the law would be "set free." However, the law caused slavers to sell captives in other ports while bringing their capital back to Rhode Island with them. The later was followed in later years, in 1787, by a measure which "banned participation by Rhode Islanders in the African slave trade." [18]

Some argued that the state's involvement in the slave trade was "part of a scramble by merchants to find something to trade and to market"with those involved earning a sizable profit. Following the enactment of the law in Rhode Island, similar laws passed in Connecticut and Massachusetts after being pressured by Quaker merchant merchant Moses Brown and Samuel Hopkins, a minister. The critical factor, according to I. Eliot Wentworth of University of Massachusetts Amherst's Special Collections & University Archives, of these laws was enforcing them, and when that did not happen, it lead to the creation of the Providence Society for Abolishing the Slave Trade. [19] It was mostly comprised of Quakers and had a membership of about 180 members. The society would face resistance from those invested in the trade, but still "played a valued role in supporting individuals of African descent in defending their rights in court." It won a judgement against Caleb Gardner, a merchant, in 1791, for "carrying out a slaving voyage in his brigantine Hope."

Cyprian, who owned half of the ships involved in the illegal slave trade, left it behind in order to avoid a crippling fine, signing a pledge to leave the slave trade forever, as did Samuel, from what I have read. [20] These efforts, like those of the Providence Abolition Society, were important since legislation against slave-trading in Rhode Island was hard to enforce, as noted earlier. For instance, a merchant and influential slaveowner named John Brown, a person who was instrumental in founding Brown University, tried in 1796 for violating the Slave Trade Act of 1794, prohibiting ships in American ports from bringing in enslaved people from any foreign country. At first he was convicted and his ship, the Hope, was confiscated for violation of federal law. However, as the case went through the legal system, he was ultimately acquitted, in a jury trial, "emerging with an acquittal and a judgment for costs against the Providence Abolition Society." [21] He even cited the arrangement the society made with Cyprian as part of a plea to stop prosecution against him.

As it turned out, the judge who presided over the case (Benjamin Bourn) and the federal prosecutor (Ray Greene) were allies of Brown, and the trial itself had a "devastating effect on the Providence Abolition Society, which went into a rapid decline." This was because, while by 1793, the Providence Society's activity had shifted to pushing for federal legislation, it remained dormant from February 1793 to November 1821. The Society was revived by David Howell and its name changed to the Providence Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, continuing to meet until 1827. John later beat another prosecution in 1798, and in 1799, Samuel Bosworth, Surveyor of the Port of Bristol, was kidnapped by eight men dressed by Indigenous people, intimidating officials and putting a "halt to local enforcement of the Slave Trade Act" within Rhode Island.

Via RISD, also painted by James Earl, and in the public domain

Samuel went onto become a wealthy shipowner and merchant who lived in a three-story-high lavish mansion in Providence with his wife Abigail Congdon. [22] He had married Abigail on December 13, 1789 at Saint Paul's Church in Rhode Island, with a Reverend William Smith as the minister. In 1798, Abigail inherited a portion of the Congdon homestead farm on Boston Neck. Samuel and Abigail had a number a children in later years, clearly living in Providence in 1800, just as he had in 1790. Their children included Abigail in 1802, Samuel in 1804, and Susan in 1806. By 1804, Samuel would work for the Providence Insurance Company, which ensured products like sugar, lived at Westminster Street in Providence (a property he bought in 1797). [23]

The Providence Insurance Company was founded on the initiative "of the Browns," including John, the arrogant slaver, in 1799. Other prominent shopping merchants, like Thomas Poynton Ives, John Innes Clarke, and Moses Lippitt, were on its board of directors. Samuel would be a member of the Providence Marine Society (PMS) and part of the Providence Marine Corps of Artillery after March 1803. [26] The latter group, founded in 1801 by PMS members, was a "private mutual aid society for sea captains," and while it later became part of the Rhode Island militia, the group itself "never served in active combat." The PMS, on the other hand, was a "mutual aid society for sea captains" founded in 1798.

Samuel also, reportedly, remembered George Washington fondly. This was not a surprise. In 1788, Olney Winsor, son of Samuel Windsor, a pastor of the Baptist Church of Providence, traveled to Alexandria on a sloop of which Samuel was the captain: the Susan. Both landed in Alexandria, went to a plantation at Col. Mason's Neck, seeing the control of slavemasters over those they enslaved firsthand, and met with George Washington himself.

By 1798, Cyprian was still living in Providence, owning a house, with a tenant: Brown & Ives, said to be a leader "in American commerce and industry for many years," and part of the Brown family which financed Brown University. [24] The company had been formed in a partnership between Nicholas Brown and Thomas Poynton Ives in 1791. The same year, Samuel is reported as having to have a summer house, house and barn, and perhaps another barn elsewhere in the city.

