Thank you for proving the point you tend to rely on comic books for education.
Last edited:
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I do think comic books are a good entry for those who do not have the time or energy to read the long and sometimes dry references I listed in the opening post. So yes, I take no shame in the fact that I recommend comic books to the neophyte, it can be a way of educating oneself. I think only the worst purists reject vulgarisation in the form of popular culture, they are very interesting to study in their own right. Otherwise for the initiated in French if you want a general history there is also Jean-Clément Martin's Nouvelle histoire de la Révolution française, as well as Annie Jourdan's Nouvelle histoire de la Révolution. But those books are long and rather complex.
In terms of animated ducks I think the English language is actually the main source.
However, in your language I do find the US historian Timothy Tackett's work to be worth the look. I have already recommended When the King Took Flight in this forum previously. He has also written The Coming of the Terror, which is probably interesting with regards to this thread, but which I have not read. In particular his conclusion that "There was never a systematic plan to prepare the Terror" which joins the French historiography I referred to in the opening post.
When are you dating the state of emergency?
The Constitution project (led by Condorcet) was appointed in early Oct 1792, shortly after the proclamation of the republic. France had no constitution at that point. The prior one was for a constitutional monarchy.
Their earliest draft only came out in late February 1793. Accepted by Girondins, but Montagnards didn't like it. It was Robespierre's CPS who finally threw it out in late May, and appointed the Jacobin committee who drafted the Constitution of 1793 (which was written by Herault de Seychelles in a few days.) It was a crap constitution that effectively just enshrined a revolutionary government in the hands of a CSP with unlimited powers. Girondins were purged before they could protest.
That's effectively 10 months without a working constitution, culminating into something that was no constitution at all. In the interim, you got nothing, no institutions, no checks-and-balances, no rules, just cliques and makeshift committees of uncertain power, grabbing authority wherever they feel like it.
I believe that this period was the critical one. Had the constitution been rolled out earlier, it would likely have been adopted and the revolution could have stabilized. You would have had a functional republican government and clear republican institutions. Instead, letting things drag on as long as they did without any political or legal structure, allowed little fiefdoms to develop and power to be seized wherever, it is unsurprising governance careened into just making stuff up, whipping up your mob and executing your rivals.
Last edited:
- 3
In the US Army archives, it's officially 'The War Between the States', iirc.
Not exactly.
The term 'civil war' was incorrectly used frequently by both combatants and historians as a form of shorthand, but the official US Historical Archives name for this conflict dubbed it 'The War of the Rebellion'.
In Lost Cause revisionism, it becomes 'The War Between the States'. So when you say that, pretend you're waving Old Dixie.
- 1
"Civil War" is at least partly Lost Cause. It was pushed in a massive propaganda campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy, in letter-writing campaigns to press & publishers to bring an end to use of the phrase "War of Rebellion". They didn't like their daddies & hubbies being referred to as 'rebels'. Never mind that the menfolk liked the term "rebel" well enough, and used it themselves. For the daughters, 'rebellion' & 'rebels' sound more like treason than patriotic, and was a taint on family honor.
Since there was zero chance northern publishers would adopt "War between the States", so the Daughters strategically pushed for a compromise label.
So the term of art became "Civil War" and the rebel soldiers became "Confederates".
I presume the US historical archives retained their original label, rather than go with the publishers' shift.
Last edited:
- 1
The government was declared revolutionnary on the 10th of October 1793, which de facto amounts to a permanent state of emergency. The decree adopted after a report of Saint-Just stated the following: "The government will be revolutionary until peace". Revolutionary means the government is not organised according to the Constitution of 1793.
CPS? Committee of Public Safety? There is once more a big problem of chronology, Robespierre didn't even sit in the committee before the 27th of July 1793. You are jumping back and forth in time here. The period you are referring to has been retroactively named the "Danton Comittee", maybe you confused Robespierre and Danton? It feels like there is either a mistake or confusion somewhere. By the way, it was Barère, from the Plaine, who proposed the Committee of Public Safety.
The fall of the Girondins (31 May – 2 June 1793) largely happens before the Constitution is drafted.
Factually wrong. The only reason for why the revolutionnary government got so much power is because the 1793 Constitution was suspended just after being adopted. This is a complete misreading of said Constitution. What you call a "crap" constitution is the most radically democratic France has ever had, since it instituted not only an absolute primacy for Parliament, but also very significant aspects of direct democracy. The issue with this Constitution according to constitutionalists is that it amounts to a system which is a government by assembly. To the difference of a parliamentary system a system of assembly does not have any checks and balance upon the Parliament and a weak to no-existent executive.
