#collot d’herbois

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

The Committee of Public Safety being a totally healthy work environment with no issues whatsoever compilation

First, some statistics:

Leaving in the middle of a session due to fighting: Collot (1 time), Robespierre (3 times), Saint-Just (4 times), Lindet (1 time)

Starting to cry during a session: Carnot (1 time), Robespierre (1 time)

Threatening your co-workers: Robespierre (2 times), Saint-Just (2 times, one of them a death threat), Couthon (1 time)

Calling your co-workers traitors/scroundrels/ counter-revolutionaries/aristocrats/conspirators/foreign agents: Billaud (1 time), Saint-Just (3 times), Robespierre (5 times), Collot (2 times), Barère (1 time)

Accusing your co-workers of aspiring towards dictatorship: Carnot, Billaud, Barère, Collot, Lindet (1 time)

Accusing your co-workers of wishing to destroy patriots: Robespierre, Collot (1 time)

Using physical violence against your co-workers: Collot (2 times?)

Defending your co-worker against another co-worker in a way that doesn’t at all make it seem like you’re into him: Saint-Just (3 times) Barère (1 time)

Saint-Just had such indifference that, about this time (return from Fleurus), he came one evening to propose to the committee a strange means of promptly ending the struggle of the revolution against the suspected and imprisoned nobles. These were his words: ”For a thousand years the nobility have been oppressing the French nation with exactions and feudal vexations of every kind, feudalism and nobihty exist no longer, if you want to repair all the frontier roads for the passage of the artillery, convoys, and transports of our army, order the imprisoned nobles to go to work daily and mend the highways.” […] When Saint-Just had finished there was a movement of silent indignation amongst us all, succeeded by a unanimous demand for the order of the day. I thought I ought to stipulate for the national character by saying to Samt-Just and the committee that we should be opposed to such a kind of punishment for prisoners even if the law pronounced it, that the nobility could be abolished by wise laws, but that the nobles always preserved in the mass of the people a rank, a distinction due to education, which prevented us from acting at Paris as Manus did at Rome. ”Ah,” exclaimed Samt-Just, “Marius was more politic and a greater statesman than you will ever be. I wished to try the strength, the temperament, and the opinion of the Committee of Pubhc Safety. You are not fit to combat nobility, since you cannot destroy it, it will devour the Revolution and the revolutionists. I retire from the committee.” He quickly withdrew, and set out for the army, until the moment when he thought himself capable of executing vaster projects with Robespierre, Couthon, and Lebas, his associates. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 139-140.

It is the inherent vice of bad laws, and, above all, of penal laws devoid of motive, which attack a great number of innocent people, to nullify themselves. Saint-Just did not understand that. He attacked me, and accused me of having put under requisition the relatives of several emigrants whilst the law punished them in their property. The committee appeared struck by this accusation, and asked him to explain himself and name some of the relations. He named several, but they were all unknown to us. He afterwards named Mademoiselle d’Avisard, of Toulouse, whose father was abroad. Here I replied that the fate of this innocent girl, who was but sixteen years of age, and obliged by the terrible laws against emigrants to subsist at Paris by manual labour, for she was then engaged in making gaiters for our soldiers, was in the highest degree worthy of compassion and interest. […] The Committee of Public Safety thought this explanation sufficient. It saw that it was only a wicked recrimination by Saint-Just, supported by the presence of Robespierre. Memoirs Of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 147-148.

Robespierre murmured a lot about the forms that we had established in Lyon for the execution of decrees: he constantly repeated that there was no reason to judge the guilty when they are outlawed. He exclaimed that we had let the families of the condemned go free; and when the commission sent the Convention and the committee the list of its judgments, he was not in control of his anger as he cast his eyes on the column where the names of the citizens who had been acquitted were written. Unable to change anything in the forms of judgment, regulated according to the decrees and approved by the committee, he imagined another system; he questioned whether the patriots of Commune-Affranchie were not vexed and under oppression. They were, he said, because the property of the condemned being specially intended, by article IV of the decree of July 12, to become their patrimony, we had greatly reduced their claims, not only by not judging only a quarter of the number of conspirators identified by Dubois-Crancé on 23 Vendémiare, or designated by previous decrees, but also by establishing a commission which appeared willing to acquit two thirds, as it happened. Through these declamations Robespierre wanted to entertain the patriots of whom he spoke, with the most violent ideas, to throw into their minds a framework of extraordinary measures, and to put them in opposition with the representatives of the people and their closest cooperators: he made them understand that they could count on him, he emboldened them to form all kinds of obstacles, to only follow his indications which he presented as being the intentions of the Committee of Public Safety.   Défense de J-M. Collot, répresentant du peuple. Éclaircissemens nécessaires sur ce qui s’est passé à Lyon (alors Commune-Affranchie), l’année dernière; pour faire suite aux rapports des Répresentants du peuple, envoyés vers cette commune, avant, pendant et après le siège (1794)

Billaud Varennes: […] The first time I denounced Danton to the committee, Robespierre rose like a madman and declared that he saw my intentions, that I wanted to lose the best patriots. Billaud-Varennes accuses Robespierre during the session of 9 Thermidor

Why should I not say that [the dantonist purge] was a meditated assassination, prepared for a long time, when two days after this session where the crime was taking place (March 30 1794), the representative Vadier told me that Saint-Just, through his stubbornness, had almost caused the downfall of the members of the two committees, because he had wanted the accused be present when he read the report at the National Convention; and such was his obstinacy that, seeing our formal opposition, he threw his hat into the fire in rage, and left us there. Robespierre was also of this opinion; he believed that by having these deputies arrested beforehand, this approach would sooner or later be reprehensible; but, as fear was an irresistible argument with him, I used this weapon to fight him: You can take the chance of being guillotined, if that is what you want; For my part, I want to avoid this danger by having them arrested immediately, because we must not have any illusions about the course we must take; everything is reduced to these bits: If we do not have them guillotined, we will be that ourselves.  À Maximilien Robespierre aux enfers (1794) by Taschereau de Fargues and Paul-Auguste-Jacques.

In the beginning of floréal (somewhere between April 20 and 30) during an evening session (at the Committee of Public Safety), a brusque fight erupted between Saint-Just and Carnot, on the subject of the administration of portable weapons, of which it wasn’t Carnot, but Prieur de la Côte-d’Or, who was in charge. Saint-Just put big interest in the brother-in-law of Sijas, Luxembourg workshop accounting officer, that one thought had been oppressed and threatened with arbitrary arrest, because he had experienced some difficulties for the purpose of his service with the weapon administration. In this quarrel caused unexpectedly by Saint-Just, one saw clearly his goal, which was to attack the members of the committee who occupied themselves with arms, and to lose their cooperators. He also tried to include our colleague Prieur in the inculpation, by accusing him of wanting to lose and imprison this agent. But Prieur denied these malicious claims so well, that Saint-Just didn’t dare to insist on it more. Instead, he turned again towards Carnot, whom he attacked with cruelty; several members of the Committee of General Security assisted. Niou was present for this scandalous scene: dismayed, he retired and feared to accept a pouder mission, a mission that could become, he said, a subject of accusation, since the patriots were busy destroying themselves in this way. We undoubtedly complained about this indecent attack, but was it necessary, at a time when there was not a grain of powder manufactured in Paris, to proclaim a division within the Committee of Public Safety, rather than to make known this fatal secret? In the midst of the most vague indictments and the most atrocious expressions uttered by Saint-Just, Carnot was obliged to repel them by treating him and his friends as aspiring to dictatorship and successively attacking all patriots to remain alone and gain supreme power with his supporters. It was then that Saint-Just showed an excessive fury; he cried out that the Republic was lost if the men in charge of defending it were treated like dictators; that yesterday he saw the project to attack him but that he defended himself.

”It’s you,” he added, ”who is allied with the enemies of the patriots. And understand that I only need a few lines to write for an act of accusation and have you guillotined in two days.”   ”I invite you, said Carnot with the firmness that only appartient to virtue: I provoke all your severity against me, I do not fear you, you are ridiculous dictators.” The other members of the Committee insisted in vain several times to extinguish this ferment of disorder in the committee, to remind Saint-Just of the fairer ideas of his colleague and of more decency in the committee; they wanted to call people back to public affairs, but everything was useless: Saint-Just went out as if enraged, flying into a rage and threatening his colleagues. Saint-Just probably had nothing more urgent than to go and warn Robespierre the next day of the scene that had just happened, because we saw them return together the next day to the committee, around one o'clock: barely had they entered when Saint-Just, taking Robespierre by the hand, addressed Carnot saying:

”Well, here you have my friends, here are the ones you attacked yesterday!”

Robespierre tried to speak of the respective wrongs with a very hypocritical tone: Saint-Just wanted to speak again and excite his colleagues to take his side. The coldness which reigned in this session, disheartened them, and they left the committee very early and in a good mood. It was at this time that the division became pronounced in a very noticeable manner, and soon after we saw it claimed in the English papers that the Committee of Public Safety was divided. For some time now we had been distrusting each other, we were observing each other, we were no longer deliberating with them with this abandonment of trust. Until then Robespierre had done little; he constantly brought us his concerns, his suspicions, his shady expressions and his political bile; he only concerned himself with personal measures; he only drafted arrest warrants, he only dealt with factions, newspapers, the revolutionary tribunal. Nothing about the Government, nothing about the war, never having either views to propose or a report to make, he spent his time destroying our courage, despairing of the salvation of the country and speaking of its slanderers and its assassins; his favorite expressions were, everything is lost, there are no more resources. I no longer see anyone to save it, he always cried. When news of victory were brought by a courier, he spoke of upcoming betrayals, he tarnished our joy or attacked the representatives of the people near the victorious army. The more triumphant the Northern army was, the more strongly he denounced Richard and Choudieu; when the troops besieged Ypres, a stronghold and the key to West Flanders, a capture which, according to the decrees of the committee, was to open and ensure the campaign; Robespierre shouted against the representatives of the People near this army and had complaints written that the troops had not taken Ostend sooner. He seemed to us to be pursued by victories as well as by furies, and he often reproached the committee's rapporteur for the length and exaltation of his reports on the triumphs of the armies. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale (Barère, Collot, Billaud, Vadier), aux imputations renouvellées contre eux, par Laurent Lecointre et declarées calomnieuses par décret du 13 fructidor dernier; à la Convention Nationale (1795), page 103-105.

