28 years old, she, Feminist fan of history especially Empire Ottoman, Tudor History, French Revolution and of Algeria. Love Asioaf, Percy Jackson, Magnificent Century...
I introduce myself as 28 years old, a completely failed law student struggling at university and wondering if one day she will have a diploma. Proud to be a feminist, and a lover of history, revolution, the Tudors, the Ottoman Empire.
Watch different series like Magnificent Century, Game of Thrones, House of Dragon and love GRR Martin like everyone else. Don’t hesitate to discuss or discuss anything as long as it’s done respectfully!
Here are some posts:
Magnificent century :
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/743859035572436992/i-repeat-one-of-my-comments-posted-on-youtube-if?source=share How I would write the characters of Mustafa,Bayezid, Mihrimah,Cihangir,Mehmed and Selim
The problem of the sexism of Magnificent century : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/743846341308006400/the-problem-of-magnificent-century-the?source=share
Fustration in the arc of Safavid in MC and MCK : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/744149939270123520/one-of-my-many-frustrations-as-an-mc-and-mck-when?source=share
About the historical Bayezid and Mustafa https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/744961298653200384/one-of-my-posts-in-youtube-when-i-see-bayezid?source=share
An horrible emission historical about Suleiman https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/746859397476696064/after-being-critical-about-the-episode-secrets?source=share
French Revolution :
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/744398816808222720/womens-rights-suppressed?source=share About women right suppressed in french revolution and after under the Empire
Mistakes made by the jacobin ( or Montagnard in the period 1793-1795)https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/745212185045811200/in-your-opinion-what-was-the-most-significant?source=share
About the movie of Heffron about french revolution part I : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/746585301251670016/analysis-of-the-french-revolution-film-by-robert?source=share
About the movie Danton of Wajda : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/747406751607947264/the-major-problem-with-wajdas-film-danton-in-a?source=share
About la Camera explore le temps la terreur et la vertu https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/748832638732812288/firstly-even-if-it-may-not-have-been-the?source=share
Critic about Henri Guillemin https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749461261968883712/critic-about-henri-guillemin?source=share
Beginning critic about Germaine de Stael https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749468572482453504/before-beginning-this-critique-as-i-have-not?source=share
Napoleonic era:
Hommage to Louis Delgres https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/751677840407330816/on-this-day-die-louis-delgres-freedom-fighter?source=share
Tribute to some womens of Haiti and Guadeloupe against the slavery https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/748481647920480256/tribute-to-all-these-revolutionary-women-coming?source=share
Another Frustration with the Series (Spoiler Alert for Blood and Fire and House of the Dragon) https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/755464059310211072/another-frustration-with-the-series-spoiler-alert?source=share
One of my problem with House of Dragon ( or why GRR Martin's original work was better) https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/755294528246874112/one-of-my-problem-with-house-of-dragon-or-why?source=share
Algeria :
Movie the last queen : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/743941849968967680/i-recommend-for-those-who-have-not-seen-the-movie?source=share
8 may 1945 in Algeria https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749903094886907904/8-may-1945-in-algeria?source=share
Fernand and Helene Iveton first part https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/753999134761058304/fernand-and-helene-iveton-a-couple-in-the-algerian?source=share
Fernand and Helene Iveton a couple in the Algerian revolution ( part II): the life and the loss of Henri Maillot https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/754119277224886272/fernand-and-helene-iveton-a-couple-in-the-algerian?source=share
Fernand and Helene Iveton a couple in the Algerian revolution the beginning of the End (part III)
Fernand and Helene Iveton a couple in the algerian revolution (part IV): the difficult ordeal of the trial https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/754386579065389056/fernand-and-helene-iveton-a-couple-in-the-algerian?source=share
Fernand and Helene Iveton a couple in the algerian revolution part V : the end of Fernand Iveton https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/754655418751582208/fernand-iveton-at-the-time-of-his-arrest-the
Fernand and Helene Iveton a couple in the algerian revolution part VI epilogue https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/754736214712680448/fernand-and-helene-iveton-a-couple-in-the-algerian
Feminism :
Abortion right : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/743655296639090688/big-day-for-us-the-senators-included-abortion?source=share
In defense for :
Marie Antoinette :https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/748299652332486656/in-defense-for-marie-antoinette?source=share
Manon Roland https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749676278230188032/in-defense-for-manon-roland?source=share
Context: this concerns the arrests of the Babouvists and after the repression of Grenelle.
Very few people, at that time (although later public opinion would, in some ways, begin to shift in their favor due to several of their actions and strategies), wanted to defend them, and they became the target of a press onslaught.
Interestingly, Babeuf had served under Pache when the latter was mayor of Paris (Babeuf told his wife that he considered him a friend even if in reality it's more complicated than that , and it was one of the rare times when the Babeuf family was free from financial hardship), and he defended him in 1794.
This defense was edited by the Jacobin colleague of his son-in-law Xavier Audouin, the famous editor René Vatar (whose defense of Babeuf was one of reasons that earned him deportation to Guyana during the era of Bonaparte where he died there). I was able to find this defense document on Gallica in Pierquin's book.
This pamphlet is very virulent against Carnot as one would expect given the relationship between the two as I have already explained. So, although Pache has, in my opinion, many reasons to be angry with Carnot(both for political and personal reasons) , one should not take at face value the part where he talks about Carnot.
About warning in issue X Pache speaks at one point of the tortures of the Ancien Régime under Louis XV so sensitive souls should abstain
J.-N. Pache on Factions and Parties, Conspiracies and Plots, and on Those Currently on the Agenda.
I
There has been a harmful confusion in the use of the words faction, party, conspiracy, and plot; it is
useful—especially at a time when these terms are used so frequently—to restrict each of them to a specific and proper meaning, in order to achieve mutual understanding. If language does not ensure
this advantage, it ceases to be that fortunate discovery which most powerfully contributes to raising man above the brute and to heralding the long-term improvement of the species. Instead, it becomes a futile invention or a dangerous artifice.
Men live in association, either in the form of a primary or secondary democracy with a government that maintains liberty and equality, or else in a collective under aristocratic or monarchical rule,
which holds them in slavery. In both conditions, one must consider principles and persons.
The word faction seems more suited to express a relation to principles; it carries more consistency and has been more frequently used in this sense.
The word party has more often been used, in contemporary writings, to express a relation to persons. It would suffice simply to stick to these meanings.
In this text, the word faction will constantly and exclusively express a relation to the principles of government; the word party will likewise constantly and exclusively refer to persons.
A man is a factionist as soon as he is in opposition to the principles of the government. But for a faction to exist, several men must be animated by this spirit; a single man does not constitute a
faction.
It is the same for parties; a single man does not form a party.
II
In a state of society, citizens can be divided into two classes: 1)Patriots who are devoted to the
Government; and 2) Factionists who seek to overthrow it in order to establish a form of domination.
There are two kinds of faction: aristocratic and monarchical, and there can be no others. Each of these kinds is subdivided into several varieties.
Patriots often divide into two parties: one supports the individuals in power, while the other rejects them. Each of these parties is also subdivided into various types.
In a state of collective existence under domination, the enslaved are likewise divided into two classes: 1)Patriots who, despite their chains, strive to overthrow aristocratic or monarchical
domination in order to establish a Government on its ruins; 2) Factionists who work to maintain the existing domination, or to replace it with another—namely, under monarchical domination, to
substitute aristocratic rule, and under aristocratic domination, to substitute monarchical rule.
These individuals are factionists not because of their efforts to overthrow the existing domination, but because of their efforts to establish another form of domination that is equally opposed to the principles of Government.
Factionists who aim to preserve the existing domination often divide into parties: some remain loyal to the current rulers, while others seek to overthrow them in order to replace them within the same
system of domination.
III
There may be anarchists in a society or in a collective; there may exist certain individuals whom a flaw of temperament or upbringing renders equally incapable of enduring either the salutary restraint of Government or the oppressive yoke of domination. But there can be no anarchist faction; there cannot be a group of individuals who conceive of and desire a permanent gathering of persons without any relations between the members of that gathering.
As soon as there is a gathering, it becomes a moral necessity that the relationships among its members be defined in one of two forms: Government or domination. There is—and can only be—a
moment of anarchy during the transition from domination to Government, or vice versa; anarchy, properly speaking, cannot endure.
A gathering without relations among its members is a moral impossibility; it is an absurdity that, not entering the mind, cannot possibly enter the will of anyone. The phrase anarchist faction is a contradiction in terms.
It has been used and repeated—like so many other expressions—without any value or meaning, by the parrots of both factions, just as they repeat trinity in their catechism or liberty under a constitution that establishes monarchy or aristocracy—at best a futile use of
language, if not a pernicious artifice.
IV
In society or in a collective, the most numerous class is always the patriotic one. It can only wish, in the first case, to maintain—and in the second, to establish—a Government that upholds liberty
and equality.
For this class, a Government is everything. It is the source of all improvements in its intellectual, moral, political, and physical condition—through education, the development of sentiment, the
absence of oppression, and the increase of absolute individual well-being, resulting from enhanced intelligence and a better distribution of labor, regardless of differences in relative comfort.
A system of domination, on the other hand, weighs upon it with every form of physical, political, moral, and intellectual suffering: by darkening the understanding, repressing sentiment, degrading it
to the state of purely passive beings, and ultimately imposing excessive labor—unpaid or poorly paid—as a direct consequence. That is all it has to fear.
The traveler sees these truths at a glance; the historian finds them in every memoir; reflection reveals them to philosophers; and every honest soul ardently desires their sincere application to the
nation—even if it requires the sacrifice of personal advantages rooted in prejudice. But an even stronger instinct makes each individual within the great mass feel them. Hence come—and will always come—insurrections at more or less frequent intervals, until, through a possible perfection of the human species and society, Governments are firmly established and beyond reach of subversion.
In societies, there are rarely factious among the governed; but the Governors often are. They tend to exploit the advantages of their position to alter the Government—an unfortunate consequence of
that human weakness which leads men, when not sufficiently enlightened, to desire the growth or preservation of power.
In collectives under domination, the rulers are essentially factious. They maintain their rule as long as possible by rejecting, obscuring, and slandering even the idea of a true Government.