I disagree on two accounts. First of all, things would not have stabilised since there was a direct conflict between the Girondins on the one hand and the popular movement and Paris commune on the other hand. When the Girondins tried to eliminate the Montagnards, they faced opposition. The Girondins would have had to eliminate most of their opponents and severely repress the sans-culottes, which would inevitably had lead to an insurrection against them. The problem was clearly political, although the several competing institutions did represent different visions of the Revolution with different legitimacies. Secondly, of course that the revolutionaries "made stuff up" as in creating new institutions in the vacuum that arises. That is also one of the essential parts of the French Revolution, the fact that debates, influenced by Enlightenment beliefs and pressured by the popular movement, lead to conceiving new rights and laws. La Fayette and others who wanted to "end" the revolution failed at doing so, but their motivation was that of maintaining old structures of power that benefitted them.
War of a rebellion or war between states it is still a civil war. After all it was a war between citizens of a nation, regardless if it was a rebellion (still a rebellion leading to a civil war), a war between states (obvious why that's a civil war) or a war of secession, they are all a civil war.
Unless I misunderstand your points entirley.
This question arises periodically. A civil war's historical definition is when two powers within a state engage one another for total control of the state with the English Civil War being the poster child. The South, technically, did not try and take over the North - they merely wanted to secede and set up shop for themselves - so whether or not this is 'technically' a civil war or a rebellion is in the eye of the beholder and the fact the definition has shifted over the years.
[EDIT]: I have just been informed Loup has a plethora of people who can't wait to hear his views on why the Terror wasn't that Terrible and why Robespierre was actually the greatest of all possible Frenchmen. I'll cede the floor to this flurry of replies.
Not only do you insist on derailing the thread by launching off-topic subjects (Stucki, your user signature and now the Civil War), you also keep on bringing in personal attacks and on top of that do not read any of the arguments that actually relate to the topic. Can you have the minimal decency and respect for the arguments had in this thread and leave your personal obsessions at the door?
I have given you several English references on the French Revolution, go and read about the thread topic at hand before coming here to lecture others. That would also maybe allow you to have the minimal critical distance required to be able to reply without caricaturing others with strawmen. If you seriously think the historiography of the French Revolution is about "why the Terror wasn't that Terrible" and "why Robespierre was actually the greatest of all possible Frenchmen" then you have never opened a single book on this matter. I hope that is not the case, and I don't ask you to read what I wrote since that is visibly too much to ask for, but I do ask you, probably in vain, to realise that history has never been about "black and white" or "good and evil", which you would do by actually reading about revolutionnary France. If you spent less effort in creating these gigantic strawmen and more effort in addressing what is posted, it would not save you time, but it would allow you to intervene here without derailing the thread. The easiest way for you to save time would be to stop posting altogether.
- 3
- 1
Someone asked a question. I politely answered it and returned the floor to you. I cannot imagine this will interfere with the non-flow of this conversation.
Good point. I misread my notes. It is Robespierre ''&'' CPS. It was Robespierre's speech of May 10 and his outline that prompted the CPS to throw out the Condorcet draft, and appointed the Herault de Sechelles committee (which included Robbie pal Saint-Just, who did the bulk of the drafting of Robbie's points into text).
The Condorcet Constitution draft was thrown out and the Herault de Sechelles draft committee appointed on May 29. Knowing the composition of the committee, everyone knew what their draft would contain. Thus the immediate purge of the Girondins. It was completed and shown on June 10, by which point there was no one left to protest.
The Montagnards had been opposed to Condorcet's constitution as, besides introducing limits on power, checks-and-balances and other usual good republican stuff, it also introduced electoral districts which would have circumscribed the overrepresentation of Paris in the assembly. Thus the eruption of the revolt of the federes on June 7 when they heard of the Montagnard stunt.
It was total crap. It just vested unbridled, unlimited power in a majoritarian mob in the assembly - essentially just carrying on what had been going on without it. Its existence made zero difference.
In the Fall of 1792, things were not yet out of control. The king's obstructionism was the common complaint, and that was removed. Time to restart - new republic, new constitution, new government, new order.
Except none but the first of these steps were taken for the next ten months. While Condorcet was wasting time crossing t's and dotting i's for months on end, there was no constitution, no order, no government.
What passed for French governance was just gangsterism (what you euphemistically call "democracy"). In the vacuum, while waiting for a new government formula, power fell into the gutter, for anybody to pick up, Makeshift committees grabbed authority, fiefdoms were carved, politics devolved into stoking up partisan mobs and rivals were eliminated violently. Things were not exactly civil before. But the badness congealed over this period to the point of irretrievability.
I blame Condorcet's delay for allowing this poison to grow. It could have been stemmed had it been introduced earlier, when things were not yet so fractious and entrenched, and was likelier to be adopted.
It lost the opportunity to stabilize the revolution and introduce functional republican government. Instead, France just continued its apocalyptic drive into a ungovernable, tyrannical hellhole.
But since, from your comments above, it is obvious you don't think it became a tyrannical hellhole, that the Terror was all happiness, wine and roses, I could see why you're not particularly regretful it failed.
Condorcet's Constitution would have abolished the death penalty. Madame Guillotine would have been silenced. What a terrible fate it would have been had the French Republic have to forego the executions, and miss out on all the fun of "democracy".
