#the french defense | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nesiacha · 2 months

Text

In défense for Jacques René Hébert

Jacques-René Hébert (1757-1794)

Warning:

I really dislike Hébert. Even if his defense was made easier by the fact that I like some characters described as Hébertists and adore Momoro (my favorite faction of the French Revolution is the ultra-revolutionary faction, even though I know they also committed unforgivable acts given the hellish situation they were in). Historian Gérard Walter aptly summarized my view of Hébert, calling him a mediocre politician and a journalist of rare vulgarity. I would add more, describing him as a precursor to reality TV with the false persona he portrayed. Therefore, 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. Hence, 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.

The défense

Citizens, I have the great honor of being mandated by the Revolutionary Tribunal to restore the truth and honor of Jacques René Hébert, who has been defamed for far too long. There exists a black legend regarding Citizen Hébert, who still awaits the rehabilitation he has well deserved.

Citizen Hébert was born on November 15, 1757, in Alençon. His father was a master goldsmith, and rumors suggested that his mother belonged to the nobility, but there is no evidence to support her noble status. Far from being the uncultured character he is often portrayed as, Hébert became a prosecutor's clerk, though he had to leave this profession in 1780 and sought refuge in Paris. Some say this was due to a romantic adventure that brought him trouble, while others claim it was to escape a heavy financial penalty in a personal matter. Perhaps it was both, but in any case, he was in charge of managing theater box rentals at the Théâtre des Variétés from 1787-1788. Contrary to the black legend we must dispel regarding Citizen Hébert, there is no evidence that he stole any funds.

Citizen Hébert distinguished himself in revolutionary activities more significantly in 1790 when he began publishing the newspaper "Le Père Duchesne." Contrary to a widespread belief, likely propagated to discredit him, Hébert was not the inventor of the Père Duchesne character nor the first to use such language in his paper. There were two types of newspapers like this, including "Père Duchêne" by Abbé Jumel. Hébert outcompeted his rivals, and although he initially admired the tyrant Louis Capet, as did many French who were deceived, he still denounced the abuses suffered by the poor at the hands of the rich, the scandals of the court, and the moral failures of certain priests who nevertheless preached virtue. Citizen Hébert also highlighted social issues and showed great sensitivity to the lives of workers: he advocated for better social assistance for elderly fathers whose children were Sans Culottes and for the organization of elementary education for their children. All this earned him well-deserved success.

Far from being a failed and mediocre journalist, the facts I have presented demonstrate that Citizen Hébert was dedicated to the rights of the people.

Moreover, once the tyrant attempted to flee, Hébert abandoned royalism and became a genuine republican, having opened his eyes to the nature of the monarchy. He continually attacked the tyrant’s duplicity regarding his frequent use of vetoes, which further impeded the rights of the people. Hébert also became a member of the Cordeliers Club in 1791 and entered political functions on August 10, 1792, within the Paris Commune, becoming a spokesperson for the Sans Culottes.

The fact that he did not succeed in being elected to the Convention, unlike other journalists, should not lead one to believe that Citizen Hébert was incapable of holding important positions or that he was unpopular. Evidence of his capability is his election as deputy prosecutor of the Paris Commune, and in addition to his work, he joined the Jacobin Club in January 1793. This shows that he was becoming increasingly active. We should also remember that he openly applauded the abolition of slavery, as evidenced by one of his articles titled "La grande joie du père Duchèsne au sujet de la fête que les Sans-Culottes ont célébrée dans le Temple de la Raison, en réjouissance de l'abolition de l'esclavage des négres" on 1 Ventôse An II. We are thus far from the heartless man depicted by the black legend concerning Citizen Hébert.

Regarding the accusations that Hébert was bloodthirsty due to the political group called the Girondins, I must remind you of historian Jean Clément Martin’s statement that the Girondins were sent to the scaffold because they failed to send the Montagnards or the Sans Culottes there. Indeed, before the insurrection of May 31 and June 2, 1793, Citizen Hébert was arrested, likely due to his articles. When some Sans Culottes came merely to request his release, Isnard made a speech threatening the destruction of Paris. Therefore, besides showing that the opponents of the Cordeliers and Jacobins would not have hesitated to use the guillotine, we see that Citizen Hébert was capable of inspiring great loyalty. Following this insurrection, his newspaper gained significant success, and for good reason.

Finally, on September 5, 1793, he was part of a group that invaded the Convention following disastrous events that further endangered our glorious revolution. With many Sans Culottes, he demanded necessary and salutary measures such as price controls and the raising of a revolutionary army.

