Armentiéres replies, apparently having nothing better to do.
"My thanks to M. Merivée for his words.
I must first congratulate M. Merivée on his defense, passionately argued and logically construed, for the defense of the previous ministers. To take such a stand in favor of the rule of law, to hold fast against the sanguinary desire in the name of the Nation, is indeed laudable. It is unfortunate that he has construed my own defense of the popular will as regards the fate of the ministers as an endorsement of that wish for blood. Just as M. Merivée does not endorse the actions of the ministers but rather defends their right to take those actions, so do I defend the right of the public to express their anger while declining to endorse their desire for extralegal justice. I only wish that M. Merivée, having passionately stood for the rule of law in his defense, would accept the justice of the verdict, which refutes the sanguinary desire, with equal conviction. Perhaps his passion cannot be so easily channeled. So it is with the public.
However, I am taken by surprise that, by defending the cause of the public and explaining the source of their grievance, I have somehow injured or infringed upon his right to express his opinion on the subject. I had not contemplated that my colleague's dignity was so fragile that, in stating that he had not bled and thus could not understand the impulse for blood in kind, I might have caused him some great psychic wound. At no point did I mean to cause him such harm, for I had not contemplated that harm could be thus incurred, nor to threaten his right to participate in our political process. For that, I apologize.
Returning to the topic at hand, it is M. Merivée's wish that the Revolution not receive its glory that I must oppose most ardently. The Revolution was glorious. The people, united in conviction against tyranny, devoid of legal option or the right to express their desires non-violently, rose up and overthrew absolutism. In its place, a renewed commitment to the constitutional order, to representation, to equality and rights. Those who participated, most of whom gave far more than I and who deserve much more than I, should be honored and praised.
However, I believe there is an inkling of truth lurking somewhere in his statement. If I may reach for it, it would be thus: The Revolution was glorious, it was necessary, and it is now over. The previous holder of the Crown has fled in ignominy, the present holder is committed to equality and justice, the Charter has been amended, and the bad actors of the previous regime have been sentenced lawfully and justly. Now we must set aside violence and extraordinary measures and commit ourselves to upholding the constitutional order for which we fought, argued, and bled. In that desire, I believe that the opposition and I shall be in full accord."
"My thanks to M. Merivée for his words.
I must first congratulate M. Merivée on his defense, passionately argued and logically construed, for the defense of the previous ministers. To take such a stand in favor of the rule of law, to hold fast against the sanguinary desire in the name of the Nation, is indeed laudable. It is unfortunate that he has construed my own defense of the popular will as regards the fate of the ministers as an endorsement of that wish for blood. Just as M. Merivée does not endorse the actions of the ministers but rather defends their right to take those actions, so do I defend the right of the public to express their anger while declining to endorse their desire for extralegal justice. I only wish that M. Merivée, having passionately stood for the rule of law in his defense, would accept the justice of the verdict, which refutes the sanguinary desire, with equal conviction. Perhaps his passion cannot be so easily channeled. So it is with the public.
However, I am taken by surprise that, by defending the cause of the public and explaining the source of their grievance, I have somehow injured or infringed upon his right to express his opinion on the subject. I had not contemplated that my colleague's dignity was so fragile that, in stating that he had not bled and thus could not understand the impulse for blood in kind, I might have caused him some great psychic wound. At no point did I mean to cause him such harm, for I had not contemplated that harm could be thus incurred, nor to threaten his right to participate in our political process. For that, I apologize.
Returning to the topic at hand, it is M. Merivée's wish that the Revolution not receive its glory that I must oppose most ardently. The Revolution was glorious. The people, united in conviction against tyranny, devoid of legal option or the right to express their desires non-violently, rose up and overthrew absolutism. In its place, a renewed commitment to the constitutional order, to representation, to equality and rights. Those who participated, most of whom gave far more than I and who deserve much more than I, should be honored and praised.
However, I believe there is an inkling of truth lurking somewhere in his statement. If I may reach for it, it would be thus: The Revolution was glorious, it was necessary, and it is now over. The previous holder of the Crown has fled in ignominy, the present holder is committed to equality and justice, the Charter has been amended, and the bad actors of the previous regime have been sentenced lawfully and justly. Now we must set aside violence and extraordinary measures and commit ourselves to upholding the constitutional order for which we fought, argued, and bled. In that desire, I believe that the opposition and I shall be in full accord."