Robespierre, supported by the Jacobins, was the most influential member of the Committees without being the most wicked. His supporters were, however, in the minority; the plan to adjourn the sessions of the Convention had not obtained theor approval. One thought it necessary to oppose Robespierre with the masculine structure of Collot d’Herbois. A quarrel caused by the proposal of a proscription list to which Robespierre was precisely opposed (it involved the arrest of 14 deputies and citizens); this list, put up for discussion by the majority, passed to each member who added names to it, when it reached Robespierre, it had 32 deputies on it. Robespierre said: “I see five or six deputies unworthy of the character with which they are invested: it will be easy to induce them to resign: but I will lend neither my vote nor my signature to the revenge that you want to exercise.” Two friends of Robespierre were of his opinion: heads became heated, quarrels ensued: Robespierre was reminded of the fact he had voted against the Danton faction. The three opponents were treated as moderates. Robespierre, getting up angrily, said to them: “You are killing the Republic, you are the faithful agents of the foreigner who fears the system of moderation that we should adopt.” The session became so stormy that Collot used acts of violence against Robespierre. He threw himself at him and seized him by the flanks. He was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends rescued him. Robespierre then declared that he was leaving the committee, that he could not honorably sit with executioners, that he would report this to the Convention. One saw the danger of publicizing this scene, blamed Collot's patriotic anger, and begged Robespierre, after having torn up the disastrous list, not to give the enemies of the Republic new means of attacking it. Robespierre seemed to calm down, but when Collot approached him to embrace him he refused and despite being urged not to he left.  Mémoires de Barras, membre du Directoire (1895) page 349-350. In a footnote, there is to read: This argument between Robespierre and Collot is recounted in more detail in another autobiographic note by Barras: Robespierre having opposed a new measure of proscription, saying: “You are decimating the National Convention, you are arresting citizens whose republican energy you fear,” the boor Collot d'Herbois threw himself at him and, having seized him by the flanks, he was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends freed him. This scene was followed by explanations. Robespierre observed that he could no longer sit with executioners, that he was withdrawing and that he would report to the Convention. The Committee which predicted his fall then opposed Robespierre's exit. The proscription list was torn up in his presence. The hypocrite Carnot and the honeyed Couthon told him that Collot's angry outburst was disavowed by the Committee, that the publicity of what had just happened would ruin the Government Committees and the Republic. He was implored to make the sacrifice of all resentment, and that this proof of patriotism was expected of him. Collot furiously addressed the two mediators, complained about the weakness of his colleagues and left the session. Robespierre, very affected, alternately observed his adversaries. He said to them as he left: “You would have made me look crazy if the abortive plan to throw me through the window had taken place. I see here beings more atrocious than the one who tried to execute that plan. He left ashamed of having accepted this assassination.” Robespierre withdrew and did not appear again for two months at the Committee.

At a time when the Convention was already in a high state of alarm [Robespierre] had circulated a list of five or six deputies. It was rumored that Robespierre intended to have them arrested as a little treat to himself, alleging their immortality as the motive of this proposed act of severity. Robespierre, informed of what was being imputed to him, asserted that such an idea was foreign to him, and, desirous of hurling it back at its authors, he maintained that it had originated with the majority of the committee, which, he alleged, had pushed its cruelty so far as to seek to include 32 deputies in its latest proscription-list. In vain did those who spoke in defence of Robespierre’s innocence of the idea and his humanity protest that it was he who had opposed this more than rigorous measure, that he had torn up the list with his own hands, and apostrophizing the Committee, had said: ”You are seeking to still further decimate the Convention; I will not give my support to such action.” Robespierre had indeed spoken these words just as, making an attempt to leave the committee, he had opened the door with the intention of being heard by the deputies and a large number of citizens who, attracted by the noise of a quarrel in the bosom of the committee, were waiting in the antechamber for the purpose of gratifying their curiosity thus aroused. Collot d’Herbois, furious at such hypocrisy, had sprung after Robespierre, seized him by his coat, and, dragging him towards him in order to bring him back into the room, exclaimed in his resounding voice, which, the door remaining ajar, was heard by all, both the committee and the people outside: ”Robespierre is an infamous scroundrel, a hypocrite; he seeks to impute us that of which he alone is capable. We love all our colleagues; we carry all patriots in our hearts. There stands the man who seeks to butcher them one and all!” Thus vociferating, Collot d’Herbois still remained his hold on Robespierre’s coat-collar. As I had at that very moment left the Convention on my way to the committee, I became a chance spectator of this fearful scene, whose violence was still not the greatest crime in my eyes. Behind it stood revealed the plot of premeditated vengeance, far worse than a mere outburst of anger. I was among those who compelled Collot d’Herbois to release his hold on Robespierre, who thereupon declared that he could no longer sit with his enemies, styling them a party of septemvirs, whom he would unmask and fight in the body of the Convention. He then took his departure, in spite of the entreaties of the entreaties of the committee, which, having been unable to conquer, sought to retain him in its midst. ”Let him go his way,” I said to those surrounding him. All my interest in him lay in the fact that I did not wish to see him strangled on the spot by a stronger man, and one perhaps as wicked as himself. I followed him for a short distance in order to see him safely home; he was trembling as he walked alone. Memoirs of Barras, Member of the Directorate (1895), volume 1, page 196-198. A variation of the anecdote found in the French memoirs?

Lindet has recounted that Collot d'Herbois had thrown himself on Robespierre and that he, helped by Carnot and Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, had to separate them. Councilor Carnot affirms that one day his brother threw a writing case at Robespierre’s head. Le Grand Carnot (1952) by Marcel Reinhard, volume 2, page 145. Reinhard cites ”family archives” as the source for this anecdote. Thank you for sharing @aedesluminis !

On 19 Prairial (June 7 1794), I was in the council chamber with Dumas and several jurors. I heard the president speak of a new law which was being prepared and which was to reduce the number of jurors to seven and nine per sitting. That evening I went to the Committee of Public Safety. There I found Robespierre, Billaud, Collot, Barère and Carnot. I told them that the Tribunal having hitherto enjoyed public confidence, this reduction, if it took place, would infallibly cause it to lose it. Robespierre, who was standing in front of the fireplace, answered me with sudden rage, and ended by saying that only aristocrats could talk like that. None of the other members present said a word. So I withdrew.  Réponse d'Antoine-Quentin Fouquier, ex-accusateur-public près le Tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris (1795) page 52-53.

The day after the one on which the [law of 22 prairial] was issued, (June 11 1794) […] there was such a stormy scene at the Committee of Public Safety that Robespierre cried out of rage, since that time he only came two times to the Committee of Public Safety, and it was agreed that the Committee of Public Safety would hold its sessions one floor higher so that the people would not witness the storms that were agitating us. Billaud-Varennes at the Convention, August 30 1794. In fact, Robespierre is proven to have continuously signed CPS decrees up until June 30 1794.

At the morning session of 22 floréal [sic, prairial] (June 10 1794), Billaud-Varennes openly accused Robespierre, as soon as he entered the committee, and reproached him and Couthon for alone having brought to the Convention the abominable decree which frightened the patriots. It is contrary, he said, to all the principles and to the constant progress of the committee to present a draft of a decree without first communicating it to the committee. Robespierre replied coldly that, having trusted each other up to this point in the committee, he had thought he could act alone with Couthon. The members of the committee replied that we have never acted in isolation, especially for serious matters, and that this decree was too important to be passed in this way without the will of the committee. ”The day when a member of the committee,” added Billaud, ”allows himself to present a decree to the Convention alone, there is no longer any liberty, but the will of a single person to propose legislation.” ”I see well that I am alone and that no one supports me,” said Robespierre, and immediately he flies into a rage, he declaims violently against the members of the committee who have conspired, he says, against him. His cries were so loud that on the terraces of the Tuileries several citizens gathered, the window was closed and the discussion continued with the same passion. ”I know,” said Robespierre, ”that there exists within the Convention a faction that wants to lose me, and you’re defending Ruamps here.” ”It must be said,” Billaud rebutted, ”that with this decree you wish to guillotine the National Convention.” Robespierre responds with agitation, ”you are all witnesses that I am not saying that I want to have the National Convention guillotined.” He added, “I know you now,” addressing Billaud. ”And I too, know you as a counter-revolutionary,” responded the latter. Robespierre became agitated as he paced around the committee; and then speaking again with more calm, he carried his hypocrisy to the point of shedding tears. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 108-109. This very much sounds like the same session Billaud is describing above, that here got wrongly dated twice.

When Robespierre, dissatisfied with his colleagues, left the Committee – four décades before 9 Thermidor – he exclaimed while leaving: “Save the homeland without me!” ”The homeland is not a man!” R. Lindet would have replied. R. Lindet would also have energetically opposed the proposal of Saint-Just and Le Bas trying to have dictatorship given to Robespierre. He would have replied: “We did not make the Revolution for the benefit of just one person. Tell your master that I oppose this decree,” and he would have left. (Papers of R. Lindet kept in his family). Robert Lindet, député à l'Assemblée législative et à la Convention, membre du Comité de salut public, ministre des finances : notice biographique (1899). Thank you for sharing @saintjustitude !

It was agreed that the reform of the law of 22 Floréal [sic, prairial] was to be proposed in consultation with the Committee of General Security and that the internal divisions would be kept a secret as they were seen as capable of serving the enemies of the Convention and the revolutionary government. Robespierre became more of an enemy of his colleagues, isolated himself from the committee and took refuge with the Jacobins where he prepared to sharpen public opinion against what he called the known conspirators and against the operations of the committee. Only a few days he was seen reappearing at the committee, one evening it was to accuse Richard and Choudieu of the slow and uneven march of the Northern army, and of allowing Ostend to be evacuated during the siege of Ypres. He was told that Choudieu was very ill, that Richard’s conduct had always been good, that they had the confidence of the committee and that the general was carrying out the orders of the committee by securing Ypres. Robespierre affected great concerns about the operations of the armies of the North, he announced to us upcoming betrayals or even double inertia, he proposed to Billaud-Varennes to go to the North, to excite the energy and activity of the operations, but the members of the committee, being few in number and feeling the need to be reunited, opposed this dangerous measure, and Billaud remained. He had done the same thing some time earlier after a big fight (une alteration très-vive) with Collot d'Herbois, who reproached him with the fact he seemed to want to destroy the patriots, in his way of constantly denouncing them. The next day, Robespierre suggested that he go to Commune-Affranchie where royalism was regaining, he said, a frightening consistency. But this tactic of Robespierre was foiled both these two times by the very strong wish of the Committee of General Security which saw itself just as threatened as us by the maneuvers and denunciations of Robespierre. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 109-110. Note that on July 3 1794 we also find a CPS decree signed by Collot, Carnot, Saint-Just, Barère, Billaud and C-A Prieur ordering Couthon to go to the army of the Midi, an order that he never followed through with, indicating Robespierre might not have been the only one to try this tactic…

How many nights have not been fruitfully devoted to preparing everything that could strengthen the brilliant destiny of the Republic? How many battles have not been fought against the despotism of Robespierre? He had come to reject, either out of jealousy or malice, the most obviously salutary ideas. He once wanted to declare me a traitor and conspirator, because I had strongly supported the useful and wise proposal that Lindet made, to require horses and carriages in each section of Paris, in order to provide for the supplies of the armies. Défense particulière de J-M. Collot, représentant du peuple (March 1 1795) 