V
In both society and collective gatherings, there are almost always parties among the factionists and among the patriots. The latter, though in agreement on principles, often disagree regarding the individuals in power. Some have perceived certain circumstances that others are unaware of. Thus, differing considered opinions emerge about the same individuals, apart from the diversity of personal feeling that arises from sympathy or antipathy, from similarities or contrasts in characterand demeanor, and also apart from differences stemming from other social relationships.
Patriots, factionists, and partisans all conspire or plot.
VI
To conspire is to aspire together toward the same goal: our wishes conspire toward your return, everything conspires to my happiness.
Applied to politics, conspiracy is, in itself, morally neutral; it is the aim of the conspiracy that determines its nature. One may conspire for or against principles—the former type of conspiracy is
as virtuous as the latter is vicious.
It would be useful to have distinct words to express conspiracies related to principles and those related to individuals, and likewise to distinguish between virtuous and vicious conspiracies within
each category. But in its current state, language does not offer sufficient resources for this distinction.
People may conspire without knowing one another, without any communication, without ever having had any prior relationship.
Conspiracy may occur from one end of a state to the other, or from one end of the globe to the other.
Conspiracy is simply a disposition of the soul.
VII
To conspire is to make a mutual promise, a reciprocal oath to help one another achieve, through a public and external act, a common political goal. The promise or mutual commitment may be verbal
or written, conditional or absolute, provoked or spontaneous, bought or disinterested.
Conspiracy is, in itself, as neutral as plot; it is the object of the conspiracy that gives it its moral character.
A conspiracy can be either for or against the principles of government: the first kind is as virtuous as the second is criminal.
A conspiracy can be for or against governing or ruling individuals: the moral quality of those individuals determines that of the conspiracy.
It is false to claim that the success or failure of a conspiracy unfairly distributes admiration or scorn over the memory of the conspirators through the ages. That is a prejudice propagated or maintained
by aristocratic or monarchical rulers to restrain noble spirits—souls more devoted to their reputation than to their lives.
Respect surrounds the Sixteen—conspirators who, according to a royalist historian, were as feared by the leaders of the League, the Lorrainer and the Spaniard, as they were by the heir to the crown
—because they aimed at a democratic government. Respect surrounds them even though a new coalition of parliamentarians, Sorbonne scholars, and high bourgeois—who secretly still favored
inequality—suddenly formed among them, split off, and then established tactics and intrigues designed to weaken them, at which they were more skilled. In the end, these men handed themselves over to Mayenne to betray the democrats, causing the generous enterprise to fail.
Contempt surrounds the Count of Brissac and his staff—conspirators who, upon seeing the growing strength of public spirit after the fall of the Sixteen and the people’s subsequent indifference to a
Revolution benefiting only a handful of aristocrats, secretly negotiated with the King of Navarre.
They sold him Paris for a Marshal’s baton and pensions, delivered him its gates, and thus this flat, aristocratic coalition of parliamentarians, Sorbonne scholars, and high bourgeois plunged once again into slavery—dragging the rest of France with them.
Respect surrounds the people of La Rochelle and Guiton—conspirators for the establishment of a Republic whose system might have extended over all Gaul. For this sacred cause, they endured one
of the longest and most brutal sieges. Guiton even offered his life and body to the most starving among them to prolong the fight in hope of external aid. Respect surrounds them despite their lack
of success.
Hatred and contempt cover the conspirators Louis XIII, Richelieu, and his horde—bathing in the blood of these unfortunate republicans, feasting on their provisions, and committing all sorts of
cruelties to gain over their exhausted remains a rule that bored the first, who was so burdened by it that he debased himself before the second, who was willing to relieve him. Meanwhile, the second
was in turn equally exhausted, his soul as cowardly as it was fierce, constantly prey to such fears that he dared not move from one room to another without guards.
Respect surrounded the conspirators who stormed the Bastille on July 14th, those who brought Louis XVI and the Constituent Assembly back to Paris on October 6th—even had they failed.
Hatred and contempt cover the conspirators Louis XVI and Bouillé for the massacre at Nancy; and the conspirators Bailly, Lafayette, and the constitutional revisionists for the massacre at the Champde-Mars, despite their horrible success.
Respect would surround the conspirators of August 10th, even had they been crushed by the Swiss Guards and the fine grenadiers; the conspirators of May 31st, even if the ascendancy of reason and
the necessity of preserving the Republic had not brought them success. And contempt would cover the conspirators of Thermidor and of Vendémiaire, enemies of the Republic, even had they
succeeded.
The riches of eloquence, the charms of poetry—so often in the service of rulers—do not alter the sense of natural justice; nothing corrupts that precious instinct which commands us to respect the
defender of liberty and stirs our hearts against those who, even successfully, betray the cause of nations, the cause of humanity.
Our current language lacks precise and distinct terms exclusively devoted to describing these various kinds of conspiracies. One might use federation in a positive sense, league in a negative
sense, when dealing with principles; union in a positive sense, cabal in a negative one, when dealing with people.
One cannot conspire without knowing one another—or at least without corresponding, by voice or in writing, directly or indirectly.
Sometimes the conspirators are in the same place; sometimes they are scattered from one end of the state to the other.
VIII
One can transform a conspiracy into a conjuration through several methods. Those who bring about the change, those through whose intervention the conspirators become the conspirators, are the heroes or the criminals, since without them, without their transformative actions, there would have been no conjuration, and the conspirators would have remained simple conspirators.
IX
The conjuration, once formed by this change, has different degrees of consistency at different times. There are the plans for actions, and there is their execution: there are preparatory acts, intermediate acts, and the final act.
Those who move the conjuration from one degree to another—from the plan of actions to their execution, or from the preparatory acts to the intermediate acts, or from the intermediate acts to the
final act, or from certain plans to others, or from certain preparatory or intermediate acts to others— are still the heroes or the criminals, since, without them, the stationary conjuration would not have
progressed in either plans or actions, whether preparatory, intermediate, or final.
X
The conjuration, at any time and at any degree, must be considered in terms of the means that make the final act possible, or that reduce it to a daydream, chatter, or scribbling. It is the possibility of the final act, through the means at the disposal of the conspirators, that makes the conjuration a serious matter and worthy of occupying a nation and posterity.
It is not enough to dream of a revolution, to discuss it with three or four patriots while promising to help one another if circumstances allow for its possibility, in order to receive the honors due to the
benefactors of humankind; one must either have executed it, or after taking preparatory actions and gathering solid means that make the success of the conjuration highly probable, one must at least
have begun executing the intermediate acts.
It is not enough to dream of a revolution, to discuss it with three or four accomplices while promising to help one another if circumstances allow for its possibility, in order to receive the
punishments due to criminals of lese-humanity; one must have executed it, or after taking preparatory actions and gathering solid means that make the success of the conjuration highly
probable, one must at least have begun executing the intermediate acts.
I have seen a royalist speaker say that in conspiracies, in the absence of deeds, the intention should be punished. This proposition is not that of a Barbarian. Barbarians do not possess the civility of
civilized men, but they are not devoid of natural feelings, and they do not dilute them with vain subtleties. It is the proposition of one of those men whose moral organs are reversed, like the
physical organs of those monstrous children who have their esophagus at their backside; it is the proposition of one of those men who, thus organized against nature, has lived in a state contrary to
nature. Indeed, it is within dominations that this maxim was invented. Tyrants sought to impose fear through the threat of punishments, and what punishments! I will not go back to the bull of Phalaris,
but we have all seen, under the reign of humanity, human parliamentarians order, at the request of the human Louis XV, that a man be clamped by his nipples and other sensitive parts of his body,
that molten lead be poured onto his bleeding wounds, and that eight horses then rip apart all the nerves of his four limbs through quartering. His painful and agonizing screams still echo in our ears.
This fear of punishments for the slightest offense was not enough for them; they devised ways to make people fear even their thoughts, to add to terror the guilt of conscience; they went so far as to
make man responsible for his dreams, and they were aided by priests and judges degraded by slavery. But in a society, there can be no rewards or punishments distributed in such a manner.
There must be 1) facts, and 2) intent. With intent but no facts, just as with facts but no intent, there are neither punishments nor rewards; both are graduated according to the facts.
XI
In every gathering, the essentially patriotic people are in permanent conspiracy for a Government against domination: from time to time, there are conspiracies. Their intervals are determined by the
concurrence of several constants.
The factious rulers are in permanent conspiracy and conjuration against the principles of the Government and against all means that would lead to its establishment.
In every society, some factious individuals, among whom we can unfortunately almost always count rulers, are in permanent conspiracy against the principles of governments.
There is very rarely conjuration on the part of the governed factious, but there is ordinarily permanent conjuration on the part of these factious rulers.
In every gathering, the factious, party men, are in permanent conspiracy against the rulers, and from time to time, there are conspiracies on their part.
In every society, the parties among the patriots conspire against the rulers, and sometimes this leads to conjuration.
XII
In any society where the rulers fulfill their duties, conspiracies and conjurations are not dangerous.
If it is the governed who attack the principles of the Government, a vast majority defends them.
If it is patriots, patriotic men, who mistakenly attack these good rulers, a vast majority defends them.
XIII
In any society where the rulers do not fulfill their duties, there are two cases. The conspirators and conspirators are either rulers or the governed.
If it is the rulers who attack the principles of the Government, the conspiracy is dangerous; for although a vast majority supports these principles, the means of seduction and force employed by
these factious rulers can temporarily harm the public good.
XIV
If it is the governed who are the conspirators and conspirators, or if they are factious individuals who want to overthrow the Government, they are not dangerous, as we have seen, because a vast
majority supports it against their weak attacks. Or if it is patriots who, not as party men, but as patriots, attack the bad rulers who are enemies of the principles of the Government; in this case, the
conjuration, far from being dangerous, is salutary, it is desirable; there are too few of this kind. It saves the public good.
XV
In these circumstances, the great art of factious rulers is to make people believe that the generous patriots are themselves factious, to make them so, if not in reality, at least in appearance.
They would not dare to claim that conspiring against their persons is conspiring against the State.
This maxim is reserved for dominations, where it is proven to the incredulous by tearing them apart, just as the non-existence of the antipodes was proven to other skeptics by burning them. One would
laugh in the face of the sophists in their pay if they were to propose such a statement; even children today know that the rulers are not the Government, and therefore that conspiring against the rulers
is not conspiring against the Government.
In this predicament, they resort to all possible tricks to create some circumstances or inspire certain acts from which it can be inferred, as it suits their interests, that these generous patriots who attack
their persons also want to attack the Government.
