CafardSuprême @deafeningexpertgarden - Tumblr Blog

Reading mcphee's books one of the moments in the revolution that really stuck with me is how the Girondina immediately accused Robespierre of being behind the September massacre. It's funny how much of a scapegoat Robespierre was for other members of the Assembly. Do you by chance have any other documents regarding this absolutely petty of a dispute between Robespierre and the Brissotins?

If we’re talking about documents where girondins accuse Robespierre of having something to do with the September massacres, the most famous is probably Jean-Baptiste Louvet’s speech Accusation contre Maximilien Robespierre, which he read to the Convention on October 29 1792. In it, Louvet accused Robespierre, among other things, of having ”caluminated” the girondins in the first days of September, ”that is to say, during a time where your calomnies were the same as proscriptions.” There’s also Pétion’s pamphlet Discours de Jérôme Pétion, sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre, released shortly after Louvet’s speech, where Robespierre gets accused of on September 1 having held a speech to the Paris Commune through which he, if unintentionally, ”led the commune into inconsiderate moves, into extreme parties.” Pétion also reports about a meeting he and Robespierre had three days later on September 4, where he would have told him: “Robespierre, you are doing a lot of harm; your denunciations, your alarms, your hatreds, your suspicions, they agitate the people; explain yourself; do you have any facts? Do you have any proof?” In the pamphlet’s sequel, Observations de Jérôme Pétion sur la lettre de Maximilien Robespierre, released somewhere in December 1792, Pétion adds that Robespierre during the massacres had also ”denounced men that were friends of liberty, whose talents were in your eyes the real crimes, against which you had not the slightest proof, and that this was then to indicate victims.” In a letter written already September 5 1792, Madame Roland told Bancal des Issarts that ”We are under the knife of Robespierre and Marat,” who in their turn were the puppets of Danton, and that the three ”had launched an arrest warrant against Roland and Brissot,” and also attempted to go after Guadet but been held back. On September 251792, Vergniaud accused Robespierre of in the night between September 2 and 3 having denounced him, Brissot, Ducos, Guadet, Condorcet and Lasource as belonging to a complot favorable to the duke of Brunswick (Gazette nationale ou le Moniteur universel, number 271 (September 27 1792), page 1149) and in the pamphlet J. P. Brissot, député à la Convention nationale, à tous les républicains de France ; sur la société des Jacobins de Paris (October 29 1792), Brissot wrote that Robespierre and his ”clique” had wanted to use the massacre to not only get rid of the prisoners, but also kill ”Roland, Guadet, Vergniaux [sic], Gensonné, etc. and me...”

So girondin accusations regarding Robespierre’s role in the September massacres seem to revolve less around him being the mastermind behind the whole affair (but as always, if anyone knows sources showing something else, they’re more than welcome to share them here) and more around him trying to take advantage of the massacres to rid himself of his political opponents. If we’re instead talking about documents that might have lead the girondins to think this, we first and foremost have to look at Procès-verbaux de la Commune de Paris (10 août 1792-1er juin 1793) (1894), which contains the minutes from the meetings of the Paris Commune, to which Robespierre belonged from August 12 1792. In the evening session of September 2, the same day the massacres began (the session in fact begins with a officier announcing that people have started to break into the prisons, and the rest of it mainly revolves around measures to be taken in regards to this), Robespierre and Billaud-Varennes are recorded to have done the following (p. 81):

MM. Billaud-Varenne and Robespierre, developing their civic feelings, paint the deep pain they feel over the current state of France. They denounce to the General Council a plot in favor of the Duke of Brunswick, whom a powerful party wants to bring to the throne of the French.

I can’t find any direct follow-up to this statement in the minutes, but already the next day, September 3, Brissot could report the following (testimony published in Moniteur universel, number 251 (September 7 1792) page 1061-1062, that is then followed by an extract of the report written by the commissioners sent home to Brissot, announcing they found nothing ”against public interest”):

Yesterday, Sunday, I, as well as parts of the deputies of the Gironde, and other equally virtuous men, was denounced at the Paris Commune. We were accused of wishing to hand over France to the Duke of Brunswick, of having received millions from them, and of having concerted ourselves to go to England to save ourselves. Citizens, I was denounced at ten o'clock in the evening, and at the same time they were slaughtering in the prisons! […] This morning, around seven o'clock, three commissioners of the Commune came to my house… for three hours, they examined, with all possible care, all my papers.