At several times, we had seen from afar the plan to attack the National Representation, intending to resect it; sometimes Couthon, and more often Robespierre, denounced deputies to the Jacobins. One day, we read letters and information sent to the Committee of General Security: Robespierre demanded immediate arrest for the two deputies denounced in these letters: the arrest of Dubois-Crancé was discussed and rejected: that of Alquier was strongly advocated by Robespierre who accused us of softening against the culprits and thus losing the public sake; but that he would denounce these facts to the Jacobins. An arrest warrent was drafted against this Representative; but by a unanimous wish of the two Committees, without hearing Robespierre, the execution was postponed indefinitely and was never carried out. Robespierre returned to the Committee a few days later to denounce new conspiracies in the Convention, saying that, within a short time, these conspirators who had lined up and frequently dined together would succeed in destroying public liberty, if their maneuvers were allowed to continue unpunished. The committee refused to take any further measures, citing the necessity of not weakening and attacking the Convention, which was the target of all the enemies of the Republic. Robespierre did not lose sight of his project: he only saw conspiracies and plots: he asked that Saint-Just returned from the Army of the North and that one write to him so that he may come and strengthen the committee. Having arrived, Saint-Just asked Robespierre one day the purpose of his return in the presence of the other members of the Committee; Robespierre told him that he was to make a report on the new factions which threatened to destroy the National Convention; Robespierre was the only speaker during this session. He was met by the deepest silence from the Committee, and he left with horrible anger. Soon after, Saint-Just returned to the Army of the North, since called Sambre-et-Mouse. Some time passes; Robespierre calls for Saint-Just to return in vain: finally, he returns, no doubt after his instigations; he returned at the moment when he was most needed by the army and when he was least expected: he returned the day after the battle of Fleurus. From that moment, it was no longer possible to get him to leave, although Gillet, representative of the people to the army, continued to ask for him. Saint-Just awaited in Paris the determination that matters would take. In the morning he took care of the police bureau, and decided on arrests or correspondence to be signed; in the evening, he dealt with the detained persons to be judged, together with the public prosecutor, or made violent motions to the committee; he would often speak twenty times in an evening session, and would only speak out of sentence or out of anger when he was not subjecting himself to an affected and painful silence, or rather he would spy on the committee. Most often, he spoke to us about the conspiracies that were being formed in the prisons, he insinuated ideas on this point to the committee's rapporteur, and above all wanted us to refuse the help requested in the prisons. One day he wanted to reduce it to 15 sousand called us defenders of counter-revolutionaries, because we were arguing for the rights of humanity. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 101-103.

Finally one day during the meeting of the Convention [sic, Committee?], Robespierre asked if one wanted to decide to attack the new factions or to perish by their maneuvers; he attacks and indicts several deputies in turn. An impatient member of the committee, oppressed by this ever-reviving project, stood up and said to him with violent severity: “Robespierre, for a long time you have been trying to lure us with terror into the project of striking our colleagues. You keep complaining about them, attacking them, gathering grievances and denouncing them. This is what the Hébertists and other punished counter-revolutionaries did. There are six of us here who profess the dogma of the integrity of national representation: if you want more, I declare to you, in my own name and in that of my colleagues who work with me and whose feelings I know, that you will only achieve national representation through our bloody corpses. These are the obstacles that we oppose to every ambitious person.” The same member of the committee has since repeated these words to the National Convention while speaking to Robespierre himself on 8 Thermidor. (Billaud) Robespierre felt the force of this unanimous response, bit his brakes, accused us of being defenders of the factions and threatened us with denunciation to the People and to the Convention, he moved away from the committee for some time and never stopped accusing us at the Jacobins, while he was preparing the speech he read on 8 thermidor. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 103

On 10 messidor (June 28) I was at the Committee of Public Safety. There, I witnessed those who one accuses today (Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Collot-d'Herbois, Vadier, Vouland, Amar and David) treat Robespierre like a dictator. Robespierre flew into an incredible fury. The other members of the Committee looked on with contempt. Saint-Just went out with him.  Levasseur at the Convention, August 30 1794. If this scene actually took place, it must have done so one day later, 11 messidor (June 29), considering Saint-Just was still away on a mission on the tenth.

In several evening sittings the two committees united to devise a means of revoking the law of 22 Prairial. After several conferences during the month of Messidor, they called Robespierre and Saint-Just into their midst to force them to revoke this law, which was the result of a combination unknown to all the members of the government. The meeting was very stormy. Vadier and Moise Bayle were the members of the Committee of General Surety who attacked the law and its authors with the greatest force and indignation. As to the Committee of Public Safety, it declared that it had no part in it, and plainly disowned it. All were agreed to repeal it next day. After this decision Robespierre and Saint-Just declared that they would appeal to public opinion, that they saw that a party was formed to assure immunity to the enemies of the people, and thus to destroy the most ardent friends of liberty , but they could warn good citizens against the united manoeuvres of the governing committees. They retired uttering threats against the members of the committees. Saint-Just called Carnot, amongst others, an aristocrat, and threatened to denounce him to the Assembly. This was like a declaration of war between the two committees and the triumvirate. Seeing Carnot, the most indispensable worker in the committee, thus attacked on account of his courageous honesty and great military talent, I rose up against Saint-Just. Carnot seemed astonished at these threats of denunciation — terrible indeed from a man who two months before had denounced and destroyed Danton. On behalf of my attacked colleague, I said to this little dictator: ”I do not fear you, I have always defended our country openly and without personal interest I will answer you in the tribune if you lay the blame on Carnot. You know that I make reports that are favourably heard by the Assembly, I will make one of those reports in favour of Carnot and against you.” From this moment Robespierre and his friends acted with hostility against us, and especially against me. One day they even sent Robespierre the younger to me, whom they had recalled from the Basses Alpes. This lunatic entered the committee under pretext of giving an account of his mission to Nice; but instead of fulfilling this duty, he addressed me in a furious tone: ”You have maltreated my brother. We missed you on the 31st of May, 1793, but we shall not miss you on the 31st of May, 1794.” He left still threatening us. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 167-169.

I obtained from Barère the following fact: During a session of the Committee of Public Safety, Saint-Just and Robespierre reproached Carnot for being an aristocrat (the latter was frightened and shed tears, Barère said) and threatened to denounce him as such at the Convention. Then Barère said: In that case I will make public that you are angry with the man who organized the victory. Testimony of Filippo Buonarroti, cited in Études robespierristes; La corruption parlementaire sous la Terreur (1917) by Albert Mathiez. This sounds very much like the same incident Barère is describing above.

Having come to the Committee of General Security three or four days before 9 Thermidor (July 23), I was told that the two committees of public safety and general security would meet between noon and one o'clock in the place where the first held its sessions, and that I had to go there. Having asked what the reason for this meeting was, I was further told that it was to mutually explain the division which, according to what Robespierre had claimed on different occasions to the Jacobins, existed between the government committees. As I did not have the slightest knowledge of this alleged division, and as I was completely ignorant of what Robespierre had said to the Jacobins, I went to the Committee of Public Safety where I found several of my colleagues who had preceded me, and above all Robespierre, walking with long strides, glasses on his nose and throwing at everyone, from the height of his grandeur, looks which marked the deepest contempt. After a few minutes of silence, Saint-Just spoke and said in his exordium that although the youngest among us, he spoke first since we had often seen young people open opinions which enlightened those who were older; he then spoke on the necessity of organizing a constitution and ended up making a pompous eulogy of Robespierre, calling him the martyr of the liberty of his country and assuring him of all his esteem. This praise having been applauded and confirmed by Le Bas, Robespierre believed that it was time to burst out and first complained in general about his numerous enemies, whom he said were too cowardly to ever allow themselves to persecute him; he then indicted Amar, Vadier, Jagot, Carnot, Collot and Billaud, reproaching them for the fierceness with which they tore each other apart, which, having given rise to explanations, was the cause of Carnot telling him to his face that he did not like him, and Billaud and Collot repulsed his attacks with so much vehemence, energy and noise, that I more than once invited Collot to speak more quietly. Now, in the heat of this explanation, I heard for the first time that Robespierre was also criticized for having intended to put on trial the 72 of our colleagues who were still incarcerated; I also heard him being told that he had complained that one had not yet made use of this infinity of denunciations which were in the Committee of General Security against others of our colleagues, that nothing had been done so as not to provoke new troubles and to maintain concord and peace between us. This storm having passed and Robespierre having seemed to calm down, one agreed on ending the session, and that Saint-Just would make a report on behalf of the two Committees to inform the National Convention that they were not divided. Philippe Rühl in a speech held March 23 1795

Robespierre bitterly reproached us, at the committee, on 5 Thermidor (July 23), for having had the statue of superstition, erected on the Tuileries basin, brought down during the night. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 96.

You (Dubois-Crancé) say that Robespierre being absent the other members of the committee therefore agreed to lose you. It was rather to save you. Twice at the end of Messidor and on 7 Thermidor (July 25 1794) Couthon wanted to have the committee adopt the draft of the act of accusation against you; twice he was rejected. The last time especially, seeing himself rejected by us with a sort of cold and firm indignation, he went so far as to request from the committee the refusal that we made to deliberate on these serious denunciations which he brought against Dubois-Crancé. We opposed him in political principle the integrity of the legislative body and the danger of supporting the liberticidal projects of the aristocrats and tyrants in coalition; in public consideration, his reconciliation with you at the Jacobins, and in principle of justice the lack of legitimate evidence. Couthon left the committee furious, and threatened to denounce or silence our refusal to the people and the Convention. B. Barère à Dubois Crancé: Réponse (1795), page 29

This decisive scene, to unmask the conspirators, happened at half past midnight, from the 8th to the 9th of Thermidor (July 26 to 27). Several members of the two committees were gathered. We worked on the ordinary operations of the committees, but we worked with that sad impatience accompanies a terrible outcome, which all circumstances told us would be imminent. Saint-Just kept a profound silence, observed from time to time the members of the committees, and showed neither concern nor rest. He had just sent to Tuilier, his creature, the first 18 pages of the report he was to make the next day; and he then told us that he could not read the report to the committee, of which he only had the last pages. Collot d'Herbois come over from the Jacobins, where he had just been insulted, threatened, proscribed, so to speak, he seemed very agitated. Collot-d'Herbois had barely entered when his colleagues ask him why people left the Jacobins so late? Saint-Just asks him coldly, ”what's new at the Jacobins?”