XVI
The number of conspiracies in any society is the measure of the qualities of the rulers.
If this number is small, the rulers are tolerable.
If it is large, the rulers are necessarily very bad.
What good and prudent rulers must do is reduce this number: 1º by enlightening the factious about the principles, in order to attach them to the Government; 2º by rectifying their own conduct, so as
not to be justly disapproved and pursued by the patriots, who will always prevail in the long run because they have the right and reason on their side.
A Government is not instituted, nor are rulers maintained, to kill men abruptly; one institutes the former and maintains the latter to bring back lost citizens to the principles, or to restore embittered
citizens to better feelings, by superiorly directed means, according to circumstances and minds, by gentle, humane, social, and skillful ways; it is not to crush factions, to crush parties against each
other with colossal force, it is to alleviate them through the influence of reason, the attraction of methods, the charms of gentleness; it is not to make criminals of weak men in order to punish them
according to severe laws, it is to strengthen them, to prevent them from falling into crime, and to avert the misfortune of having to inflict terrible punishments on them; it is not to inoculate the virus
of crime into men whose temperaments are already too harsh, it is to keep away even the miasma of contagion from them; it is not to destroy, it is to preserve, and to preserve through the preventive
method: if it deserves preference in physical medicine, it is a perfect and rigorous duty in political medicine.
XVII
Rulers who suppose conspiracies are therefore fools, who proclaim their own ineptitude or vices in front of their contemporaries and posterity, unless they are driven by some major personal interests,
and the discovery of these personal interests usually transforms them from fools into factious individuals.
If they use these supposed conspiracies as a means to shed innocent blood, they are criminals.
XVIII
Rulers who do not merely suppose, but actually create conspiracies, are either fools or factious individuals with an additional degree of malice. If they use the conspiracies they have created as a
means to shed blood, they are criminals of a higher degree.
XIX
I know of a town where the bells had not been rung for a long time. The Christians, exercising their
religion freely, had, as the democratic Jesus recommends, decided to comply with the civil law of the state. The news of the discovery of the great conspiracy of Floréal arrives there; the following
Sunday, early in the morning, the bells ring out and there is a double peal. After the great mass, a young prosecutor, who has never read to the people the account of the victories of the Italian army,
passionately declaims the story of the remarkable discovery that saves the Republic, and some old fanatics say to themselves: "It’s Drouet, it’s the one who arrested the king, he’s going to be
guillotined, it’s God who punishes him." And fanaticism, with its acolytes, has not abated since. You can easily see that if their good God gets involved in punishing the one who arrested the king at
Varennes, it is even more likely, in these minds, that He will punish those who condemned him to death and even those who allowed him to be executed, and that the anticipated punishment, perhaps
requested at the morning and evening Angelus, will not give rise, when it comes, to any other feelings than those stirred by the idea of punishing Drouet. Of course, these nonsense will do
nothing to the existence of the Republic, but that is the good political effect of this great coup d'état.
People came to tell me about it; I said: it is impossible that Drouet is a royalist, that he is an aristocrat, that he wants to overthrow the republican government; he can only have had the idea of
toppling rulers he believes to be bad and harmful to the Government. It is impossible that those I know on this list—Cordas, Fiquet, Crespin, Paris, Antonelle, Lepelletier, Parein, Amar, Menessier,
Bodson, Lindet, Chrétien—have changed, that they are anti-republicans; it is also impossible that they would accept all the aberrations attributed to what is called the anarchist faction; aberrations that might amuse the imagination, even engage the heart, but which are always rejected by sound judgment: the equal division of land, the community of property, and all the other follies that have been spread about the democrats to ruin them, just as, in other times, other tyrants accused the Jews of stabbing hosts, drawing blood from them to quench their thirst; or the Templars of killing, then roasting their own children whom they devoured; false inventions of treacherous rulers to achieve criminal goals. I know each of these men too well to not believe in their integrity, patriotism, and sound views; time will clarify this.
When, shortly after, I learned of the Grenelle affair and that they were being shot in large numbers, I said to myself, with bitterness in my heart: another conspiracy! A movement of the conspirators! It
is impossible that Huguet, Cailleux, Gagnant, Javogues, Cusset—whose names were presented to me—are anti-republicans. The rulers, as I see it, suppose conspiracies and plots against the state,
when at most there are conspiracies and plots against their persons, which is not the same thing. By doing so, they first show that they are bad rulers; they let it be presumed that they may have ulterior
motives. Then they somehow legitimize these conspiracies and plots, they elevate the conspirators to the Pantheon, but since it’s by making them pass through a murderous pit, they are criminals.
I then subscribed to a patriotic newspaper, in order to regain some understanding of the current affairs. I saw in debates that the rulers had not merely supposed, but actually made or favored the
formation or progressive advancement of the Floréal conspiracy, probably the one at Grenelle, and perhaps that of Brottier; that with the money and resources of the Republic, they had managed with
difficulty to turn simple conspirators against their persons into conspirators, or conspirators in projects into active conspirators, and then came to boast about this noble action in front of the
deputies in the legislature, some of whom had been duped, and others pretended to be. But these rulers, soaked in the blood of Grenelle, against whose shedding the Court of Cassation now calls,
are criminals of a higher degree.
XX
It is the duty of the rulers to monitor the conspirators against the Government; it is in their interest to monitor the conspirators against their own persons, even to introduce among both groups men
who can report everything that happens, in order to prevent harm, to correct the opinions of some, and to correct themselves according to the disapproval of others. But it is a horror to provoke evil in
these two classes of conspirators, whoever they may be, in order to have the right to punish them; to transform them, almost against their will, from conspirators into plotters, or from plotters into
projects, into active conspirators, in order to have the legal right to kill them.
"It is difficult," you will say, "to draw the line and to limit oneself to observation without provoking in order to make them confess." – No, it is not difficult; and if you do not know how to do difficult things, go plant your cabbages; if, not knowing how to do what is difficult, you substitute it with an act of wickedness, your names will forever be held in horror.
Surveillance is indispensable in a city as large as Paris, with a population as numerous as Olympian, where both virtues and talents from both worlds converge for the games, and where all that is most
subtly vicious gathers as well; but it is the surveillance of a father. He suspects that, despite his instructions and reproaches, his son has acquired the habit of going to gambling dens; he sends a
trusted man to watch him. This man must advance into the familiarity of the lost young man, to be able to accompany him everywhere. But it is not by provoking him to gamble, it is not by inflaming him even more with that fatal passion. You would reply, "We need intelligent and honest agents to grasp and apply these nuances, but all we have are Malo, Grisel." Well, do not degrade them, you
will have what you need. Be good and delicate yourselves, do not give infamous commissions, and then these can be carried out by men who are at once skilled and virtuous. This too is a service to
the Republic. Moreover, good faith is there. It is fixed; no human force can move it, distance it, or bring it closer.
Anything that exceeds it is a crime that puts the Republic in greater danger than remaining below it; for conspiracies of governed factious people are always less perilous than attacks by rulers, and it
would rather be against the latter that the phrase Salus populi prima lex could apply, though this should be used sparingly: it cannot and should not be a maxim of everyday life.
As we have seen, it is a perfect and rigorous duty for you to work towards preventing harm. You can never provoke it in order to have the right to punish it. It would be in vain for you to say that you
provoke a particular evil in order to prevent a general evil by punishing it. It is an execrable sophism, since by taking the opposite side and preventing the particular evil, you would also
prevent the general evil, and thus you would have nothing to punish. Provoking the particular evil is therefore an unnecessary act for the public good, for the salvation of the state, for the salvation of
the people.
You can only be led to it by selfish and interested motives, or else you falsely wish to present yourselves as saviors of the homeland, which was not in danger, by simulating placing it in danger
yourself to appear to bring it out. Or perhaps you have an even more culpable thought.
In all things and despite all the claims of genius, there is no society, no government, without morality. It is necessary; it is sufficient.
I soon realized, through an undeniable fact, that the rulers were employing means opposed to those allowed by morality in the precautions required by politics.
XXI
The Minister of Police, Cochon, stated in his report of [date] that he had been informed for a month that there was a royalist agent in Paris, that this agent was supposed to, etc., etc., that he was to
incite a movement in the suburbs and among the citizens who, according to Capet and the royalists, the modern aristocrats also call anarchists, and that these suburbs and anarchists were also working
toward the royalists' goals.
It was wisely observed in the Council of Five Hundred that the documents and charges presented nothing of this last circumstance, which seemed to be the imagination of Minister Cochon or his
informants.
Let’s see what was happening a month before this report from Minister Cochon.
XXII
Announcing a tendency toward a movement in any newspaper is not always the same as provoking it; however, it is known that the most effective way to make it seem probable, to make it happen, to
activate it, is to have an accredited newspaper spread the word that a person in whom the people have trusted is taking an active part in it, meaning that he considers the movement necessary and
certain to succeed. A larger number of citizens will pay attention, engage with it, and discuss it; atthe slightest opportunity, the group grows; its aggregation attracts proportionally more curious onlookers, and a gathering, a movement, is created.
This is not an ordinary journalist, someone whose newspaper is known for publishing news that is sometimes true, sometimes false, due to his frequent inability to verify the facts. This is Mr.
Delagarde, the Secretary-General of the Directory, and editor of the official newspaper of this power, reputed in these two capacities to be informed about what is happening, especially in matters
as important as a subversive or conservative movement regarding the established regime. It is this privileged journalist who announces the tendency toward a movement, adding the detail that Pache
is walking through the streets of Paris on this matter, thereby taking an active part.
The rulers, under whose watch Mr. Delagarde writes his newspaper, could not have been unaware that I was as calm here as I had been in the Château de Ham when, during the Prairial movement,
the Grand Master of the high Convention works, who was in service with all the factions that were successively dominant, devised the motion to have me judged by a military commission without
being moved; I certainly never left Thim, just as I never left Ham; the rulers and Mr. Delagarde know this.
The official editor, the mouthpiece of the rulers, thus knowingly and deliberately placed this false article in his newspaper, a month before the time of Minister Cochon’s report.
XXIII
What could his aim have been? After all, a man like Mr. Delagarde does not knowingly insert a false article into such a serious newspaper on such an important matter without having a purpose.