In number 173 of Révolutions de Paris (October 1792), journalist Louis Marie Prudhomme also writes that Danton ”gave the counter-order which saved the lives of Roland and Brissot, against whom Marat had issued arrest warrants. As soon as you heard that they were threatened, you ran home to Robespierre to stop these two assassins.” In Discours de Jérôme Pétion, sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre, (page 15), Pétion corroborates on this claim, writing that on September 4, the surveillance committee launched an arrest warrant against Roland as well, that Danton (in the company of Robespierre) went to townhall to put a stop to.

I have not found anything suggesting any girondins other than these two ended up getting implicated by Billaud and Robespierre’s accusation (contrary to Brissot, Mme Roland and Vergniaud’s assertions above). Robespierre would also deny that he had had any evil intentions both in the speech Réponse de Maximilien Robespierre à l'accusation de M. Louvet, devant la Convention nationale (November 5 1792) and the article Deuxième lettre de Maximilien Robespierre en réponse au second discours de Jérôme Petion (December 1792) (page 152). However, the way in which he did so is not entirely credible. Because rather than admitting what the Commune’s minutes already prove — that he had been there on September 2 and alongside Billaud denounced ”a plot in favor of the Duke of Brunswick” — while insisting he had not had any murderous intentions with it, Robespierre opted to instead deny that he had even been to the Commune at all, both before and during the massacres:

I will say, for those whom the imposture could have led astray, that before the massacres began, I had ceased to frequent the general council of the commune, since the electoral assembly of which I was a member had begun its sessions. I learned what was going on in the prisons only through general rumours and later, no doubt, than did most citizens; for I was either at home, or else in those places to which my public duties called me. […] They have dared, by an atrocious comparison, to insinuate that I had wished to compromise the safety of some deputies, by denouncing them to the commune during the executions of the conspirators. I have already responded to this infamy, recalling that I had ceased to go to the commune before these events, that it was no more given to me to foresee the sudden and extraordinary circumstances which brought them about. Réponse de Maximilien Robespierre à l'accusation de M. Louvet, devant la Convention nationale, page 22 and 36.

But this, as already stated, obviously isn’t true — Robespierre is in fact recorded to have been present at the Commune both on September 1, 2 and 3. So while it’s far from fully proven that Robespierre on September 2 had sought to have Brissot, Roland and others imprisoned and therefore exposed to the knives of the people purging the prisons, it’s not that hard to see why the latter group thought he might have, especially when Robespierre’s defense of his conduct in part was clearly false.

See this post for a more complete abridgement of what the different sources tell us regarding Robespierre’s role in the September massacres.

secondjulia

The thing I took away from McPhee's discussion of the September Massacres — which, admittedly, is a rosy version of Max & elides his culpability — wasn't so much Robespierre's innocence but the guilt shared with the Girondins. The thing that struck me was how the people who tried to lay so much responsibility at his feet definitively bore some of it themselves.

"In the weeks between the overthrow of the monarchy and the outbreak of the massacres," he says, "it was leading Brissotins who were as panic-stricken as anyone, and called, in Gorsas' words for:

'the punishment of the guilty... a few drops of impure blood would have satisfied its just revenge, and now waves of blood will be spilled.'

"during the massacres themselves, Gorsas, Roland, Carra, Condorcet and Louvet used their newspapers to support the killings as necessary, or deliberately said nothing. On 3 September, Gorsas reported on

'a terrible justice, but necessary, but necessitated.'

"On the 5th, Carra used the Annales patriotiques to assure his readers that

'the innocent have been spared. All those who have been slaughtered had given well-known proof of lack of civic virtue, and perhaps that is a crime worthy of death at a time when the homeland must be saved.' "

From Robespierre a Revolutionary Life by McPhee, Chapter 8, p. 129

Technically, at this time, they may not have been in the same positions of power as Robespierre, Danton, etc. with regard to the Commune, but they certainly had influence and seemed to do their share of justification. Which, again, does nothing to support Robespierre's innocence, but does, I think, give a more realistic view of the collective responsibility.

I admit that I'm partial to the view of collective responsibility because of how often it seems to be ignored in favor of a more simplistic story.