This wealth would not be possible without his involvement in the illegal slave trade which trafficked human beings from Africa back to the Americas in bondage. Let us be clear. Samuel, like Cyprian, might be called a human trafficker in today's language, if what he did happened today, although the comparison of present-day human trafficking and the transatlantic slave trade is not exact due to the differences between these oppressive systems of exploitation. [25] When they were alive, however, Samuel and Cyprian would likely be called slavers or slave traders. We don't know if Abigail had any role or say in Samuel's involvement in the trade, as we have no written records from her that I am aware of at this time. Even so, she still benefited from it, as she lived a life of luxury with Samuel until his death in 1820.

Samuel would also reportedly own land in Cranston, Rhode Island and in Illinois, along with a home in North Kingston, while building a house on the land his wife inherited on the death of her father, John Congdon. [27] Items from his houses are currently in RISD. John's grandfather, Benjamin, was reputed to be a huge slaveowner, while John, who had ten children with his wife, Abigail Rose. He received a tract of land of unknown acreage in Boston Neck, on his father's death, and then in October 1, 1803, Thomas R. Congdon sold one hundred and fifty acres of the farm to Samuel Packard, later known as the "Packard Farm," later reaching 500 acres. John's father, according to a 1765 listing, had seven enslaved people, one man (Coff), two young boys (Roshad and Tom), one woman (Tent), and three others (Cato, Fortune, and Jimie), working for him, which he manumitted at the time. [28]

In 1811, Samuel was aboard a ship when it French privateers raided the vessel, and how he tried to take back the ship, but was captured. [29] He would be at sea for eight days, then in a French prison for another eight days. They remained in France for another three months until they were allowed to go home. 17 years earlier, on February 4, 1794, France had abolished slavery, declaring that "all men irrespective of color living in the colonies are French citizens" but it was not reinforced, and Napoleon re-instituted it on July 16, 1802. He still remained in Providence, as he had in years prior, specifically in the city's West District. [30]

Screenshot of the cemetery where Samuel and Abigail are buried with a close-up of the cemetery taken from Google Earth

He died in July 1820, [31] while Abigail died in May 1854. Before her death, she established the Providence Female Charitable Society, which aided "indigent women and children." Both Samuel and Abigail are buried at Historic New England’s Casey Farm. While no wills or probates are available from them, both were of a higher class than others in Rhode Island and more broadly in New England. For Samuel, land ownership remained an important marker of civic identity and a measure of independence, as it was for other Americans, as historian Nancy Isenberg points out. This was based on the idea that people were not free unless they had "the economic wherewithal" to control their destiny, which comes from land ownership, deriving from an old English idea that the "quality of the soil determines the quality of the people."

Coming back to Samuel, his wealth derived, in part, as noted earlier, from trafficking enslaved Black people who were taken from their homelands by force. What he did was illegal, since the passage of a Rhode Island law in 1787 prohibiting it, and the Slave Trade Act of 1794, the latter with possible seizure of ships and a $2,000 fine, a law amended many times over the years until the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves passed in 1807. Even so, he still engaged in the trade despite the illegality, meaning, if he had been charged for his crimes, and convicted, he would have paid a total of $2,400, in, let's say, 1797. [32] This would likely have been a drop in the bucket for him. If assessed today, he would be paying $47,900.00, in terms of real price/real wealth, one of the most accurate measures, tied to CPI, according to Measuring Worth. In any case, what Samuel did went against "justice, integrity, and uprightness among people," in the words of the Quakers, who petitioned the Rhode Island legislature to abolish the slave trade in June 1787, participating in what they called an "unrighteous and inhuman trade to Africa for Slaves," complete with "cruel bondage."

Hopefully this article is a step in reworking and reframing narratives, as Adrienne Fikes pointed in June of this year. It is part of, what she talks about, in understanding who you are, who are in relation to others, who you come from, who your ancestors are, while looking at harm of past and its impact today. She also points out the value of sharing what you find with descendants of future generations, as does Donya Williams and Brian Sheffey of Genealogy Adventures (those who interviewed Fikes), noting the importance of think of microaggressions and pain involved in Black genealogy. Fikes also argues, rightly, that understanding structural racism, and noting the evolution of slavery, not seeing it in past tense. Furthermore, she says recognizing the humanity of people is important as is the current reality of dignity and humanity stolen from Black people, as is generational wealth. With this all being said, I look forward to hearing from you all as I continue to research my enslaved ancestors, as part of actively doing something to dismantle a system which privileges White people, uncovering more stories of my ancestors, even if it is difficult and disturbing at times to confront. [33]

Note: This was originally posted on Aug. 25, 2021 on the main Packed with Packards WordPress blog (it can also be found on the Wayback Machine here). My research is still ongoing, so some conclusions in this piece may change in the future.

2 notes · View notes