”You’re asking me what's new? Are you the one who ignores it? You, who are in league with the main author of all these political quarrels, and who only wants to lead us to civil war: you are a coward and a traitor: it is you who deceives us, with your hypocritical air; you're just a box of apothegms, and you're spying on us in the committee. I have just convinced myself of this by everything I have heard; you are three scoundrels, who believe you are blindly leading us to the loss of our homeland, but liberty will survive your horrible plots.”

Here Elie Lacoste rose in fury and said: “there is a triumvirate of knaves, it is Robespierre, Couthon and Saint-Just, who are plotting against the homeland.”

Barère adds: ”who are you then? Insolent Pygines? Who wants to see the spoils of the homeland split between a cripple, a child and a scoundrel; I wouldn’t give you a barnyard to govern.”

Collot-d’Herbois continues: “I know that perhaps you will have us assassinated this night, perhaps we will be hit, by your plots, tomorrow morning, but we are determined to perish at our posts; and before then, perhaps, we will be able to unmask you. Among us, you are making plans against the committees. You have, I am sure, in your pockets calumnies leveled against us; you are a domestic enemy and a conspirator.” 

Saint-Just was struck by this speech; he turned pale, and he did not know what to answer. He opened one of his pockets, stammering, and placed some papers on the table; no one came to read them.

Collot-d’Herbois continues and says to him: “You are preparing a report; but from the way I know you, you have undoubtedly written our act of accusation? So what hope do you have? What lasting success can you expect from these horrible betrayals? You can, perhaps take our lives, have us murdered, but you will not deceive the virtue of the people. Do you believe that when it sees itself deprived of its defenders, of men who sacrificed themselves for it, it will not tear you to pieces? Do you believe that it will sit tight tomorrow, a quiet spectator of your crimes? No, there will be no unpunished usurpation when it comes to the rights of the people.”

Saint-Just then fell back on his report, and said that he would join the committee the next day and that if it did not approve it, he would not read it. Collot continued to unmask Saint-Just; but as he focused more on depicting the dangers praying on the fatherland than on attacking the perfesy of Saint-Just and his accomplices, he gradually reassured himself of his confusion; he listened with composure, returning to his honeyed and hypocritical tone. Some time later, he told Collot d'Herbois that he could be reproached for having made some remarks against Robespierre in a café, and establishing this assertion as a positive fact, he admitted that he had made it the basis of an indictment against Collot, in the speech he had prepared. Saint-Just, during that night, prolonged his allegations and his remarks so much, that it was quite obvious that he only dragged on in this way, in order to prevent us from taking measures against their conspiracy. Several members of the committees, impatient to so much falsehood, went into the next room and deliberated whether they would have him arrested immediately, but they thought it was wiser to refer it the next day to the National Convention, after having known the intentions of Saint-Just, in the report he was to make. It is even worth noting that when we drew up a picture of the unfortunate circumstances in which public affairs found itself, each of us looked for measures and proposed means; Saint-Just stopped us, acting astonished, as if not being in the confidence of these dangers, and complained that all hearts were closed, that he knew nothing, that he could not conceive this quick way of improvising lightning at every moment, and he conjured us, in the name of the republic, to return to fairer ideas, to wiser measures. This was how the traitor kept us in check, paralyzed all our measures and cooled our zeal. At five o'clock in the morning, Saint-Just fled and the members of the committee sought means to paralyze the armed force of Paris, which the scoundrels had in their hands. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûrété générale… (1795) page 105-107.

[makiitabaki]

Anyone hungry?

[bunniesandbeheadings]

Here’s my newest unbiased poll! It’s totally not populated by people I thought of at the top of my head. Anyway,

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Why do some fans of a French historical figure who died in 1793 hate Napoleon? Napoleon had great respect for him.

I thiiiiink you mean Robespierre? Though he died in '94.

(Or do you mean Marat? He was assassinated in '93... For the sake of the ask, I'm going assume Robespierre.)

If you are talking about Robespierre, well, I couldn't answer that as I am not them and I'm sure each person has their own reasons. I presume it has to do with seeing Napoleon as a figure who undid the Republic, rolled France back to monarchy, and whose actions resulted in the reinstatement of the Bourbons? But again, I can't be certain.

Another thought is that Napoleon is a deeply flawed man. Not that Robespierre wasn't, because of course he was, being that he was human like us all, but their foibles and flaws run in rather different directions so the people drawn to Robespierre are, not always but sometimes, different from those drawn to Napoleon.

Fundamentally, I'm not the person to ask as I find both figures, and the times they lived in, interesting!

--

Napoleon's views on Robespierre were nuanced. Which is natural, considering he lived through the revolution and his political leanings varied during that time.

I answered this previously, but I'll just copy/paste my answer from that old ask (a few minor tweaks made):

Napoleon as a young man admired Robespierre. He was friendly with Robiespierre’s younger brother Augustine and was, for a time, a Jacobin. Napoleon’s views of Robespierre shifted over time. As a young man he saw him as a moderate in the Revolution who was doing his best to end the rampant factionalism that plagued the early French Republic. He believed that Robespierre was the man best suited to controlling the Revolution and preventing its dissolution into extremism or royalist retribution. 

Napoleon as an older man had a slightly different take, although he still judged Robespierre more kindly than others who were big players in the 1790s. The nutshell is that Napoleon felt Robespierre was more moderate than the other revolutionaries at the time, but his fanatic dedication to the revolution and the Republic made him go too far.

I think Napoleon, like many (though certainly not all) who lived through major world-shattering events, developed a nuanced and complicated relationship to the players who he had known in person, or knew a great deal about/was contemporary to. Especially a player who he once admired, and to a certain degree still did. 

Napoleon’s takes on the Revolution are one of my favourite things to read so here, have a few. 

From an account from Napoleon in Exile, or a Voice from St. Helena volume I: 

Heard him express some opinions afterwards relative to a few of the characters who had figured in the revolution.  “Robespierre,” said he “though a blood thirsty monster was not so bad as Collot, d’Herbois, Billaud de Varennes, Hebert, Fouquier, Tinville and many others. Latterly Robespierre wished to be more moderate; and actually some time before his death said that he was tired of executions and suggested moderation. When Hebert accused the queen de contrarier la nature, Robespierre proposed that he should be denounced as having made such an improbable accusation purposely to excite a sympathy amongst the people, that they might rise and rescue her.  From the beginning of the revolution Louis had constantly the life of Charles the First before his eyes. The example of Charles who had come to extremities with the parliament and lost his head prevented Louis on many occasions from making the defence which he ought to have done against the revolutionists. When brought to trial he ought merely to have said that by the laws he could do no wrong and that his person was sacred. The queen ought to have done the same. It would have had no effect in saving their lives but they would have died with more dignity.  Robespierre was of opinion that the king ought to have been dispatched privately. ‘What is the use,’ said Robespierre, ‘of this mockery of forms when you go to the trial prepared to condemn him to death whether he deserves it or not.’  The queen went to the scaffold with some sensations of joy and truly it must have been a relief to her to depart from a life in which she was treated with such execrable barbarity. Had I been four or five years older I have no doubt that I should have been guillotined along with numbers of others.” 

and from Volume II: 

I [Barry O’Meara] asked his [Napoleon’s] opinion about Robespierre.  “Robespierre,” replied Napoleon “was by no means the worst character who figured in the revolution. He opposed trying the queen. He was not an Atheist; on the contrary he had publicly maintained the existence of a Supreme Being in opposition to many of his colleagues. Neither was he of opinion that it was necessary to exterminate all priests and nobles like many others. Marat, for example, maintained that to ensure the liberties of France it was necessary that six hundred thousand heads should fall. Robespierre wanted to proclaim the king hors de la roy and not to go through the ridiculous mockery of trying him. Robespierre was a fanatic, a monster, but he was incorruptible and incapable of robbing or of causing the deaths of others either from personal enmity or a desire of enriching himself.  “He was an enthusiast but one who really believed that he was acting right and died not worth a sous. In some respects Robespierre may be said to have been an honest man. All the crimes committed by Hebert, Chaumett,. Collot d’Herbois and others were imputed to him. Marat, Billaud de Varennes, Fouche, Hebert and several others were infinitely worse than Robespierre.  “It was truly astonishing to see those fanatics, who, bathed up to the elbows in blood, would not for the world have taken a piece of money, or a watch, belonging to the victims they were butchering. There was not an instance in which they had not brought the property of their victims to the Committee of Public Safety. Wading in blood at every step, they believed they were doing right and scrupled to commit the smallest act bordering upon dishonesty. Such was the power of fanaticism, that they conceived they were acting uprightly, at a time when a man’s life was no more regarded by them than that of a fly.  “At the very time that Marat and Robespierre were committing those massacres, if Pitt had offered them two hundred million, they would have refused it with indignation. They even tried and guillotined some of their own number, (such as Fabre d’Eglantine) who were guilty of plundering. Not so Talleyrand, Danton, Barras, Fouche: they were figurantes and would have espoused any side for money.”

---

Quick aside, I forgot about Napoleon's scathing assessment of how Louis and Antoinette comported themselves during the trial.

"It would have had no effect in saving their lives but they would have died with more dignity."

Napoleon "Look, your death is inevitable but at least have some goddamn personal pride and dignity" Bonaparte.

[nesiacha]

In defense for Collot d'Herbois

Collot d'Herbois (1749-1796)

Warning: I do not like Collot d’Herbois at all. In fact, I find the executions in Lyon, especially by cannon, unacceptable��nothing justifies that plus . some sentences do not reflect my true opinions. However, my goal is to defend him as a lawyer would, within the context of the French Revolution. Therefore, it is normal for me to refer to Louis XVI as a tyrant or something else. You can also choose to play the role of jurors or simply state whether you acquit him or not, as you wish. Special dedication to @lanterne, whose intervention convinced me to take up his defense.

In Defense of Collot d’Herbois

Citizens, I have been mandated by the revolutionary tribunal to posthumously defend citizen Collot d’Herbois, accused of all the ills of the revolution and of opportunism. I am therefore very honored to take on this case. This revolutionary, who devoted the best of his efforts to the service of the revolution, has too often been cast in a negative light, which it is now time to dispel.

I will start with the least of the accusations against him, namely that he lacks culture and writes failed plays. One might object that this is of no importance, but I must dismantle every aspect of the bad reputation of this genuine revolutionary, whether in minor or major history. To better portray him as a fanatic atheist, it is said that he attended an Oratorian college, which is false. His plays reflect a great deal of culture.

He had to endure harsh trials since actors were socially looked down upon. The years 1767-1770 mark the beginnings of his career, during which he primarily played secondary roles like many of his peers at the start of their careers, to better learn the craft. He was a good actor, as attested by de Corsenville in the Journal de Paris and by a Mademoiselle Saint Val in 1784. He began creating his own works in 1772, starting with Lucie, ou les Parents imprudents, which critiqued social mores and arranged marriages, and where lovers triumph in the end. This play was contested by less liberal aristocrats. However, despite some criticisms, it also received high praise, such as in the summer of 1772 in L’Année littéraire, which published a laudatory article. This play was performed throughout France and even abroad. He was accused of plagiarism, but like many authors of his time, such accusations are not very credible, especially since he did everything to prove otherwise. While he showed certain limitations as a theater troupe director, he had some successes in Lyon, demonstrating his zeal and honesty, as some critiques noted.