John Hardman in Marie Antoinette, Chapter 24 (I have the audiobooks, so don't know the page), for example, calls Robespierre "the guiding hand" in the massacres, says that he "seized control" of the Commune and that "He then, until the meeting of the Convention, exercised the only real dictatorship of his life, but one in the classical Roman sense: short and total", which gives the impression that he not only instigated and defended them but literally held the reigns of the situation.

Lucy Moore in Liberty, which I just finished, says in Chapter 8, p. 162 that "One of the obvious differences between the Montagnards and the Girondins in the first weeks of the National Convention was that while the Montagnards were content to draw a veil over the events of early September, the Girondins wanted to bring the perpetrators to justice... ...The Girondins took the line that all those who would not condemn the murders were implicated in them." That may be true (and I do not actually disagree with them here!), but there's irony in the Girondins singling out their opponents in the Mountain as wanting to "draw a veil" over the massacres and that not condemning the events implicated them while plenty of Girondins were drawing a veil over their own culpability and justifying or downplaying the massacres.

These are the ones that come immediately to mind, but I've encountered similarly slanted/simplified depictions in my reading not infrequently.

So, to me, the reality just feels much more complicated and messy than how it is often portrayed.

aedislumen

Some military uniforms from 1792 to 1795

What follows is a collections of engravings depicting the uniforms worn by soldiers with a specific military ranks during the French Revolutionary Wars.

Source: Gallica. High resolution picture: x

First row, from left to right:

Adjoutant général

Chef de brigade

Général de brigade

Général de division

Général en chef

Second row, from left to right:

Aide de camp

Commissaire ordonnateur des guerres

Porte enseigne

Capitaine des grenadiers

Soldat des troupes de ligne

Single pictures under the cut:

theblackrook

📜 AN AUGUSTIN ROBESPIERRE TIMELINE (1793–1794)

Thank you @mathildeaquisexta for giving me 80~ of Bonbons decrees for my birthday 😭😭 Seriously I owe you my life and a first-born, this is the best gift I could have asked for from you !!

PHASE I: First Mission to the Alpes-Maritimes (Autumn 1793)

Location: Nice & Surroundings Theme: Supply, Logistics, and Stabilization

25 September 1793: Grain Monopoly Decree. Orders that only the state "Régie des vivres" can buy grain arriving in Nice to prevent price gouging and ensure hospitals/marine are fed.

26 September 1793: Liberation of Cornillon. Releases an elderly, infirm man, returning his confiscated papers.

1 October 1793: Promotion of Basset. Promotes Adjutant Basset to Captain for his courage in arresting a conspirator.

25 October 1793: Soap Price Adjustment. Raises the maximum price of soap to reflect the cost of imported raw materials, preventing shortages.

25 October 1793 (4 Brumaire): Metalworkers Requisition. Orders a list of workers capable of making tools/arms for the war effort.

25 October 1793 (4 Brumaire): Consul Protection. Protects the property of the Neapolitan Consul.

1 November 1793 (11 Brumaire): Bread Rationing. Orders municipalities to regulate bread given to innkeepers to prevent waste.

4 November 1793 (14 Brumaire): Genoese Trade. Encourages a Genoese merchant ship to sell its cargo without hurting its interests.

7 November 1793 (17 Brumaire): The "Egg Decree." Orders municipalities to provide eggs specifically for the sick and wounded in hospitals.

PHASE II: The Humanitarian Interlude in Franche-Comté (Winter 1794)

Location: Haute-Saône (Vesoul, Gray, Faverney) Theme: Mass Amnesty, Justice, and Protecting the Vulnerable

25 January 1794 (6 Pluviôse): Release of Froissard. Frees a citizen whose "error" was caused by the same confusion that affected others.

27 January 1794 (8 Pluviôse): Release of Vernet. Applies a previous liberation decree to a cultivator.

31 January 1794 (12 Pluviôse): "Day of Compassion." A massive wave of releases:

Charlotte Dard: Freed (misled by employers).

Martine Camus: Freed (husband is a trusted mayor).

Victoire Rivemal: Freed (motifs for arrest were wrong).

Lescours & Jouvard: Freed (good citizens, no proof of enmity).

Claude-François Noirot: Freed (an elderly, infirm ex-monk who posed no threat).