Some may criticize Citizen Hébert for continually demanding the death penalty. I would respond that while it is true that innocents sometimes suffered from these accusations, it was not Hébert who made these decisions, although we cannot absolve him of responsibility. It was the Convention, the Committee of General Security, and the Committee of Public Safety that voted for the arrests. When he demanded texts in his journal, it is easy to forget the context: the betrayal of Dumouriez, who handed over the Minister of War and others to the enemy, and the treason of two French admirals that resulted in Toulon falling into English hands. Citizen Hébert, like many French revolutionaries, was exasperated and worried, knowing that royalist threats were not empty. Of course, there were innocent generals whose heads Hébert called for, such as General Custine, but we must see his actions in context without excusing them.

Concerning the false accusation against Marie Antoinette regarding her son, I do not wish to absolve Citizen Hébert of this horrible affair, but he was not the only one responsible. Yet, some want to make it seem as though he alone was to blame, while citizens like Pache, Chaumette, and Jacques Louis David were also involved. He is clearly not solely responsible.

I must say that Hébert's attacks on Danton were entirely justified given the evidence we now have. Nevertheless, certain members of the Committee of Public Safety, including Robespierre, preferred to target Hébert before Danton, likely due to the campaign of de-Christianization. But remember this: without excusing those who wanted to force de-Christianization, we should recall that not long ago, many religious fanatics infantilized the people, constantly making prohibitions against them (remember the Callas affair or that of the Chevalier de La Barre). However, we should not forget that Hébert did not hate Christians, as he often referred to the Sans Culotte Jesus. Therefore, this hatred was primarily directed at clergy, especially those who were resistant to our glorious revolution or those who maintained a hypocritical attitude in their functions, although some might attribute Hébert’s remarks about Jesus to an attempt to temper his criticisms. Nevertheless, he was a victim of an unjustifiable parody of a trial.

It is important to remember the context of the insurrection, recalling the harsh winter of 1793-1794, and that the Cordeliers Club, where Hébert was very popular, was among the most sensitive to the suffering of the working classes. This was one of the reasons for the insurrection, and we should not forget that ultimately, people like Hébert were right to distrust the Ventôse laws, as they were eventually not enforced.

He was the victim of a parody of a trial, wrongly accused of sabotaging food supplies. As historian Antoine Resche states in his mini-biography of Citizen Hébert, to "fabricate a flimsy case, a few more or less dubious foreign figures were added to the list of accused, and Hébert was executed as the leader of a rather disjointed group." Their arrests were politically motivated. Many laughed at Hébert’s execution, noting his calls for heads and his eventual breakdown. I must point out that his wife, Marie Françoise Goupil, was arrested shortly after him and claimed to be pregnant—whether this was true or not, I hope not—to avoid execution, yet she was executed 20 days later.

However, Camille Desmoulins is absolved for his behavior on the scaffold because it was believed he wept for Lucile and was more lenient than Hébert. If we accept this excuse for Desmoulins, we must also extend it to Citizen Hébert, who may have cried primarily for his wife’s fate. And regarding Desmoulins' alleged leniency, let us reconsider. He shares responsibility for the Brissotins’ demise, did not protest the entirely illegal persecution of Jacques Roux, said he understood the need to curb liberty for the people’s salvation, and did not oppose or even approved the mock trial that led to the deaths of Hébert, Momoro, Ronsin, Vincent, and the arrest of Marie Françoise Goupil. If we accuse Citizen Hébert of having dubious friends, what about Desmoulins, who allied with a corrupt figure like Danton, and likely knew it? We are far from the kind Desmoulins versus the evil Hébert often portrayed in films. Desmoulins enjoys a golden legend, while Hébert has a black one that needs lifting.

Furthermore, the execution of the so-called exaggerators had a disastrous impact within the Committee of Public Safety concerning the Parisian masses.

Lastly, I must point out that "Le Père Duchesne" saw success between 1848 and 1871. What we call Hébertism had a greater significance than often acknowledged.

Thus, I ask you to rehabilitate Hébert, who did so much against slavery, for price controls, proposed measures to alleviate the suffering of Parisians, and fell victim to a parody of justice that chilled the French Revolution, remembered only for its bloodshed because it sells better.

Sources:

Antoine Resche

Danton write by Frédéric Bluche

Gérard Walter

#frev #french revolution #hébert jacques rené #cordeliers #in défense for #Frankly this defense cost me my sanity XD

21 notes · View notes