He has so many other things to discuss for the satisfaction of his subscribers and non-subscribers; the work of the Directory provides him with so many instructive or interesting notes that he cannot
afford to indulge in inventing or collecting trivialities, or to entertain the public with my supposed walks, as some journalists lacking such valuable material might do. Close to that enormous heap of
well-nourished sheaves, he is spared from having to glean. So what was his purpose?
As far as I am concerned, it was to compromise me by placing my name in this movement.
But as for the public good, the purpose is much more serious. I do not delude myself about my real influence; however, the long and atrocious persecutions of which I have also been the victim, under
all the factions, prove that a great deal was presumed about my influence, whether personal or nominal. And in this assumption, my name being placed in this context must awaken the attention
of many citizens, attract more participants to the movement, make it more likely, bring it to fruition, and activate it.
XXIV
The rulers therefore wanted a movement from the suburbs and from those they called anarchists, at that time, about a month before the report of Minister Cochon. They were composing it within
themselves; they were gathering its elements; those who were missing, they made them intervene; unable to involve me personally, they used my name; they determined a movement at the cost of the
truth, and through a deliberate lie.
XXV
However, the rulers, who were thus creating a movement, were surely not slow in taking precautions and preparing the means to suppress it; by giving orders to Mr. Delagarde, the inciter, they were surely preparing them for Mr. Malo, the suppressor. All of this is a perfidy, a Nero-like behavior, or rather a new aristocratic dogmatism to me.
XXVI
If this infamous expedition had not been thwarted by republican journalists, who mocked Mr. Delagarde, his hunting horns, his Pache, and who enlightened the people about the trap being set for
them, it would have been possible for groups of discontented citizens— not with the government, but with the rulers— to form; that curious onlookers would have swollen their ranks, that Grisel, by
carrying out insurrectionary acts commanded and paid for by the rulers, would have drawn in, by the powerful means of mechanical imitation— too little considered in the judgments of the Military
Commissions— some few thoughtless citizens; that some would have been sabred by Mr. Malo, and others transformed into conspirators, sentenced to be shot by a new Military Commission of the Temple.
Thus, in my name, by the actions of the rulers, a crowd of good citizens would have been dragged into this double slaughter! I shudder at the thought.
XXVII
To cover up all these horrors, a proclamation and a message would have been made, in which the nation and the legislature would have been informed that the suburbs and the anarchists had formed
a great conspiracy that was putting the Republic in danger; that they were, at least at that time, collaborating with the royalists, with whom a conspiracy was being fabricated or spun on the other
side, in order to discover it in time. The good modern aristocrats would have loudly demanded honorable mention for the zeal of these good rulers, who so skillfully uncovered the conspiracies
they had created; who bravely sabred the gatherings they formed, and they would have supported, alongside the royalists, the military commission to have those who escaped the sabre shot. Poor people, poor legislators, guilty rulers!
This personal event has completely opened my eyes to their conduct.
XXVIII
I had always assumed, based on my knowledge of Carnot, that he would lead the Directory into some of the measures I had seen him strongly support during the Septemvirate; cowards are cruel. I
had always assumed that he would try to restore the regime through coups d'état, which he adapted to so well. But I had not thought that such monstrosities could now accumulate so easily, nor that he
could find at hand police ministers, justice ministers, Malo, Grisel, Delagarde, etc.
XXIX
However, it now seems proven to me, by Grisel’s testimonies, that it was the rulers who made almost everything that exists of the conspiracy of the 20th of Floréal; who transformed the conspiracy against their persons into what one wants to call a conspiracy against the State, against the Republic, and who progressively advanced the conspiracy. It is the rulers who provided Grisel with the financial means and seduction tools that can turn men, who without them would remain
mere malcontents, into conspirators; it is the rulers who encouraged, through the lure of rewards and military ranks, Grisel—less vicious than those who employed him—to carry out the provocative acts and progressively increase the consistency of the conspiracy. Whatever degree one supposes it to have, whatever importance one gives it, whatever guilt one attributes to it, this Grisel, by his actions, would be an actor in it, because he did not remain within the limits of his functions, within the bounds of observation, and this Grisel, they are the rulers.
It seems to me that similar provocations occurred in the case of Grenelle and that of Brottier.
But on the fourth fact that concerns me personally, the provocation by Mr. Delagarde for a movement, using my name falsely, is indisputable.
XXX
Apart from the crime of leading innocent people to their death, one must consider the objective, one must consider the major private interest that forces the rulers to endure the shame of declaring
themselves inept or vicious through this multiplication of conspiracies and movements of conspirators, which they boast of discovering.
This is the main point of this writing. The rulers must monitor the governed conspirators to discover if any of them adopt a seditious spirit and bring them back. The governed must monitor the rulers to
discover if any of them adopt a seditious spirit and contain them. Patriotic rulers must deliver the governed, seditious conspirators, to the courts; patriotic citizens must deliver the rulers, seditious
conspirators, to national opinion.
While a high jury is occupied with judging the accused governed, the nation must be concerned with judging the accusing rulers, and I bring them before its tribunal.
One does not torment undeniably patriotic citizens, nor kill others through such infernally devised machinations, when one desires only the Republic, when one wants only to fulfill their duty through
the faithful execution of the Constitution.
It is remarkable that it is Carnot who holds the leading position; it is Carnot who confers with Malo, Grisel, who directs them, who pushes them, who fulfills, who oversteps the functions of the
Minister of Police. This matter belongs more to Carnot than to the Directory. Thus, it is the revived system, but extended, but amplified, of the Septemvirate, of which he was a part, and a very
essential part, for all that the Septemvirs did that was reprehensible.
XXXI
When, through the commendable work of the twelve members of the Committee of Public Safety, either within the Committee or outside it, affairs were brought to a point where there was no longer
any doubt about the Republic's existence, and when people began to feel secure about its future, an almost imperceptible coalition gradually formed, through a tacit agreement, that was successively
expanded to seven members. They ceased to argue, ceased to oppose one another, at least publicly, and appeared to pool their ambition and resources.
The royalist factions being dormant and silent, the Septemvirate enjoyed, for a time, the power with considerable satisfaction. One becomes accustomed to it easily. An unwise continuation of the same members within the Committee strengthened within them the fatal habit and gave rise to the vague and obscure desire to see their rule extended even further. This desire is such a natural consequence
of the strongest inclination of a man in his thirties that it is not to be blamed, and one should have expected it. These vague desires were naturally followed by a distaste for any arrangement that
would bring this power to an end, and a tendency towards any circumstance that would prolong it.
Soon came the schemes to dismiss some and provoke others, then the calculated plans, and eventually their execution.
However, the parties that, in ordinary circumstances, should not see this prolonged appropriation of power without some concern, began to feel anxious. It was believed, not without some foundation,
that they might be jealous of the power. People feared it; they feared that these factions might seek to remove it, and feared losing it. This fear only attached itself more strongly to the power, like all
other real and illusory possessions. The rulers then definitively sought ways to preserve it. One of the methods that presented itself to certain minds was to destroy the men of the opposing party. A pretext was needed. It was not possible to have known republicans perish without first giving an apparent reason to those Convention members they were seducing, who were forming into a
Septemvirate faction, and then to the people. It was suggested and circulated among the first that the popular faction was not strong enough to completely dismantle the royalists, who were pretending
to be dead; that to ensure the Republic and the Convention (the Septemvirate), it was necessary to rid themselves of the popular faction that displeased the middle class, which would rally behind
them and be more capable, through its mass, of stabilizing affairs and the Convention (the Septemvirate). The extreme royalism in the proscription was understood to be in conjunction with
the extreme patriotism because if only patriots had been sent away, the scheme and its purpose would have been too obvious. Those who had the greatest desire to destroy the patriots never ceased
to complain, within the Committee, about the troubles they caused. They became accustomed to viewing them with suspicion, desiring their downfall, and planning to achieve it without remorse.
Jealousy, envy, and all base passions completed the work. The final rallying cry was for "both extremes." As for the pretext for the people, they relied on their confidence, hoping to seduce them with trivial reconciliations.
It was then that the most trivial and false pretexts were sought to sacrifice any patriot who, either through party spirit or immutability, was suspected of not supporting the views of the Septemvirate,
either now or in the future. They exhausted, irritated, embittered, divided, and assassinated them. I saw the play of personal hatreds; I saw Robespierre yield to Billaud, and Billaud yield to Robespierre, with alternating satisfaction visible in each of their expressions; but I saw a constant joy on Carnot's face for the destruction of all. It was then, finally, that in order to cover up the intrigues against the patriots in the eyes of the people, they increased the intrigues against the royalists
Despite my warnings when I saw the progress of the false and especially treacherous idea, I pointed out the horror; I observed that the popular faction was sufficient to contain or even overthrow the
royalists; that the consequences being drawn from it were, moreover, immoral and politically unwise; that it would only serve to drive the enemy to despair on one side, while on the other, it
would treacherously shoot our light troops; and that, with the forward positions destroyed, the main army would run a great risk of being surprised and overwhelmed. Passions had formed a callus
around the hearts, blocking the brains. Patriots were killed. Carnot took pleasure in this.
XXXII
They were killed, and quite obviously because there was a desire to prolong the exercise of power, to establish a form that would secure its duration or make its return easier, rather than adhere to the
order set forth by the suspended Constitution, as was originally presumed. They wanted something other than the democratic Constitution that had been solemnly accepted and proclaimed. I can still hear Carnot, sometime after the first three or four massacres of the Convention’s patriots and those outside of it, swaying by the fireside with a self-satisfied air, sneering as he said to me: ‘Well,
Citizen Mayor, there will be changes to the Constitution after all.’ And changes were indeed made — they cost the blood of the best republicans. Were they worth the blood they cost?
The great majority of the Septemvirs were originally patriots, I am willing to admit that; but at that fatal time, they had become factious. They had drunk from the cup of power, and one of them —
more enslaved by the love of privilege due to the early hopes of his first profession, and also more cunning than the others — took advantage of their intoxication. As factional rulers, they used the
national force for their own gain; they sought to rid themselves of any obstacle or even any scrutiny.
They destroyed the patriots under the pretense of crushing, with giant arms, the parties one against the other; in this terrible clash, skulls and bones were shattered, shreds of brains and marrow
spurted out, and your faces are still stained with it: such were the fruits of these ambitious and spiteful schemes.
Carnot got away with it. He claimed, I was told, that he signed everything on trust, and he even abandoned those he had once openly supported when he thought a powerful faction would back
them and share the spoils with him. But tell me, whom exactly was he trusting when he signed?