3 February 1794 (15 Pluviôse): Anti-Famine Action. Overturns a local order that blocked grain circulation, calling the original measure "disastrous".

4 February 1794 (16 Pluviôse): Wide-Ranging Justice.

Poncelin Family: Freed (denunciation was likely personal hatred).

Menoux Commune: Releases 14 people from one village, mostly farmers and parents.

Luxeuil Supplies: Suspends requisition demands on a district suffering from drought to prevent starvation.

Desertion Inquiry: Orders investigation into desertions but demands valid proof before punishing families.

5 February 1794 (17 Pluviôse): Release of Gauchier. Freed upon petition from his commune.

6 February 1794 (18 Pluviôse): Protecting Workers & Mothers.

Harmand Family: Freed (cultivators needed for the fields).

Ferrand: Freed (arrest was due to "passion" of the committee).

Lallemand Brothers: Freed (minor grain transport error, not a crime).

Widow Barbot: Grants her a pension.

Citoyenne Delisle: Freed because she is pregnant and has 5 small children.

Forge Workers: Exempts skilled workers (Giraud, Sensé) from military draft to make bombs/cannons.

Vesoul Mass Release: Releases or moves to house arrest roughly 50 people (mostly women, elderly, and "unimportant" suspects).

10 February 1794 (22 Pluviôse): Religious Tolerance. Releases Jean-Baptiste Theurey, arrested only for refusing to go to mass.

11 February 1794 (23 Pluviôse): Legal Rigor.

Orders the public prosecutor to immediately judge detainees (punish the guilty, free the innocent) to end indefinite detention.

Arrests his own agents: Orders the arrest of Maillot and other delegates for abusing their power.

12-17 February 1794 (24-29 Pluviôse): Final Sweeping Releases.

Frees Marie-Iréné Lange, Coucy mother & daughter (noble but patriotic), Boisson, Tissot, Euvrard, Durget, Rebillet, Regnaudin, Séguin, Apremont women, Davadans, Bressand.

Gray Mass Release (27 Pluviôse): Releases nearly 30 people held for "religious opinions" or lack of enthusiasm, stating these opinions are "isolated from the Revolution".

Roussel (29 Pluviôse): Frees a farmer whose son died for the Republic.

PHASE III: Return to the Alpes-Maritimes (Spring 1794)

Location: Nice, Monaco (Fort d'Hercule), Menton Theme: Institution Building and Anti-Corruption

5 March 1794 (15 Ventôse): Gendarmerie Reorganization. Reasserts departmental control over the gendarmerie to stop district-level abuses.

5 March 1794 (15 Ventôse): Officer Nominations. Appoints specific captains and lieutenants to the gendarmerie.

5 March 1794 (15 Ventôse): The Tobacco Factory Scandal. Annuls the sale of the "manufacture de tabac" because it was sold at a "vile price" (corruption) and orders a new, fair auction.

10 March 1794 (20 Ventôse): Protecting Émigré Assets. Suspends the sale of émigré furniture to investigate irregularities and demand a full inventory.

11 March 1794 (21 Ventôse): Investigation of Robert Cid. Demands to know the motives for the arrest of a government commissioner.

12 March 1794 (22 Ventôse): Administrative Competence. Clarifies that Departmental administrations (not just districts) still have authority over émigré lists.

12 March 1794 (22 Ventôse): Iron Collection. Orders all requisitioned iron (from churches/émigrés) be brought to Nice for the army.

13 March 1794 (23 Ventôse): Food Sales. Authorizes the sale of semolina, vegetables, and vermicelli to communes at maximum prices.

22 April 1794 (3 Floréal): Buonarroti Appointment. Appoints the famous revolutionary Philippe Buonarroti as commissioner for the conquered territories (Oneille/Loano).

4 May 1794 (15 Floréal): Maritime Law Exception. Suspends a harsh law (27 Germinal) regarding coastal residency because it is too difficult to enforce in Nice/Menton without hurting locals.

7 May 1794 (18 Floréal): Night Fishing Decree. Authorizes night fishing (normally banned) because local fish only move at night, and fishing is crucial for food and sailor training.

19 June 1794 (1 Messidor): Judicial Salaries. Fixes the salary for the criminal tribunal judges.

Jun–Jul 1794 (Paris): Returns from mission and fucking dies for whatever reason 😒😒