It is true that Collot d’Herbois wrote plays praising the royal family, but at that time, like many French people, he was a royalist while still wanting systemic change. Therefore, we are far from the black legend of a failed playwright or a sycophant of the royal system. His plays played a role in the ideals of our glorious revolution. There is a certain tradition that depicts Collot d’Herbois as having entered politics in August 1789, but there is no documentation to corroborate or refute this information, although this does not diminish his revolutionary merit, which will be demonstrated again.

Although he remained a fervent royalist like many French citizens during this period, his first play, Le Paysan Magistrat, was not a success. Far from attributing this to Collot d’Herbois’s alleged mediocrity, we must see a political reason, as historian Michel Biard notes: "In this period of turmoil, of broken trust between the Nation and part of its army, it seemed unwise to stage a play where soldiers are about to massacre an entire village." Let us not forget that this play was intended to be understood as an allusion to the events of 1789, where the Court is severely criticized.

It is in this spirit that citizen Collot d’Herbois presented La Journée de Louis XII, where the King is depicted as Collot d’Herbois saw him in 1790—a man loved and loving the French, with only his entourage being pernicious.

Contrary to what has been claimed to discredit him, there is little evidence that he was a member of the Society in 1789, an attempt to portray him as an opportunist or to suggest that he was "easily" able to shift from moderation to becoming one of the worst revolutionaries capable of the worst revolutionary excesses—a term often used by counter-revolutionaries to better obscure the reasons for the revolution, especially by royalists after August 10, 1792.

On the other hand, it is true that he quickly joined the Society of Friends of the Constitution, known as the Jacobin Club. In praising Bonnecarrère, a Jacobin who became a plenipotentiary minister, here is one of his speeches that shows a new political entry into law, reported verbatim by the True Father Duchesne: "the honor of the sacred bugger of the tribune [...] has been clouded by the anger of two famous men [...] Collot d'Herbois, who is a secretary who knows how to write, (...), like no one else, has crafted in the minutes a fine pitiful turn of phrase to depict Buonne Carrère's tears that had made everyone feel pity. Here comes Danton, who has the heart of a lion, (...), and who wouldn't cry, (...), even if he saw all the Cordeliers on patrol, he put his voice from the days of great parades around his neck and spewed without hiccup that one must, fuck, have the heart gangrened by the slavery of the old regime to praise a character who only had the figure of a man like him. That damned d'Herbois, who, though a Jacobin, has(...) head that takes like a rifle's primer, has gone up to the tribune, like a kite that the wind fucks to the five hundred devils, and has delivered a blow to Danton's carogan, making him a dragon's helmet mane. The other responded with a five-leafed wallop,(...), that one wouldn't need, (...), a bunch of such blows to make an elephant die of cheek indigestion."

He defends the oppressed soldiers, especially during the session of June 6, 1791, when a military regiment from Burgundy was sentenced to death by a Council of War. Collot d'Herbois attacked the officers and war ministers, demanding clemency for the condemned. In the spring of 1791, he made several reports on the Nancy Garrison affair, suppressed by the infamous Marquis de Bouillé, cousin of the counter-revolutionary and deserter La Fayette. The main crime of these soldiers, as all citizens know, was daring to demand accountability for the regiment's finances, while he did worse and enabled the tyrant's first high treason attempt by helping him try to escape on June 20 and 21, 1791, thanks to good patriots like citizen Jean-Baptiste Drouet. Here is what Collot said in his report in July 1791: "It is more necessary than ever to give soldiers a brilliant proof of justice and protection. They have too often been the victims of their leaders' hatred." Such splendid words demonstrate a great and sincere aptitude for defending the oppressed. And I dare say, this masterpiece of ideals was the Almanach of Father Gérard, a great success among the Jacobins (this piece aimed to be on par with what the New Constitution represented). Collot's play was victorious among 42 works, showcasing his talent.

If Collot still praises the constitutional monarchy, a forgivable weakness that misled many good citizens at the time, this play criticizes the excessive power of the executive of the King, particularly the veto (a prediction that proved true), highlights universal suffrage, and consequently combats the censitaire. The Constitution must align with Rousseau's ideas, oppose ambitious military notions of going beyond borders with words like "warrior virtue does not hold everything; for then the military spirit would become dangerous. There are virtues whose practice is sweeter and no less necessary for the happiness of life and the tranquility of citizens" and criticizes slavery. Following the success of this play, Collot d'Herbois tried to get elected on December 5, 1791, as the deputy prosecutor of the Commune, but he failed, and Danton won. However, this did not stop him from continuing his fight for the oppressed soldiers of Châteauvieux, and the Swiss soldiers were released, which Collot announced on January 1, 1792, a triumph for all except the conservatives. Thus, his political beginnings are marked by some failures but also by his talent and sincerity in serving the Revolution.

Collot d'Herbois will show his lucidity again by opposing Brissot, Roland, and other colleagues' irresponsible war project in 1792 with the known results. He is denounced for this along with colleagues like Marat, Robespierre, Camille Desmoulins, etc., by the Chronicle of Paris. As historian Michel Biard said, "Collot d'Herbois remains relatively discreet on the theme of war before the key date of April 20, having already proclaimed that the priority for patriots was to fight the internal enemy, not foreign powers."

He represents the Library section with Marie-Joseph Chénier, Destournelles, and Baudrais. On July 23, 1792, Collot was part of the committee drafting the address of the Parisians with Tallien and Audouin. This was both a new attack against La Fayette and this time against the tyrant. This will further radicalize during Brunswick's manifesto on July 28. Citizen Collot d'Herbois becomes one of the most politically prominent men. On August 6, he even presides over the assembly of Parisian section commissioners. At the fall of the tyrant, the Parisian people finally recognized his merits. He was elected Parisian deputy to the Convention. Although the decision is collective, he had the honor of calling for the abolition of the monarchy, an obsolete system of tyrants. It was the tyrant's behavior towards the Constitution, his betrayal, and La Fayette's machinations that pushed Collot d'Herbois towards republican virtues, like many other Jacobins, with the Cordeliers having demanded the end of the monarchy since the King's attempted escape. His record is that of a man proposing all measures to alleviate the people's suffering: targeting speculators, advocating for taxes. Far from being an atheist, he believed in a Divine Being, attacking above all fanaticism and the clergy's vices. After all, his plays feature some good, though rare, priests, mostly bad ones. This is also reflected in his political career. It is not religion that citizen Collot d'Herbois targeted but rather those who refused to take an oath to the Convention. When some sworn priests sided with the Girondists during the civil war, he hardened further but never acted as a fervent de-Christianizer. During this period of external and internal war against our glorious revolution, from March to May 1793, he was involved in recruitment to fight counter-revolutionaries in Nièvre and Loiret. In Oise, he was responsible for overseeing supplies and implementing Convention decrees. The problem for mission representatives was sensitivity to local realities, and at times they were left in the dark about Convention orders.

Contrary to what many authors like Hillary Mantel in "A Place of Greater Safety," even nuanced ones like historians Albert Soboul and François Furet have said, Collot d'Herbois did not join the Committee of Public Safety (CPS) to counter Hébertists but because of his importance to the Jacobins and his faithful execution of CPS and Convention decisions, not to mention his effectiveness. Unlike the overly glorified Danton, Collot d'Herbois did not seek to escape his responsibilities, which is why he accepted to sit on the CPS when Danton refused, at a time when our revolution and country were more than ever in danger.

Collot demonstrated a central legislative sense and fought with all factions to unify the CPS. He was an effective office worker who devoted all his efforts to ensuring the Revolution triumphed in this war he did not want, along with other colleagues. Here's what Palmer, who holds him in deep contempt, said about him: "Once in government, these two firebrands (Billaud-Varennes and Collot d'Herbois), who had both failed in their personal affairs before the Revolution, showed themselves surprisingly capable of diligent and regular work. They quickly proved very useful [...] They worked tirelessly [...] even on Sundays, at any hour, more punctual and diligent than any of their colleagues except Carnot and Barère." It is important to note that the hours were infernal, yet he fulfilled his part without ever failing. Thus, we are far from the cliché of the ineffective and mediocre revolutionary.

Nevertheless, most of the black legend surrounding Collot d'Herbois comes from Lyon, renamed Ville-Affranchie. However, let's not forget what happened in Lyon. Our valiant and regretted revolutionary Joseph Chalier, martyr of the Mountain, arrested on May 30, 1793, by the Lyonnais, was killed in atrocious conditions, and the city sent back the Convention's envoys, declaring itself autonomous. The repression attributed to Collot and the Convention rarely mentions what happened on May 30 and July 16, 1793, conveniently forgetting that under the tyrants, it would have been ten times worse. Though having retaken the city, Couthon did not want to follow other Convention orders to better ensure justice and retaliation for this federalist revolt. Collot was sent in his place, likely due to his successful missions in Nièvre, Loiret, and Oise, and his prior knowledge of Lyon.

One of the objectives is to ensure the conversion of the people of Lyon to republicanism and to ensure that they never again reproduce the events with Chalier and the federalist revolt. Firstly, if one must reproach Collot d’Herbois, it should be towards the Convention that voted and the CPS. Just look at Barère's written order concerning the destruction of the city of Lyon: "The city of Lyon will be destroyed: everything inhabited by the rich will be destroyed. Only the house of the poor, the homes of slaughtered and exiled patriots, buildings specifically used for industry, and monuments dedicated to humanity and education will remain." Moreover, here is an anecdote reported by Michel Biard that challenges the argument of Collot d'Herbois's insensitivity. He issued a decree stopping the demolition because the people of Lyon chose women and children to carry out the work. Collot d'Herbois issued a decree establishing a list of workers with a maximum of one-fifth women and no children. From the outset, we notice the reluctance and tricks of the Lyonnais to avoid obeying the Convention’s envoys. Furthermore, their attitudes when they saw the executions were such that Collot d'Herbois recounted: "The military commission has too often employed judging those against whom it found no evidence, and it has released them, moments which should have been a terrible judgment pronounced against the guilty. It has executed several by firing squad. The tribunal is firmer, but its progress is slow; it had achieved little... Even the executions do not have the expected effect. The prolongation of the siege and the daily dangers faced by everyone have inspired a kind of indifference to life, if not outright contempt for death. Yesterday a spectator, returning from an execution, said: it is not too harsh. What could I do to be guillotined? Insult the representatives." That is why he advocated greater severity after weeks, using cannon executions which admittedly led to horrible suffering. This measure provoked panic among the people of Lyon, leading to a massive petition by ten thousand women and another petition near the departmental directorate, although dispersed. The black legend says that Collot d'Herbois was present at the executions, but there is no proof that he was at Brotteaux, not even from Abbé Guillon de Montléon.