Was it Robespierre, Couthon, and Saint-Just? No. Was it Billaud and Collot? No; those men had always regarded him as a hypocritical royalist, a shamefaced Jacobin, and treated him with
contempt and harshness that could never breed confidence. Was it Barère? I never saw between them the kind of intimate relations, the complete surrender of judgment, where one man’s opinion
becomes the other’s without question or difficulty.
But did his so-called trust go so far as to prevent him from hearing the debates in the Committee before decisions were made and minutes were drawn up? Did it stop him from hearing what was
said to him outside the Committee about the actions that resulted from the orders he signed? I saw him constantly at that Committee, seated at the round table, taking part in every deliberation, giving
his opinion not only on military matters but on every other issue, domestic and foreign policy alike.
No one was more assiduous than him in that Committee. Barère, Robespierre, Collot, Saint-Just, and the others sometimes arrived late because they went to the theater or to the Jacobins; Carnot,
morning and evening, was always the first to arrive and the last to leave. There is no member whose signature appears more often on the minutes of orders than Carnot’s.
It seems he also excused himself by claiming he had been afraid. That, I can believe — deeply afraid; I would gladly write him a certificate of fear should he ever need one. But that fear did not
date from the time he wormed his way into the Septemvirate and outbid everyone else in the use of the most extreme words and measures. Indeed, he would have been afraid of his own shadow.
XXXIII
Why does Carnot, who had patriots killed at that time because he wanted changes to the Constitution of Year II, have patriots killed today? It is because he feels about the Constitution of
Year III in much the same way he felt about the other one. He still destroys patriots because they stand in his way, and in order to make their destruction acceptable, as he did in the past, he
sacrifices royalists. The patriots inconvenience him. Although they may not have any enthusiasm for the Constitution of Year III, at least they want its faithful observance; they want this Constitution
not just in name, but in practice, since it still contains the two foundations of democracy: the inviolability of the Constitution accepted by the people and the freedom of elections; since it can be
perfected by revision assemblies; and finally, since it is being put into execution.
XXXIV
This crime of killing patriots in order to have free rein was that of the Septemvirs, who had become factious in the final days of their session, and notably of Carnot. The same machinations, in the
same positions, are part of the same projects; they are part of the same plans, especially when it is the same principal man directing them. This was Carnot's crime in the Septemvirate, and it is his
crime in the Directory; it is that of his collaborators in the creation of conspiracies—Cochon, Malo, Grisel, and Delagarde—and of his collaborator in the semi-legal assassination of the supposed
conspirators of Grenelle, Merlin de Douai.
And it must be admitted that the situation is tightly tied. With a member of the Directory who has appropriated military details, a minister of general police, and a minister of justice, one can go very
far in a short amount of time. The modern aristocracy, if they don't play along, and, as a result, or in the final analysis, the royalists owe them strong protection.
XXXV
But Carnot, he serves the Republic, he repaired what Aubry had done. He repaired only partially in all areas, and in a manner that suited his particular direction; the losses resulting from his direct
orders are double those of Aubry, and the share he has in the benefits does not compensate. Take these two men; it does not take a very strong hand to balance the scale.
You will find that, for the Republic, Carnot is no better than Aubry; in fact, he is more dangerous. A hidden enemy harms more than an open one; and considered by himself, Carnot was more seriously
concerned with the destruction of the patriots than with that of the Austrians. I saw in him a more vivid enthusiasm, a stronger determination for the first than for the second; it was with the blood of the patriots that he was most animated, and where his speech or pen flowed most easily.
But the victories of the Italian army! - We have clearer ideas, compared to the past, about the share that belongs, in victories, to the troops, the general, and the cabinet. The share of the troops is
always positive. The same is not true for the general and the cabinet; sometimes their share is zero; at times, it is even negative. Condé’s share at the Battle of Rocroi was zero; Dumouriez’s at
Jemmapes was negative; Bonaparte’s in Italy is positive. The share of the cabinet in the victory of Denain was zero; in the conquest of the Netherlands by Louis XIV, it had been positive; in
Turenne’s campaigns of 1674 and 1675, it was negative. I refrain from discussing the proportional relationship between the shares, whether all three are positive or not; I refrain from discussing the
shares in defeats, since we are talking about victories here; I refrain from presenting the scale or the measurement of these shares in both victories and defeats, on land and at sea, and I leave the details
of application to others.
But I am very certain that our army in Italy would have fought just as well, that Bonaparte would have behaved just as perfectly, even if, according to Carnot's plans, Drouet and Cordas had not been
on trial for a year; even if Huguet and Cailleux had not been killed; and that these tyrannical actions could not have diminished in any way our losses on the other side of the Rhine and at Kingsal.
I am very certain that our army in Italy would still cover itself with glory and that, in the future, we could avoid losses on the other side of the Rhine and at Kingsal, even if Messrs. Delagarde, Grisel,
Malo, Merlin, Cochon, and Carnot were not governors or agents of governors, and I firmly believe that if they had stopped meddling in public affairs a year ago, the internal situation would not be in
worse condition.
XXXVI
I do not know what position the legislature will take regarding them, but being personally convinced of their atrocious perfidy in what they call the movement of conspirators, and that they
are factious rulers, dangerous conspirators against the Republic, I publicly devote them to the execration of the French people and of men from all countries and all opinions who have any sense
of morality. I am authorized in this by my personal experience. There is no doubt that I did not leave.
Thim; there is no doubt that Mr. Delagarde and these rulers were perfectly aware of my whereabouts; one cannot doubt that it was by a deliberate lie that they placed my name in the
announcement of a movement; one cannot doubt that placing my name there was meant to contribute to realizing and activating it, and that thus these rulers themselves were composing the
movement; one cannot doubt that they were simultaneously preparing the two terrible means of
repression, the sabre and the military commission. Although thwarted by the patriotic journalists and by the good sense of the people, this plot still sheds light on other movements, other
conspiracies, and on the unbearable aristocratic dogmatism that will dominate and be called the Republic, awaiting a royal scene, if these treacherous schemes are not revealed by all those for
whom the personal circumstances make them sensitive, and if these factious rulers and their supporters are not covered with the shame and hatred they deserve.
PACHE
At Thim-le-Moustier, the 21st of Floréal, Year V of the French Republic.
Source:
Mémoire sur Pache by Pierquin: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9757051c/f3.item.r=pierquin%20Pache].
Now that we know that basically every nasty/mean/degrading anecdote about Joséphine was fake rumours created by misogynist haters and British newspapers, just imagine the amount of stuff we might need to debunk about Thérésa Cabarrus 🫠🫠
Even if she did all the extravagant stuff they say she did (going naked, have several lovers) the real thing to stop is judging her with the same mentality as then. Use a modern perspective. Same for Joséphine of course.
As a society, we now know how to give space to women's perspectives, so we can see practical need to survive behind forward behaviours in a society where most of the time women had that as a main resource.
Not to mention that she also was invested in political matters, I believe @nesiacha talked about some of her opinions about education. Madame de Staël wasn't the only intellectual.
I have already said this again and again. I do not have a favorable opinion of Joséphine de Beauharnais (though I understand that others may like her—everyone has their own tastes and preferences), but what is frustrating with her and Theresia is that when they are “torn down,” is it because they were corrupt? Because they enriched themselves illegally at a time when Parisians were suffering terribly under the Directory, to the point that entire families took their own lives, even though they themselves lacked nothing?
Some might argue that, while Joséphine was not responsible for the tragic death of Émilie, her mother’s enslaved woman (as I mentioned), nor for the reestablishment of slavery (for which she clearly bears no responsibility), she also did not intervene on behalf of Émilie’s family to ensure they were left in peace—despite having pleaded for others who were more culpable.
No—they are mainly criticized for having lived “loose” lives (while men did the same and faced no criticism) and for wanting a role in politics.
Likewise, a more honest woman (in the sense of being financially incorruptible) such as Sophie Momoro, widow of Antoine-François Momoro, would likely receive the same misogynistic treatment—for having had a lover during her second marriage and for having publicly supported her husband’s career (notably by playing the role of the Goddess of Reason).
Furthermore, Theresia is sometimes wrongly portrayed as having mistreated Tallien or abandoned him, whereas in reality, although separated from him, she often helped him financially. (Yes, there are even writings defending Tallien by portraying him as an incorruptible man of great ideals who was supposedly abandoned by an ungrateful Theresia—I am not joking. Yet anyone with even minimal knowledge of Tallien knows that the word “incorruptible” is utterly incompatible with him.)
Strangely, Germaine de Staël—who also had lovers (although that was entirely her private affair), was opportunistic, and involved herself heavily in political life—has largely been given a free pass. I personally find her greatly overrated, and she was certainly not “the only opponent who refused to submit to Bonaparte,” contrary to what hagiographic portrayals suggest. In fact, to me, she was one of the weaker female opponents of Napoleon compared to other women who resisted him from the very beginning and sometimes paid for that opposition with their lives, despite being forgotten today, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/798948052816838656/germaine-de-sta%C3%ABl-an-essay-in-demythologization?source=share
But Theresia and Joséphine are unfortunately far from the only women to have been demonized in history. Many other women of the French Revolution have suffered the same fate: Éléonore Duplay and Élisabeth Le Bas are wrongly portrayed as “brainless groupies” ( in a lot of movies); Élisabeth Le Bon, widow of Joseph Le Bon, has been burdened with a dark legend portraying her as the “hyena of Arras”; Sylvie Audouin, daughter of Jean-Nicolas Pache, was labeled a girl “of loose morals”(which was false) by certain historians who merely repeated the accusations of her detractors (which is even more disgusting considering how young she was at the time); Marie-Anne Babeuf is depicted in some accounts as a simple-minded woman; Henriette Simonin (Chaumette’s widow) as an unsuitable woman; Bonne-Jeanne Fouché as a woman supposedly embodying every possible flaw,etc...
Even Madame Royale, during her childhood, has been described on certain forums I have read as an inherently “bad” person from birth because she displayed behavioral problems as a child—as though that were not common among children in general. Worse still, I have read writings claiming that the women who demanded the executions of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were merely “women of loose virtue thirsty for blood,” as though they had no legitimate reasons to resent the royal couple—especially Louis XVI. But we know the saying: no matter how many reasons people may have to resent a highly protected and glorified historical figure, it is always the critics who are portrayed as being at fault.