Last edited:
- 1
That's harsh. I thought loup's point was Robbie ain't as bad as the Thermidorians, not outright whitewashing.
- 2
The problem with your account is that it feels like the Montagnards are alone pulling the strings of the popular movement while the innocent Girondins end up being the poor victims. The events of the 31th of May to 2nd of June 1793 happen in a context of extreme tension between the Montagnards and Girondins, but also between the Girondins and the popular movement as well as the Commune. On top of that a lot of economic hardship and a social situation which was literally exploding. In this context everyone tried to eliminate everyone. The Girondins attempt to accuse Marat, but he is acquitted by the revolutionnary tribunal. Locally in Lyon for example things went the other way around, the local Girondins (Roland) successfully arrested and jailed the local Montagnards (Chalier), to have them eliminated.
The problem with Condorcet's proposal is that it was out of touch with the political situation at the time. You are correct that it would have been adopted if it had been presented earlier, but I don't think it would have resolved the tensions already present. The committee redacting it was exclusively composed of Girondins, plus Danton. It was an attempt at allying the Republican concept in France with the existence of an executive, with powerful tools of recall and semi-direct democracy. The problem could have been the bicephalic nature of the executive vs a monocephalic legislature, if the National Treasury disagreed with the Executive Council the legislative could easily take the upper hand, especially with the ministers in the Executive Council being constantly under the threat of recall. On the other hand if one party conquers them both the separation becomes virtual and you have a confusion of powers. That being said, with the short terms it could quickly be renewed. There are interesting aspects to this text, and it has shortcomings, just as the 1793 Montagnard Constitution. Reducing the weight of Paris, one of the main points of disagreement between the Girondins and Montagnards, was bound to create conflicts, given that Paris was the centre of the popular movement.
What you criticise here is the decree declaring the state of emergency. Which is fair enough, but with regards to the Constitution of 1793 it is difficult to make a difference when you are suspended. You can maybe attack it for not containing any suspension mechanic in case of emergency, but you can't blame it for being suspended when it does not include suspension mechanics. The reality is that this suspension meant that France was governed without Constitution during the entire duration of the National Convention.
You accuse me of being about "wine and roses", but the September Massacres which happen precisely in 1792 are one of the prime examples during the French Revolution of things going completely out of control in terms of gratuitous violence and mob rule. So colour me surprised.
But if we look at the chronology, this is also the period of Girondin domination over the National Convention. These are Condorcet's friends and allies, the very same people that sit with him in the constitutional committee, and in the same assembly. Your description of the Gironde is Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
If you could refrain from using and abusing the same caricatures as @Andre Bolkonsky, I would appreciate it. Just because I criticise the label "Reign of Terror" (which isn't a particularly audacious stance, it is the one adopted by the most recent synthesises which I referenced) and refrain from using it, and do not see how any of the executions constitute "entertainment" or "crimes against humanity" (which is beyond the historiography, it appears to be original analyses or at the very least unsourced since the posters have not provided their references), it does not mean I endorse any of the violence.
Only for private crimes, not for public ones. The project explicitly states in the First Article of the 3rd Section, "pour tous les délits privés" (for all private offences). This is the same proposal Robespierre made, by the way. Both him and Condorcet were ahead of time on this issue. Sadly the death penalty was only abolished in 1981, thanks to the brilliant Robert Badinter.
Going off-topic a bit, but what is the reasoning behind Revolution-era execution bans, and the abolition of death penalties in general?
The debates and proposals actually predates the French Revolution. The Italian philosopher and jurist Cesare Beccaria actually suggested it as early as 1764 in his On Crimes and Punishments where he also rejects torture. This should be linked the general reflexions during the Enlightenment about humanity, justice and law. Voltaire agreed with him, with a similar philosophy of a more humane justice. In France legislative debates start in 1791, when the penal code is reformed. At the time it was Le Pelletier de Saint-Fargeau who argued for its abolition, suggesting it was inefficient as a deterrent as well as unnecessary. Robespierre already agreed, but the Constituent Assembly rejected it and only abolished torture. Joseph Prugnon was one of those who wanted to keep it, since according to him it protected society, made an example of the condemned and was an alternative to the inefficient isolation cell.
In 1838 under the July Monarchy debates restarted, with Lamartine famously intervening in favour of abolition. The death penalty for political reasons was abolished in 1848, under the Second Republic, but despite Victor Hugo's instance in favour of a total abolition it remained restricted to that. Then throughout the Third Republic you had several proposals and attempts of complete abolition, defended by figures like Jaurès, Clemenceau, Briand, Loubet or Fallières. Ultimately the death penalty was only abolished under the first socialist government of the Fifth Republic, with the presidency of Mitterrand and the Minister of Justice Robert Badinter.
Last edited:
- 3
ten others about Finland which have been posted in the latest year.
The theme is greatly inspired because of the wide European ignorance and the reluctance about to recognize, we also live in here.
- 1
- Status