Of course, I do not deny that what happened was atrocious, that justice was swift even before Collot d'Herbois and other representatives used the cannon for execution, and that consequently, a good number of innocent Lyonnais died. But I have already mentioned the reluctance of the Lyonnais to obey the Convention’s envoys and what this city was guilty of previously, not to mention the context that the Convention could not afford the luxury of Lyon rising again as soon as the representatives let down their guard, explaining, without excusing, Collot d’Herbois’s attitude which was in no way disapproved by the CPS; otherwise, there would be traces of their disagreements. Furthermore, let us not forget, as I mentioned earlier, that at times the local authorities and therefore the mission envoys were sometimes left in the dark about the mission orders. Besides, Jacobins and Convention members applauded what Collot d'Herbois said about the cannon executions he ratified: "They spread the word that they did not die at the first shot... Well! Jacobins, did Chalier die at the first shot? If the aristocrats had triumphed, do you think the Jacobins would have perished at the first shot? Who are those who have tears to spare for the corpses of the enemies of liberty, when the heart of the nation is torn? A drop of blood shed from the generous veins of a patriot falls back on my heart, but I have no pity for conspirators."

Moreover, although there were de-Christianization celebrations in honor of the martyr Chalier, there was no specific decree against clergy members. Those who were executed were designated as refractory priests. As for the confiscated religious objects to be melted down, it was in the context of requisition. Moreover, he took the trouble in Commune-Affranchie to issue texts to eliminate begging and ease the suffering of the most needy.

Some have claimed that Collot d'Herbois was primarily a Hébertist who would prioritize this group over the CPS. This is false. If he tried for a reconciliation that failed between the Hébertists and him, it is because Ronsin and he were targeted by the same adversaries, and there is no evidence of a privileged link between Hébert and Collot d'Herbois. When this reconciliation failed, he was among those who signed the arrest of the Hébertists and later the Indulgents. Certainly, there were parodies of justice that he accepted, but the CPS was in a position where it needed to be preserved for the revolution to triumph in light of the ongoing war.

Regarding Thermidor, it is important to note that after the assassination attempt on him by Admirat, he somewhat disappeared from the political scene for three weeks until the 8th of Thermidor. It is hard to say he premeditated Robespierre’s execution. The attempt to reconcile the members of the CPS and the CSG seemed to fail on the 8th of Thermidor, for which Robespierre also bears responsibility when he said and read what seemed to be his political testament. Billaud and Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, attacked at the Jacobin club, had every reason to believe they were in danger as well as their expulsion with cries of "To the guillotine." They had every reason to believe their lives were in danger, not to mention the fatigue he was suffering after giving so much to the revolution was immense.

Yet after Thermidor, the worst was yet to come for him. He would become a scapegoat along with Billaud Varennes, Vadier, and Barère. Despite Carnot and Prieur showing solidarity with them, it worsened. They had to leave political life and be placed under residence. On the 12th of Germinal, exhausted sans-culotte militants of the new incompetent government demanded bread and the Constitution of 1793. There would be repression, and the fate of Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois was sealed. After reflection, instead of the guillotine, they were condemned to the "dry guillotine." Barère likely escaped, helped as a political weathercock. This time Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur did not intervene to help them. Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, legalists, accepted without flinching even though they knew deportation could be worse than death. The conditions were very harsh, and they were sent to Guyana, although gradually some improvements were seen. We see Collot d'Herbois one last time proposing favorable measures for the Black people. He advised Cointet to "distribute to all Black people who wish it virgin lands to turn them into small proprietors. The large number of these micro-farms would produce a quantity of goods far superior to that from large plantations, all while respecting everyone's right to equality. The settlers, through their emissary, believe such reasoning comes from a European imagination totally ignorant of local realities, that since the abolition of slavery the Black people no longer work ('their natural apathy has prevailed'), and that the only solution would be to reestablish the system of slave plantations" (words of Michel Biard in his biography of Collot d'Herbois).

With the arrival of Governor Jeannet, Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois fell gravely ill and were treated at the military hospital in Cayenne where, for the first time, the two Conventionals could meet. The black legend continued to kill this authentic revolutionary Collot d'Herbois. Forgotten were all his positions for universal suffrage, against slavery, to eliminate begging, for the poor, and the fact that he wanted to maintain the unity of the CPS. Only the bloodshed remains to make a sale, forgetting all the ferocity of the royalists and the violence of the counter-revolutionaries. By citing all these facts, I ask you to acquit the charges against this genuine patriot whose memory has been constantly sullied and who give his best for the revolution.

Sources :

Danton, Frédérich Bluche

Michel Biard Collot d’Herbois Légendes noires et révolution

Antoine Resche

[nordleuchten]

Hey there! :) Do you happen to know what was Lafayette's opinion on Robespierre as a person and/or as a member of the National Assembly? Did he left any declaration in his memoirs? As far as I know, their different political views led them sometimes into arguments and slanders.

Have a nice day!

Dear @faxelange,

in short, they were not on the best of terms – not at all. The disfavour was mutual as neither Robespierre liked La Fayette nor did La Fayette liked Robespierre.

Despite this, there is not nearly as much commentary on Robespierre in La Fayette’s letters and Memoirs as one might expect. The references that are made are mostly general statements about Robespierre and not specific about their relationship. Generally speaking, La Fayette wrote in his Memoirs about what he thought valuable for his readers and important to mention. I think he judged his disagreements with Robespierre and Robespierre in general, at the point of him writing his Memoirs (1830s), as simply no longer important. It would be easier to give a detailed description of Robespierre’s opinion of La Fayette than the other way around since we have many statements by Robespierre.

The relationship between Robespierre and La Fayette was during the first years of the Revolution civil, or better, nonexistent. Things changed when La Fayette wrote on June 16, 1791 a lengthy letter to the Legislative Assembly, criticizing political groups as a potential thread to the constitution and the stability of France – the jacobins were here his primary target.

Although he railed against factionalism of all varieties, the Jacobins were his primary target. “Organized like a separate empire … blindly controlled by a few ambitious leaders,” the Jacobins were, as he put it, a “sect,” a “distinct corporation in the middle of the French people, whose powers they usurp by subjugating their representatives.” Read into the record two days later and republished in newspapers of every political stripe, the letter generated heated debate.

Laura Auricchio, The Marquis – Lafayette Reconsidered, Vintage Books, New York, 2015, p. 258.

Two days later during a meeting of the jacobins, Robespierre stated:

Strike down Lafayette and the nation is saved.

Laura Auricchio, The Marquis – Lafayette Reconsidered, Vintage Books, New York, 2015, p. 259.

Things went downhill rather quickly after that.

In La Fayette memoirs there are two mentioning’s of Robespierre, both are rather indirect, as they detail public attacks of La Fayette’s character that Robespierre had some connection with.

It would occupy too much space to detail all the hostilities of the anarchists against Lafayette; their defamations in the Patriot and the Chronicle were pushed to the most insane excess. Robespierre attacked him at the jacobins, first requiring that he should not be called upon to prove what he advanced. The club itself formally denounced him at the bar of the assembly, by the mouth of Collot d’Herbois. Some members of this faction alleged as proofs of his criminality certain letters, which, when read, were received with patriotic applause.

Marquis de La Fayette, Memoirs, Correspondences and Manuscripts of General Lafayette, Vol. 3, Craighead and Allen, New York, 1837, pp. 336-337.

We can see very clearly in this passage that La Fayette’s problem was not with Robespierre alone and while this excerpt gives seemingly more insight into Robespierre’s opinion of La Fayette, the way the event is retold also tells us a lot about La Fayette’s opinion.

The second part is from a letter that La Fayette wrote his wife Adrienne on April 18, 1792:

Parties are at present divided in this manner [the question of war]. Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins, &c., &c., form the jacobin sink. These puppets are moved behind the scene, and serve the court by disorganizing all things, by exclaiming that we are beaten without resource and by attacking Lafayette, “who has deceived, they say, the people and the court, guided the conduct of the far less culpable M. de Bouillé, and who is more dangerous himself than the aristocracy.” (…) The other party, called the high jacobins, and which supports the present ministry, is composed of Bordelais, the abbé Sièyes, Condorcet, Roederer, &c. These men hate and fear Robespierre, but dare not render themselves unpopular.

Marquis de La Fayette, Memoirs, Correspondences and Manuscripts of General Lafayette, Vol. 3, Craighead and Allen, New York, 1837, pp. 411-412.

Again, La Fayette was not only in disagreement with Robespierre. Today Robespierre is often presented as the one and only embodiment of the Jacobins but there were many more and yes, Robespierre was certainly even back then a prominent and influential member, but La Fayette’s disagreements were with the jacobins as a whole as much as with Robespierre personally.

Perhaps it is easier to dissect La Fayette’s opinion based on what he did not thought about Robespierre. In the letter to his wife that is already quoted above, La Fayette also wrote:

Such is my situation: I belong, as I wrote before to you, to no party except to that of the French nation; but my friends and I will serve whoever will do good, defend liberty and equality, and maintain the constitution by repulsing everything tending to render it aristocratic or republican; and when the national will, expressed by the representatives chosen by nation and by the king, shall tell us that war is inevitable, I will do all that lies in my power to promote its success.

Marquis de La Fayette, Memoirs, Correspondences and Manuscripts of General Lafayette, Vol. 3, Craighead and Allen, New York, 1837, p. 413.

These were the things that La Fayette supported and believed in, this was his agenda. In not agreeing with Robespierre, we can assume that La Fayette felt as if Robespierre did not meet his principles. Another point is raised in this statement:

(…) by repulsing everything tending to render it aristocratic or republican (…).

Robespierre was without a question on the republican side.

This was all quite political but since La Fayette saw political opinions as the expression of underlaying principles, a political disagreement was often, not always though, also a personal disagreement, although things did not usually escalate like they did with Robespierre.

I hope this cleared things up a bit and I hope you have/had a lovely day!

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Collot returned on his own initiative. The narrative that he was recalled appears in Barère’s memoirs, but in chapter 5 of Collot d’Herbois - légendes noires et révolution (1995) Michel Biard does a pretty good job of poking a hole through that idea. Fouché did however stick around for a longer period, the letter recalling him is, indeed, dated March 27.

And their collegues knew about the repression long before Collot’s return to Paris (sidenote, but the same can be said for Carrier and all the other ”excessive” representatives as well).

Damnnn that post I made about Thermidorian Propaganda needs some big fucking rewrites doesn't it

[thousand-feuilles]

very happy about the nilaya frev documentary actually mentioning the atrocities!!!