In short, much work still needs to be done to combat all these sexist clichés. For now, only Marie-Antoinette has truly been rehabilitated from that perspective (although sometimes excessively so, since some people wrongly believe she was executed merely for being queen and had nothing to reproach herself for, despite the fact that she did commit acts of high treason; though at times, conversely, Louis XVI’s faults are unfairly shifted onto her in order to absolve her husband). We are still waiting for the same reconsideration to extend to other women.
Request for information about the relationship between the future King Louis-Philippe I and Dumouriez
I do not think very highly of King Louis-Philippe I because of the political choices he made during his reign.
However, there is one point that has always greatly puzzled me: his flight with Charles François Dumouriez in 1793.
Dumouriez became one of the most widely hated figures of the French Revolution because of his betrayal. Nearly every political camp turned against him: the republicans because of the scale of his treason and because he handed over the Minister of War to the Austrians; many people, such as Jean-Nicolas Pache and Lazare Carnot, had already distrusted him long before that (which frustrates me even more, because could they not have set aside their hostilities for a while in order to deal with the real problem, namely Dumouriez?). In my view, it is rather tragic that more was not done to stop him. Bonapartists and even royalists such as Louis Antoine de Bourbon also despised him, believing that he had simply “joined” their side after betraying his own.
Was the young Louis-Philippe directly involved in this betrayal? Or did he realize too late what Dumouriez had done, only when they crossed the border?
Honestly, I hope it was the second possibility, because otherwise it would mean that in 1830 a man who was not even king yet was placed on the throne of a country after having taken part in one of the gravest betrayals in the history of France( or at least help it).
Did Madame Royale dislike her mother Marie-Antoinette
One detail about Marie-Thérèse of France has always intrigued me.
I’ve read in the memoirs of Adèle d'Osmond—and also seen mentioned on a few forums—that as an adult, she may not have held Marie Antoinette in particularly high esteem.
She clearly revered her father, Louis XVI.
But when it comes to her mother, things seem… more complicated.
There’s even an anecdote (though I have no idea how reliable it is):
a royalist supposedly offered her a medallion containing Marie Antoinette’s hair—and she threw it into the fire.
I’ve also come across a claim (again, unsourced) that Louis XVIII may have tried to convince her that her younger brother was actually the son of Fersen.
If true, that would say a lot about the political environment she returned to.
So if Madame Royale really did distance herself from her mother’s memory, what could explain it?
I tend to lean toward a different hypothesis.
I talked about this more in detail here in Defense of Marie Antoinette: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/748299652332486656/in-defense-for-marie-antoinette?source=share
But in short: Marie Antoinette became a convenient scapegoat for some royalists.
And what’s striking is the irony—
many of the same aristocrats who helped damage her reputation later turned her into a martyr.
Not out of pure admiration, but often to:
absolve themselves
shift blame
or even protect the image of Louis XVI
We also know that Louis XVIII himself was often critical of Marie Antoinette.
So imagine the situation:
When Madame Royale was finally released, she returned to a world where her mother was widely blamed by certain members of the aristocracy who emigrated
It’s not hard to see how her perception might have been shaped (Plus, she was a teenager, so easier to manipulate.).
Especially if she was led to believe that her mother bore primary responsibility for the Revolution—which is, at best, a major oversimplification.
What makes this even more tragic is that, by all accounts, Marie Antoinette deeply loved her children and remained loyal to her husband despite her flaws.
And there’s another irony I find fascinating:
Marie Antoinette disliked rigid court etiquette—
yet her daughter later became extremely strict about it.
Given everything she went through, that shift actually makes a lot of sense.
To be clear: I’m not trying to “rehabilitate” Marie Antoinette.
She did commit acts that were considered high treason at the time. She is primarily responsible for her own execution (as Louis XVI and Madame Élisabeth are for their own fates) not the revolutionaries. .
But reducing the fall of the monarchy to her alone is far too convenient.
In reality, Louis XVI held far more political power—and therefore far more responsibility—than he is often given today (I've already written a post about him) .
I’d be really curious to know:
Has anyone come across solid sources about Madame Royale’s attitude toward her mother?
Charles Germain, Babouvist: A Letter to Napoleon and a Life in Exile
As a reminder, Charles Germain was one of the leading figures of the Babouvist movement who were condemned to deportation during the Vendôme trial.
Imprisoned in Cherbourg alongside men like Buonarroti, Cazin, Moroy, Blondeau, Vadier, he decided to write directly to Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul.
On 6 Frimaire Year VIII, he sent the following letter:
“I am one of those sentenced to deportation by the High Court of Vendôme. I was born in Narbonne in 1771.
At the age of sixteen, I traded my Aristotle for a horse and a musket.
In 1790, my good parents bought me a full discharge; two months later, I took up the helmet and saber again. In 1793, representatives on mission with the Army of the Western Pyrenees decorated me on the battlefield with an epaulette in the 12th Hussars. On 24 Prairial Year II, the representatives dismissed me.
After coming to Paris following 9 Thermidor, a minor scuffle earned me a lettre de cachet. After nine months in detention, I was released and found myself, on 13 Vendémiaire, in the ranks of the patriots (I still have my certificate).
The new government was established: Jean-Baptiste Annibal Aubert-Dubayet, Minister of War, promised me employment, while Philippe-Antoine Merlin de Douai (referred to here as Cochon), Minister of Police, had me arrested on 21 Floréal Year IV…
I am 28 years old; I have spent five years in prison. I have only ever been a soldier, I have served in three active campaigns, and I have received wounds.
I still have some blood left: do not let it calcify in the horror of dungeons; allow me to go and shed it at the frontier… provided I may serve liberty and, if necessary, die for it.
My parents are poor, and I have always been poor myself.
Long live the Republic. Respectful greetings.”
(French National Archives, BB³ 21)
According to Robert Legrand, Lucien Bonaparte intervened at one point to ease the conditions of Buonarroti, Blondeau Moroy, and Germain by granting them a small daily allowance of three francs while they were held on the island of Oléron awaiting deportation to Guyana.
On Oléron, a report mentions that Charles Germain and others “maintain incendiary rhetoric against the government and its officials; they publicly insulted the local justice of the peace and are corrupting the public spirit.”
Later, like many neo-Jacobins (especially Babouvists), he was deported following the Rue Saint-Nicaise assassination attempt.
In 1802, he reunited in Cayenne with former Babouvist companions, including René Vatar.
Here is what Robert Legrand writes about him:
“He remained there for several years. The governor, General Hugues, enlisted certain exiles on privateers maintained for the defense of the colony. Some deportees from Cayenne were wounded while fighting the English off the coast of Africa. Germain, one of the most indomitable republicans of his time, was captured in one of these engagements and taken aboard English prison hulks. He never ceased to preach to French sailors and soldiers, his companions in misfortune, a love of the Republic and hatred of Bonaparte.”
Meanwhile, in January 1809, a Portuguese fleet and an English corvette attacked Cayenne, forcing Governor Hugues to capitulate. A prisoner of the English, Germain was still held on prison hulks in 1810; he did not return to France until 1814.
Nothing is known about him after that date (although there are some hypotheses—but that will be for a future post).
P.S:Correct me if I am mistaken, but Lucien Bonaparte sometimes reminds me of his rival Joséphine de Beauharnais: both were great spenders with real political skills (although, in my opinion, Joséphine was far more adept at political intrigue). Both also intervened to request clemency or to ease the lives of Bonaparte’s political opponents. However, Lucien Bonaparte seems to have been mainly concerned with neo-Jacobins (such as Buonarroti and Charles Germain), whereas Joséphine focused more on securing clemency for royalists like Armand de Polignac. It would be worth checking whether Lucien also took an interest in the fate of royalists.
I’m not infallible, so feel free to correct me. Also, this is just my opinion on Hortense de Beauharnais, so please don’t take what I say at face value.
I have read (at least part of) the memoirs of Hortense de Beauharnais. Before reading them, I did not feel much sympathy for her—except regarding her marriage, for which I tend to place greater responsibility on Napoleon Bonaparte, as he brought together two clearly incompatible individuals who likely had little choice in the matter, and the death of her sons, which I could genuinely sympathize with. After reading her memoirs, however, I find myself feeling even less sympathy.
First of all, am I mistaken, or does it seem that most women are subjected to criticism or at least diminished in comparison to her—sometimes even to the point of being misrepresented, along with their relationships? At times, I even wonder whether she may have experienced a degree of jealousy or an inferiority complex (though that may be an overinterpretation, so I will not insist on it).
I am not suggesting that everything in her memoirs is fabricated—some passages appear authentic and can be historically verified—but still. As for her idealization of her mother, I do not blame her; this is entirely natural, and other, more reliable historical figures have done the same with those close to them. Nevertheless, it remains somewhat irritating: she presents herself as a faultless victim, entirely selfless, admired by nearly everyone (she even gives the impression she means all of France), with only a few exceptions—and, according to her, any hostility is entirely their fault.
As a reminder that Hortense was not wholly selfless, one may consider the following document involving several members of the Bonaparte circle—including Laetizia Bonaparte, Napoleon himself, Joseph Bonaparte, Jérôme Bonaparte, Nicolas Joseph Clary, Joachim Murat, as well as Joséphine de Beauharnais and Hortense herself:
https://contrepoints-archives.org/banque-de-france-banque-de-lempereur/
This document suggests that Napoleon and his inner circle—if indeed authentic—personally enriched themselves through potentially questionable practices, notably by investing as shareholders in the bank (Napoleon, Joseph Bonaparte, Jérôme Bonaparte, Joséphine de Beauharnais, Hortense de Beauharnais, Murat, Laetizia Bonaparte, Nicolas Joseph Clary, Sieyès, Duroc, among others). There appears to be a clear conflict of interest for Napoleon, who acted both as a statesman and as a shareholder, promoting policies (such as monopolies and tightly controlled governance) that directly benefited a financial institution in which he held a stake. This illustrates how political power could be used for personal gain, both for himself and those close to him.
That said, in fairness, there are also arguments in Napoleon’s defense. At the time, the separation between public duties and private interests was not clearly defined, and no precise legal framework governed conflicts of interest in such matters. Moreover, his connections to the Bank of France were not concealed; there was a degree of transparency, even if this aspect is often overlooked today.
Nevertheless, this still suggests that Hortense was not entirely selfless.
What frustrates me most is that she is the figure I most feel inclined to “shake” while reading her memoirs—even though she is far from the only writer to produce selective or misleading accounts.
Take the memoirs of Philippe Buonarroti, for example. He often tells the truth, and when he omits or minimizes certain roles, it is largely to protect the living, since the Babouvists were viewed very negatively at the time. His severity toward figures such as Paul Barras is understandable, and even when he is critical of Lazare Carnot (whom he otherwise treats with relative moderation), his hostility can be explained by historical circumstances.
Then there are the memoirs of Émile Babeuf. He clearly falsifies aspects of his family’s social origins—for instance, claiming that his paternal grandfather held a high command under the Habsburgs, that his mother was a noblewoman, or that he himself had been a colonel. These are rather blatant fabrications, which is frustrating, as his real life was far more compelling than the fictionalized version he constructed.
However, when one considers the harshness of his life—from childhood onward—it becomes easier to understand why he wrote in this way. As illustrated here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/797365648777953280/the-beginning-of-the-revolutionary-period?source=share
He endured constant persecution due to both his name and his political engagements, bore heavy expectations from an early age, witnessed the near destruction of his family, and lived under regimes in which the name “Babeuf” was widely condemned. I believe that the “patriots’ affair,” in which he was arrested on trivial grounds, imprisoned, and nearly deported during the White Terror following the Second Bourbon Restoration, marked a psychological breaking point. In my view, there is a clear distinction between Émile Babeuf before and after 1817.
He likely wrote these misleading memoirs partly to idealize his parents and partly because, following a reactionary shift, he chose to focus primarily on himself and his close circle—even if it meant diminishing other historical figures (this remains, of course, a hypothesis). This does not excuse his distortions, but it does help explain them.
As for the memoirs of Charlotte Robespierre, her distortions are more subtle. While some are relatively easy to detect, fully understanding their extent often requires careful historical research. She notably downplays political conflicts with her brothers, attributing tensions instead to women such as Françoise Duplay, her daughter Éléonore Duplay, or Madame Ricord. However, historians have demonstrated that political disagreements played a significant role. Charlotte also had a poor reputation among certain revolutionaries, such as Albertine Marat, and even Élisabeth Duplay—who was relatively close to her—criticized her. It is possible that she wrote her memoirs in part to rehabilitate both her own image and that of her brothers.
I would estimate that roughly 90% of her memoirs are misleading; however, she is more convincing than Hortense in her distortions—and, frankly, more engaging. One can observe how skillfully Charlotte navigated successive regimes in order to survive and secure a pension—something Hortense did not accomplish as effectively (though that may be a somewhat unfair comparison).But perhaps I'm being too harsh on Hortense, given that most films and books portray her as almost a saint. It's possible, like Charlotte's, that her memoirs were convincing.
Regarding the memoirs of Félix Le Peletier, some passages I have read appear highly credible—such as his confrontation with Joseph Fouché, which aligns well with their respective personalities, or certain sections concerning his brother Michel Le Peletier. Others are less convincing, particularly when he expresses hostility toward certain figures—for example, attributing vulgar behavior to Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and the latter’s wife, as discussed here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/800415988340457472/why-was-it-buonarroti-who-wrote-the-memoirs-of-the?source=share
That said, while this does not excuse such claims, his bitterness is understandable: he believed the Bourbons were responsible for his brother Michel’s death, and during the Restoration they persecuted his adopted son Émile (as well as several of his associates). Maybe the killing of Émile’s brother, Caius Babeuf, during the allied invasion of 1814 intensified this resentment. His tribute to Carnot is also understandable, even if it was not widely shared among his Babouvist peers (with a few exceptions, such as Toulotte and maybe Emile Babeuf).
As for the memoirs of Fouché, I must admit that they also provoke frustration—particularly when he distorts facts or belittles figures such as Hanriot, or unfairly portrays Topino-Lebrun as a fanatic . This is especially striking given the role of his police in the mistreatment (and possibly torture) of suspects in the so-called “daggers conspiracy,” as well as his responsibility in the execution of innocent individuals.He puts down people who are ‘cleaner’ than he is—in terms of their convictions and incorruptibility (for example, Carnot, who, despite all his flaws, remained loyal to the Republic.) . I really wanted to shake him at times (actually, quite often).
Nevertheless, I found his memoirs easier to read than Hortense’s. His political intelligence is undeniable, and one can understand how he managed to survive so many successive regimes (assuming he is indeed the one who wrote his memoirs) .
In comparison, I found Hortense’s memoirs far more difficult to engage with.
I should probably read the memoirs of Louis Bonaparte in order to gain the other perspective on this marriage.
hello gorgeous ~~ i need your help as a joséphine specialist, do you have reliable sources to answer in an educational way to people using the "napoléon reestablished slavery to please joséphine because her family used to own slaves" stance ?
Hi Mathilde! Thanks for asking (and for calling me for gorgeous🤭)
So, my main source - especially for the most controversial topics around Joséphine - is always Pierre Branda's biography, Joséphine - le paradoxe du cygne. He basically states that she never actively encouraged Napoleon towards the reinstatement of slavery and that there's no written evidence of any involvement by her in the matter.
But even better, here on Tumblr @nesiacha is a goldmine of sources and historiographic debates, especially on the subject of Caraibbean history during the Revolution and Napoleonic era - among numerous topics. They know about Joséphine and her relationship with her homeland very well, so they'll complete this answer.
Here are my personal thoughs on the matter, whom I invite people to discuss upon as always, I'll be glad to hear yours too.
It's well known how Napoleon hated women being active and outspoken in political matters, and he certainly didn't encourage his own wife to be so. And he himself would NEVER take political decisions based on such "irrational" things such as feelings - for a woman, of all things. Being a mysoginist and emotionally constipated were the undersides of the intention of being the as rational and level-headed as possible in a leading role, I guess.
I think that behind the decision of reinstating slavery there was rather a comparison with the British Empire, whose economy thrived thanks to colonialism like nobody else. He couldn't cut them from their colonies in West Asia during the campaign of Egypt, so he would try to compete with them on the economic level. So a very pragmatic reason. Not that it makes the decision of reinstating slavery better.
(Also Napoleonic historians like Thierry Lentz debated that Napoleon didn't actually do anything that wasn't happening already as the Revolution had never managed to impose the abolition de facto, but I suspect that it's something said with the intention of making Napoleon look better than reality rather than being balanced and seeking the truth. Fondation Napoléon is very good with sources but can sometimes be a little biased. Here's Branda's, Lentz' and Lheureux-Prévot essay on the subject).
I don't remember if he did it before or making peace with England at Amiens, but they were rivalries no matter the good relationship (which was fragile anyway as we know).
On the other hand, I don't buy Joséphine's neutrality and passivity either. Just like in the matter of her alleged extramarital affairs, a lack of primary sources doesn't automatically deny that something happens. We may lack correspondance proving her involvement on the reinstatement of slavery, but she could still have talked in private with Caraibbean grand blancs and Napoleon.
Branda's biography itself is all about proving how Joséphine had much more agency and business skills than pop culture credits her for. During Thermidor, Thérèse Tallien and her moved mountains in order to save individual friends and friends's friends. And during the Empire she continued to serve as PR between Napoleon and the world.
We also know how partial she was when it came to support friends. Being both a survivor and a woman (=socially underprivileged) taught her not to hold on political ideals but rather on relying on personal relationships, which also came from her Martinican background. Sadly, that also means that she was friends with many other slave owners who had the best interest in maintaining slavery.
So believing that she may have influenced Napoleon in some way the decision of reinstating slavery is the opposite of nonsense.
Hope it's a good answer, I did my best even if I'm not the most expert when it comes to topic of slavery in the Carribean and Napoleon, so I would love to be checked🙏 I loved writing this anyway, bisous✨️
Hello, and thank you for mentioning my pseudo. However, to be honest, even I am not completely knowledgeable about this topic.
I will try to respond point by point. First, regarding Napoleon and women in politics, I think he had the same issue as Chaumette: surrounding himself with intelligent political women while being quite machistes. Indeed, on Napoleon’s side we have Joséphine de Beauharnais, Caroline Murat, and Elisa Baciocchi, who were effective in political roles. Similarly, in the circle of our dear Chaumette, we find women expressing interesting political opinions, such as his wife Henriette Simonin, Marie-Angélique Lequesne (widow Ronsin, later Madame Turreau), who regularly attended the Cordeliers Club, Sophie Momoro, and others.
Yes, these men, who did everything to restrict women’s political rights, were nevertheless surrounded by strong and politically intelligent women—a rare point of commonality between them. Quite ironic when you think about it.
Let us move on to Joséphine de Beauharnais. The problem is that there are two equally false clichés concerning her and slavery.
The first cliché: did Napoleon restore slavery to please Joséphine? There is no document proving that Joséphine de Beauharnais supported or opposed the restoration of slavery ,not a single letter supporting this claim. The real responsibility for this horrific decision (which was also a long-term disaster for France) lies with Napoleon Bonaparte and his advisors. This “black legend” should be rejected. Yes, she was a political figure and she greatly helped her husband’s career, but she bears no responsibility for this decision, especially since he alone had the power to make it.
Unfortunately, there is another cliché (though less widespread): that Joséphine was a notable abolitionist because she supposedly welcomed the children of Toussaint Louverture (If I'm not mistaken). This is just as false. If Joséphine opposed something, she did not hesitate to say so. Moreover, it is a fact that her mother benefited greatly from this terrible system. The idea that Joséphine may have helped her relatives in ways that were morally questionable within this system is, sadly, a plausible hypothesis—not in the establishment of slavery, but in its “management” on behalf of her family.
The Musée National website, in the article “Rompre avec un silence: Joséphine et l’esclavage” (Musée national des châteaux de Malmaison et de Bois-Préau) you can see the site here : Rompre avec un silence : Joséphine et l’esclavage | Musée national des châteaux de Malmaison et de Bois - Préau , describes Joséphine de Beauharnais’s position on slavery better than anyone, in my opinion.
Here is a first excerpt from that site:
“It is not impossible, however, that Joséphine used her influence—very limited—over the First Consul in the conduct of affairs in Saint-Domingue, in so far as her children, Eugène and Hortense, had inherited from their father, Alexandre de Beauharnais, plantations located in the plain of Léogâne. As the manager of her minor children’s property, Madame Bonaparte maintained business relations with Toussaint Louverture, who handled her interests in the French part of the ‘Pearl of the Antilles’ before the definitive loss of the colony, which declared its independence on January 1, 1804.