(they should’ve called out carrier by name)

(they should’ve mentioned collot d’herbois as well)

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Attempts on Robespierre’s life compilation

Henri Admirat: wanted to shoot Robespierre at the Committee of Public Safety, tried to shoot Collot d’Herbois in his stairwell.

Cécile Renault: wanted to stab Robespierre with an iron dagger that she didn’t know was in her pocket. 

Legendre: was encouraged by an anonymous letter to take two pistols and shoot Saint-Just and Robespierre in the middle of the Convention

Lecointre, Fréron, Barras, Rovère, Thirion, Courtois, Garnier de l'Aube, Guffroy and Tallien: planned to team up and stab Robespierre to death in the middle of the Convention.

Bourdon d’Oise: planned to on his own stab Robespierre to death with a cutlass according to Pierre Nicolas Berryer.

Fouché: wanted to kidnap Robespierre from the jacobins and drown him in the Seine according to Paul Ségur.

Collot d’Herbois: attempted to throw Robespierre through the window of the Committee of Public Safety according to Barras.

Unknown assassin 1: tried to kill Robespierre on the eve of the Insurrection of August 10 according to Lucile Desmoulins.

Unknown assassin 2: tried to choke Robespierre to death when alone with him at the Duplays according to Charlotte Robespierre.

Charlotte Robespierre: attempted to poison Robespierre with jam according to Françoise Duplay.

If reddit had existed in the 18th century I bet these guys would be active in threads like this:

OK but seriously, which one of these assassination attemps actually come off as least unserious/most probable to actually working?

[colorussh]

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Liane-Collot-dHerbois/dp/3943305260/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=3CNQ756HXFIB7&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qBP4H2sKUf8dGHasOH8BMwVXBvUAUkRLKGxm6R2rmtQCu4jNrAYfEzYBlioF0VnYbI6XaU_j-LyQi2sBiJLsefQoJpkNhEemIPCLQlE4BWBs-a4qFMOFBJ_OtD6uKuH4I5UC97Eh3fuqt5Tya2qNaUSMIXRcn2aCjKOHCB7OcomESu4Clu7ZoHSs4A8IEVkvPy-YCe0PDJ093AjIz-cqCQ._N87y6ptzSNcP_SjH7b7IYgtK-hSzuP_qMS1t3MPBBQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=Liane+Collot+d’Herbois&qid=1714659394&sprefix=liane+collot+d+herbois%2Caps%2C89&sr=8-2

[nesiacha]

The Life of the Hébertist Charles Philippe Ronsin: From Playwright to Chief General of the Revolutionary Army

Charles Philippe Ronsin was born on December 1, 1751, to a master cooper in Soissons. According to Maurice Chartier, who draws on the work of General Herlaut, Ronsin may have been born into an affluent family and received an education. However, it is unclear whether he was a brilliant student, as Jacob Louis suggests, since various successive wars led to the loss of archives.

He enlisted in the army at the age of 17, in the Aunis regiment, but after four years, he left. Why? Maurice Chartier speculates that Ronsin realized the future of a commoner in the army of the Old Regime did not meet his youthful expectations. He instead sought success as a playwright. Unlike other future revolutionaries such as Collot d’Herbois or Fabre d’Eglantine, Ronsin did not achieve the success he hoped for. His works, including Hecuba and Polyxena, were staged by the Committee of Actors, but his next play, Sédécias, was rejected in December 1783. He is believed to have married before the Revolution, but the identity of his first wife, as well as what happened to her—whether they divorced or she became a widow—remains a mystery. Ronsin's past is, in many ways, shrouded in uncertainty.

He mingled in artistic and literary circles and became friends with the painter David. Ironically, his greatest successes would come in the army during the French Revolution, even though he had initially left the military for a career in theater.

Like many revolutionaries, Ronsin's involvement in the Revolution began in 1789 when he was elected captain of the National Guard of the Saint-Roch district. He quickly joined the Jacobin and Cordelier clubs and began forging friendships with figures such as Danton and Marat. Georges Lefebvre describes him as a diligent figure.

From 1792, following the fall of the monarchy, Ronsin played an increasingly significant role. He had joined the Théâtre-Français section, which played an important role during the storming of the Tuileries in 1792. He co-wrote a pamphlet with Murville in honor of the citizens killed on August 10, 1792. He was appointed commissioner of the Executive Council. Under the orders of Minister of War Pache (affiliated with the Hébertists), Ronsin was sent to Belgium to oversee the dubious Dumouriez (whose treachery would later be confirmed). He denounced the corruption of Dumouriez’s suppliers. Gaspard Monge then entrusted him with a mission in the North. When Bouchotte took over as Minister of War, Ronsin's career soared. This was the period when the Exagérés faction gained popularity and became a political force in the National Assembly (where the Enragés were more influential in the sections, especially in the Gravilliers section, but struggled to gain representation).

On February 14, 1793, Pache was elected mayor of Paris with 11,881 votes out of 15,191 voters. Bouchotte, seen as close to the Hébertists (even if he later distanced himself from them), reorganized the patriots' strongholds. As Renaud Faget points out, "The result of this policy was a significant increase in the number of employees: they were 453 in April 1793 and 1800 when Bouchotte was ousted." Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, the prosecutor of the Commune of Paris, and Hébert, his deputy, along with Vincent as the Secretary General of the Ministry of War in April 1793, filled the Ministry with Cordeliers members and sent people like Momoro to Vendée. They were the "stars" of the Cordeliers club, one of the most powerful at the time, and enjoyed a certain level of popularity.

Ronsin was appointed as deputy to the Minister alongside Xavier Audouin (an important Hébertist who later became a neo-Jacobin under the Directory) and Prosper Sijeas. His most important rise came in Vendée, where he quickly ascended from captain and logistics officer for the army to brigadier general, eventually becoming the chief general of the Revolutionary Army of Paris by the end of his life. Ronsin played a key role in the rise of General Rossignol. His rapid ascent was met with hostility from some, particularly the Indulgents, one of whom, Philippeaux, became one of his principal adversaries. Ronsin broke with Danton (possibly since the Dumouriez affair—this hypothesis requires further study). In any case, in Vendée, he reunited with his friend Momoro, who had been sent on a mission, likely with Vincent’s involvement.

The tactics used in the Vendée, particularly in the battle for Rigué, have been widely criticized (to put it mildly). The report by Momoro and Ronsin states: "We don’t doubt that a large number of complaints were addressed to the National Convention…[regarding this tactic]; the malevolent men only condemn these measures, which, as rigorous as they are, may alone create disorder in the brigands' army and finish a cruel war." It is evident that Ronsin and Momoro committed unforgivable mistakes in Vendée as I said here about Momoro https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/759184374456549376/momoros-serious-fault?source=share

Another major failure associated with Ronsin was in Lyon. He spent less than a month there and was politically aligned with Collot d'Herbois. It remains unclear to what extent Ronsin can be held responsible for the massacre in Lyon (the execution of Lyonnais citizens by cannon and disproportionate executions). However, it is known that he approved of it, as he wrote: "The guillotine and the firing squad have brought justice to over 400 rebels, but a new revolutionary commission has just been established, composed of true sans-culottes; my colleague Parein is its president, and in a few days, the artillery fire from our gunners will have rid us, in one instant, of over 4000 conspirators. It is time to shorten the process." Upon his arrival in Lyon, Ronsin wrote: "The revolutionary army entered the city on the 5th of Frimaire... Terror was painted on every face, and the deep silence I had recommended to our brave soldiers made their march even more threatening, more terrifying."

It is still difficult to know whether Ronsin directly participated in the violence in Lyon, but like many other revolutionary actors, he can be held responsible for not disapproving of it, especially since he witnessed it. That others like Turreau, Barras, Fréron, and Fouché were more corrupt than Ronsin does not absolve him of responsibility.

Despite this, Ronsin suffered from a notorious black legend, like many Hébertists, and was even demonized more than Robespierre himself. In truth, his rise was deserved because he was a competent and honest administrator who did not profit from his position. He was defamed by figures like Desmoulins, yet according to Lefebvre, Ronsin lived and died poor. He was a courageous and diligent soldier. While he was one of the leaders of the Hébertist faction (although, in reality, it was primarily Ronsin and Momoro who led the Exagérés, as Hébert backed down during critical moments, while Ronsin and Momoro went all the way), it is important to note that unlike Momoro, who primarily defended social rights and even advocated for shared agrarian property rights, Ronsin championed a radical revolution—though his views were underdeveloped—that aligned him more with the Cordeliers at that time, who were close to the Hébertists.

Lefebvre acknowledges Ronsin's flaws, noting that he could be arrogant and violent in his language. However, it was the danger facing the Republic that pushed him to adopt such an attitude, rather than any shameless ambition or opportunism (like his "friend" Turreau). I wonder if Ronsin’s break with Danton, particularly after the Dumouriez affair, did not make him more radical, along with the infernal situation of the time. Although Ronsin may not have had the military genius of Kleber or Jourdan, he was certainly competent for his rank.

Upon his return to Paris, Ronsin became one of the leaders of the Exagérés faction. In December 1793, he and his friend Vincent were arrested, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. They were released under pressure from the Cordeliers. This episode is detailed here. This certainly did not help with any reconciliation with the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), especially since the CSG (Committee of General Security) pointed out that there was no evidence against them. Additionally, other Hébertists had been arrested and then released. However, aside from the episode concerning the abolition of slavery, where most set aside their grudges, it seems that reconciliation was impossible. Personally, I think the faults are shared between the Indulgents, the Committee of Public Safety, the Convention, and the Hébertists.

The poverty of the Parisian working class during the winter must not have helped ease tensions, particularly for people like Momoro, who prioritized the fight (with the black market and some speculators, things probably worsened). As I’ve mentioned before, the tension was so high that the Cordeliers were preparing an insurrection attempt. Momoro presided over it and draped the Declaration of the Rights of Man in black. Ronsin supported and demanded it. Vincent followed this line of action. Hébert did as well, until he tried to backtrack when he realized that the attempt might fail. Chaumette, Pache, and Hanriot refused.

They took Carrier as an ally for this insurrection attempt, who had been recalled from Nantes for his drownings. Collot d'Herbois, pragmatically, tried to reconcile, as he was close to some points of Ronsin’s politics. Here is an excerpt from Michel Biard’s book on Collot d'Herbois:

"The Jacobin session of the 16th of Ventôse was almost entirely devoted to these declarations. In the absence of Robespierre and Couthon, who were ill, as well as Billaud-Varenne and Jeanbon Saint-André, who were on missions, Collot d'Herbois was the only member of the Committee who regularly attended the Society. It was he who went up to the tribune to denounce the behavior of the Cordelier leaders, using much firmer language than that reserved earlier for Desmoulins and those like him who were merely 'lost.' Here, if the Cordeliers were in the same situation, the leaders were nevertheless labeled as plotters, and Collot mentions the fate of Jacques Roux, who had also 'seduced' the Cordeliers and whom the Committee had had imprisoned.”

"And, in a final attempt at reconciliation, the Jacobins decided to send a delegation, led by Collot d'Herbois, to preach unity to the Cordeliers. Hébert, Ronsin, and other leaders took the walk of Canossa and, in front of the Jacobin delegation, claimed that their words had been misrepresented and that the fraternity between the two societies was not in question. Did Collot d'Herbois sincerely believe in this rather clumsy reconciliation? If there was any real illusion, it was quickly dispelled. New threatening speeches from Vincent, the discovery of anonymous posters calling for insurrection, the return of Robespierre, Billaud, and Couthon to the Committee... all of these factors led to the final decision. The Committee opted for a preventive strike. On the night of the 22nd to the 23rd of Ventôse, Hébert, Vincent, Ronsin, and other 'suspects' were arrested."

Carrier escaped this arrest because he retracted, likely sensing the change in the political wind (and I wonder if his initial support for the insurrection was opportunistic). Contrary to what the black legend of the Hébertists suggests, they did not intend to massacre the Convention but rather to recreate a day like June 2, 1793, probably by eliminating political figures such as Barère (though, of course, that would still have been illegal). During this tumultuous period, there were even “anthropophagist” inscriptions with Robespierre’s name. Elsewhere, there were posters from the Cordeliers’ Club declaring that Fabre d'Églantine, Camille Desmoulins, and a few others had lost their trust. Another was a clear call for insurrection: "Sans-culottes, it is time. Strike the general call and ring the tocsin, arm yourself and let it not be long, for you see that they are pushing you to your last breath." Other messages had a clearly royalist tone, such as one found on a public building: "Death to the Republic! Long live Louis XVII."

Those who sought to eliminate the Hébertists would mix the judgment of the faction with dubious characters. There were false rumors of plundering involving Momoro (I’ve learned, as I study law, that nowadays, sometimes, in order to discredit those being judged, some accusation files violate legal procedures and leak false information to the press to ensure the suspect loses sympathy; I wonder if they used the same method then). They were accused of "plotting with foreigners." The wives of Hébert and Momoro were arrested, and later, Ronsin's wife, according to the memoirs of Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil. The Hébertists were condemned on false accusations, such as posting seditious posters, sabotaging food supplies, and massacring prisoners in jails. There was little evidence against them, yet the president of the Tribunal said, "Infamous, you will all perish!"

Except for Hébert, all were executed with great courage. Ronsin said to his colleagues, "You will be condemned. When you should have acted, you talked. Know how to die. For my part, I swear that you shall not see me flinch. Strive to do the same." And when someone said that it was the end of the Republic, he responded, "The Republic is immortal."

The revolutionary army would be dissolved.

From what I’ve deduced, Ronsin was definitely not a saint. He did things that were totally condemnable, which, even in times of war, are inexcusable. However, that Turreau behaved as a greater "scoundrel" with the infernal columns does not exonerate Ronsin. But Ronsin was also a man victimized by a black legend even more tenacious than others— he was a competent and honest administrator, far from being a stupid man that some aid. His violent words can be placed in the context that he, too, was at his wits' end, like Marat or other revolutionaries who were exhausted from the struggle. He more than deserved his rank, even though he was not a military genius like Kléber or Jourdan. I don’t get the impression that he acted out of shameless ambition, but rather from a genuine frustration that the Republic was in danger, compounded by the behavior of certain people (primarily Danton and the Dumouriez affair). My point is that the Hébertists were demonized even more than other revolutionary factions, when in reality, they were wrongly seen as bloodthirsty incompetents. However, they have very interesting stories and have had their share of both glory and a darker side, like all revolutionary groups.

The Fate of His Wife Marie-Angélique Lequesne, Widow Ronsin

There is an important hypothesis about Marie-Angélique Lequesne ( my theory). She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was supervising Dumouriez, or she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. At that time, since Ronsin was not yet a general, he could not marry her, and it was only in 1793, when she came from a wealthier family than Ronsin’s, that they married. Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne:

“Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises, frequently engaging with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to the correspondence of Jorris, when she remarried Turreau, this is what was said about them. A.-J. de Rivaz dedicated an entire chapter to them in his Mémoires historiques sur le Valais. He expresses his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: Turreau "commits the blunder of not publicly performing any act of the Roman religion"; his wife, Marie-Angélique, "has the audacity to speak of it with contempt," and she does not blush "to say that she had never been happier since she had shaken off the yoke of the Christian superstition in which she had been raised."

Unfortunately, this marriage would become horrific for her. Turreau treated her with unimaginable cruelty, even having her flogged (a horrifying detail—I recently learned that it is very likely she was pregnant with their last child when he had her flogged). She followed her husband when he became an ambassador for Napoleon. She charmed the political class of Washington, unlike her husband. She became a very good friend of Dolley Madison, one of the most important future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. Dolley described her as "good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious." They got along very well.

But Turreau continued to treat his wife terribly, and no one dared confront him about it until one day a judge confronted him. In retaliation, Turreau ordered Marie-Angélique to leave the United States, forced her to live in poverty for three years, and once again, it was the judge who arranged her departure to France. She eventually divorced him. Later, Turreau forced their daughter Alexandrine into a convent, and Marie-Angélique had to fight once more to free Alexandrine, which she succeeded in doing, according to this site: https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm. Unfortunately, Alexandrine died in poverty years later.

An even more horrifying detail: Turreau, who called Charles-Philippe a friend from the time when Ronsin was still alive, stabbed him in the back by giving him a defeat, claiming that Ronsin was the one responsible, not him (while Turreau was the one truly responsible). You can see this in this post and here.

I wonder if Ronsin introduced Marie-Angélique to Turreau when they were still friends. After Ronsin was guillotined, Marie-Angélique Lequesne Ronsin went on to endure a terrible marriage with Turreau, who treated her with awful cruelty (as you can see in one of my posts here). In this way, Turreau betrayed the Ronsin couple a second time.

Sources:

Grace Phelan

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929594?read-now=1&seq=4

Antoine Resche

(After studying it I disagree with Jacob Louis who says that Ronsin is incompetent but it remains an interesting analysis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929592

[bunniesandbeheadings]

I am sure that this is a work of top-notch history, given the charged title and also how the cover in no way depicts Robespierre but rather Collot d’Herbois who was a separate human being

[thousand-feuilles]

the committee is sending representatives to your city! like and reblog this post so they will send saint-just and le bas, ignore and they’ll send fouche and collot d’herbois

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Apart from C-A Prieur, did anyone else in the CSP remain a friend with Lazare Carnot after Thermidor?

I think @aedesluminis and @sieclesetcieux are better suited to answer this than I am, I’m generally pretty unfamiliar with the Office CPS dynamics (I honestly don’t even know which of the members were friends of Carnot beforethermidor). But I’ve at least managed to dig out the following:

In volume 3 of his memoirs, Barère writes that he, following getting relieved of his legislative duties, wrote two or three letters to Carnot expressing some ideas on European politics and the power of the Directory, but that Carnot expressed no interest towards neither the letters or the man Barère had sent to hand them over. ”From this time my correspondence with the Director Carnot ceased; he either could, or would, do nothing for me, he forgot me altogether, and himself disappeared soon afterwards from this disunited, ill-matched, and utterly incapable Directory.”

Barère also writes that he in 1800, after having returned to Paris, had dinner with Fouché and Lamarque, ending with another encounter with Carnot: 

After dinner Lamarque told me that he wished to be reconciled to Carnot. I thought that the circumstances were favourable for the reconciliation of true patriots, as misfortune ought to unite all shades of opinion. I went to Carnot, and introduced to him my friend Lamarque, who had defended me during my proscription from the tribune of the Five Hundred.  "No doubt," replied Carnot ironically, "but he was the president of that council when I was transported as a member of the Directory." I perceived somewhat too late that there are some men whose memory is too good, and we parted rather disconcerted at this misunderstanding.

Later that year, Barère claims Carnot walked in on him and Napoleon having a conversation, and tried to help Barère obtain a position in the new regime: 

The conversation had reached this point when the Minister of War, Carnot, arrived with his portfolio to work with the First Consul. To give Carnot his due, he seemed very pleased to see me in close conversation with Bonaparte. He thought when he saw us tete-a-tete in the audience chamber that I was about to be appointed to some important office. In a few moments he said to the First Consul: "General, can you not usefully employ the talents of Citizen Barère?" The First Consul, who certainly had no desire to do so, and who had only offered me a miserable editorship, was silent, either because he did not choose to be catechised by one of his ministers, or because he had no favourable reply to make. I saw his embarrassment, and I replied to Carnot: "The First Consul would like to make me a bard to celebrate the glorious exploits of his warriors; but the age of Ossian has passed." This reply appeared to displease the First Consul, and I took my leave, considering myself very fortunate to have escaped being requisitioned as a journalist.

Collot d’Herbois mentioned Carnot once in his defence written 1795, attesting that the latter was hardworking. However, it doesn’t exactly tell us anything regarding if the two had stayed in touch or not:

I hastily ate a frugal meal every day in the vicinity of the committee. Carnot was forced to do the same, as was Prieur (de la Cote-d'Or.) They know of my assiduousness; only theirs and that of Lindet could surpass it.

As for Saint-André, I could find nothing when searching for ”Carnot” within the 1848 work Jean-Bon Saint-André, sa vie et ses écrits by Michel Nicolas. The same thing when searching for him Billuad-Varennes — mémoires et correspondance (1893)

That leaves us with Lindet and Prieur de la Marne, both of whom have left so little written material behind that I can’t say anything for the moment… There might be something in Notes et souvenirs inédits de Prieur de la Marne, but I don’t have access to those…

[colorussh]

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Liane-Collot-dHerbois/dp/3943305279/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=3CNQ756HXFIB7&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qBP4H2sKUf8dGHasOH8BMwVXBvUAUkRLKGxm6R2rmtQCu4jNrAYfEzYBlioF0VnYbI6XaU_j-LyQi2sBiJLsefQoJpkNhEemIPCLQlE4BWBs-a4qFMOFBJ_OtD6uKuH4I5UC97Eh3fuqt5Tya2qNaUSMIXRcn2aCjKOHCB7OcomESu4Clu7ZoHSs4A8IEVkvPy-YCe0PDJ093AjIz-cqCQ._N87y6ptzSNcP_SjH7b7IYgtK-hSzuP_qMS1t3MPBBQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=Liane+Collot+d’Herbois&qid=1714659394&sprefix=liane+collot+d+herbois%2Caps%2C89&sr=8-3

[lanterne]

Ornaments from Lucie, ou les Parents imprudents by Collot d’Herbois (c. 1771) x