The numerous enslaved people owned by the Tascher de La Pagerie family constituted the main capital of their sugar plantation in Trois-Îlets. Thus, in June 1807, the inventory following the death of Madame de La Pagerie, the Empress’s mother—referred to under the Empire as ‘Auguste Madame’—listed 123 enslaved individuals, estimated together at 267,300 livres, nearly half the total value of the estate (580,845 livres) left to her only daughter. In 1814, these same enslaved individuals still appeared in Joséphine’s estate. They were then transferred, after the division of her property between her two heirs, to her son Prince Eugène, and after his death in 1824, to his six children, the Leuchtenberg family. These heirs also received, in 1828, their share of the compensation paid by the government of Charles X to former colonists of Saint-Domingue, calculated in part on the number of enslaved people each could prove to have once owned.”
I do not know whether all of this is entirely accurate, but far be it from me to portray Eugène and Hortense as slave owners—there is no evidence of that. Please do not make me say what I did not say; they absolutely were not.
There were also people considered “of color” in Joséphine de Beauharnais’s entourage who followed her to Paris, the first being Euphémie, known as “Mimie,” to whom she was close. According to the same source, others accompanied her:
“Other Black individuals, known only by their first names, appear like fleeting shadows, reflecting their invisible status: Joseph, the Empress’s ‘courier,’ who in April 1812 married Mlle Hatté at Malmaison, daughter of the Swiss caretaker of the Château de Bois-Préau; and also Madame Malvina, described as a ‘Black woman,’ whose existence is reduced to modest personal expenses recorded in the accounts of the Empress’s private treasury.”
It is also interesting to find, on the same site, documents of manumission carried out by Joséphine’s mother, which I encourage everyone to read. Here is one example:
Letter from the Colonial Prefect to the Minister of the Navy and the Colonies, Saint-Pierre, 13 May 1806 (FR ANOM COL C8A 114 F° 30)
Monseigneur,
I had no prior knowledge of the requests for manumission that gave rise to Your Excellency’s dispatch of 12 Vendémiaire, Year 14, no. 2.
In the first days of this month, Monsieur Sorin, secretary of the government, brought to the prefecture’s office three requests for freedom: two were from Madame de La Pagerie, mother of Her Majesty the Empress, and one from the Misses Hurault.
The Captain General had endorsed them with an instruction to communicate them to the Attorney General and the Dean. There is no longer a Dean of the Council; under our current laws, this corresponds to a President of the Court of Appeal. However, I did not dwell on this wording error. I verified that in the past such communications were customary, even though no ordinance explicitly mentioned them. Today, however, it is among our governing principles to keep the courts entirely separate from administrative functions. Moreover, since one of the three principal magistrates of the colonies now heads the judiciary, and by a provision of Your Excellency’s dispatch of 12 Vendémiaire, the Chief Justice or Commissioner of Justice participates in acts of manumission, I concluded that the custom of involving the Attorney General and the Dean should be considered abolished, especially as no formal law had ever prescribed it.
On the other hand, the large number of freed people on this island has always seemed to me a dangerous flaw in the colonial system, and I had resolved, if possible, to leave this prefecture without having to reproach myself for worsening this situation. Accordingly, I had firmly resisted repeated requests from Madame Grandprés, wife of the Chief Justice, who wished to grant freedom to several elderly enslaved women as a token of gratitude.
It was in this context that the three requests reached me.
I did not hesitate to immediately send the deeds of manumission for the first two—signed by myself—to the Chief Justice, asking him, after signing them in turn, to deliver them to Madame de La Pagerie, who is staying with the Captain General in Fort-de-France. I included a clause exempting them from any manumission tax. I believed that such consideration was owed to Madame de La Pagerie. I had also heard that one of her enslaved women was a milk-sister of Her Majesty the Empress.
As for the third request, submitted by the Misses Hurault, I postponed it for the moment due to the situation in which I found myself.
I explained my reasoning to the Chief Justice: “My stay in this country may not be long. If it is prolonged, I will still have time to reconsider this postponement.” Such was my reasoning.
Two days later, Madame de La Pagerie informed me through the Chief Justice that she took a personal interest in the third request.
This verbal report was sufficient. I immediately wrote, on the 6th of the current month, to Madame de La Pagerie to assure her that I would set aside my principles and hasten to comply with her wishes. However, since the matter did not concern her directly and personally, I considered it my duty to require a manumission tax in accordance with the ordinances and your instructions. The mulatto woman in question was forty years old and had a male child aged eight. I set the tax at 3,000 francs in French currency.
Madame de La Pagerie was staying with the Captain General, where she is surrounded by a crowd to whom he, his family, and his entourage set the example of commenting—very freely and quite favorably—on my words and actions. They succeeded in portraying my conduct negatively in her eyes, leading her to perceive it as improper treatment toward her, even toward Her Majesty the Empress, her daughter. As a result, I received an ill-tempered letter expressing dissatisfaction and containing threats, very unpleasant for me and quite undeserved.
It was then, Monseigneur, that I learned for the first time:
1° that Madame de La Pagerie had requested these three manumissions from her august daughter, Her Majesty the Empress;
2° that Her Majesty the Empress had personally intervened in the matter and had written to her mother about it;
3° finally, that the third manumission had been arranged by Madame Villaret for the mulatto woman Rosalie and her son, as a reward for the care she had provided to Madame Villaret over the past three or four years.
And yet, the Captain General had the unworthy audacity to accuse me of creating difficulties regarding these manumissions because of the interest that he and his wife took in them.
I give you my word of honor that I was entirely unaware of this, and that without this incident, I would still not even know that a certain Rosalie existed in their household.
Nevertheless, I was deeply distressed to see that such serious trouble had been created for me in a matter where my conduct had been so straightforward and innocent.
I replied to Madame de La Pagerie by sending her the third manumission, identical to the other two.
It is impossible to find, anywhere under heaven, a more noble soul or greater kindness than that of Madame de La Pagerie. She inspires universal respect and asks so little that one feels fortunate to be able to grant her wishes. She has consistently observed how deeply I share these sentiments and how much I am committed to demonstrating, through her, my devotion to Their Majesties. I must also give thanks to her superior judgment, for although she is constantly surrounded by individuals intent on undermining me, she has largely resisted their insinuations. She was even kind enough to repair, through a letter she honored my wife with yesterday, the distress caused by the one I had previously received.
You require us to report immediately any manumissions we authorize. I therefore hasten to fulfill this duty.
It is possible that these cases may be used as a pretext to slander me from afar, just as attempts have been made locally. For this reason, Monseigneur, it was important for me to inform you in advance through the explanations I have provided. You will be able to verify them easily by questioning the Chief Justice himself, who will likely be the bearer of this letter.
List of the individuals granted freedom mentioned in this dispatch:
1° At the request and by the grant of freedom from Madame de La Pagerie, mother of Her Majesty the Empress:
Rosette, mulatto woman, aged 42;
Adélaïde, quadroon woman, aged 35;
2° At the request of Madame de La Pagerie and by the grant of freedom from the Misses Ursule and Marianne Hurault:
Rosalie, mulatto woman, aged 40;
Joseph Bernard, her son, aged 8".
Unfortunately, we must not forget that Joséphine’s mother shared the same cruelties as other slave owners. The case of the execution by burning of her enslaved woman Émilie—whose life I discussed here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795013242335444992/a-delicate-question-the-responsibility-of?source=share —shows that she bears some responsibility in this matter. We do not even know whether Émilie was truly guilty, as the testimonies seem highly questionable to me, and the context of the time tended to accuse every person of color of being a potential poisoner, especially if they were enslaved domestic workers. Even if Émilie was indeed in such a position, the fact that she complained about her mistress’s character suggests a plausible hypothesis: that she was subjected to severe mistreatment—which, sadly, would not be surprising given the system of slavery.
Joséphine herself bears no responsibility in this case. However, I find it difficult to believe that she was not informed about it. It would likely have been too late to request clemency for Émilie, but why is there no record of her pleading on behalf of Émilie’s family? Joséphine intervened with Napoleon on behalf of people who were far more politically culpable than this woman—yet here, there is nothing.
She helped many people. But her silence in this case, given her influence and political engagement, does her no credit.
Even if I do not agree with everything the site says, I think it formulates Joséphine’s position on slavery quite well:
“Joséphine, with regard to the question of slavery—which was part of her family environment—never publicly expressed the slightest opinion suggesting that this system, on which the economy of the islands depended and from which the Tascher de La Pagerie family and their circle fully benefited, was morally or humanly condemnable. She neither disapproved nor justified it; she simply accepted it as a given, relying on tradition, which she did not see as her place to challenge.”
So, she had no influence on the reestablishment of slavery, but she accommodated herself to it.
Now let us turn to the person responsible for the restoration of slavery: Napoleon.
As can be seen in the way he divorced Joséphine de Beauharnais, he did not hesitate at times to violate the law (one rule for others, another for himself).
In fact, in Guadeloupe, slavery was illegally reimposed by Richepanse (under Bonaparte’s orders). It was only promulgated locally in 1803, according to the jurist Auguste Lacour (although Lacour does not provide sources to confirm this).
Here is an excerpt from a text by Jean-François Niort, Lecturer in the History of Law and Institutions at the University of the Antilles and Guyana, and Jérémy Richard, a student in the same field:
“Basically, it is clear that, like the law of 30 Floréal, the decree of 27 Messidor contradicts the rights of man in general, as well as, more specifically, the laws of 1794 and 1798. However, even if the Declaration of 1789 is no longer legally in force, the Constitution of Year VIII had been presented by the consuls as being based on the ‘sacred rights’ of property, equality, and liberty, thus ending the Revolution by fixing it upon the principles that had initiated it.
The Consular Constitution certainly placed the colonies under a special legal regime (Article 91: ‘The regime of the French colonies is determined by special laws’), but a priori not in a way that could justify such a breach of the principles of the Revolution and the Rights of Man, because laws—even ‘special’ ones—must respect the Constitution, or at least its spirit.
Yet these rights to liberty and equality were set aside by Bonaparte and the colonial lobby in the name of the security and prosperity of the colonies, political and geopolitical interests, and more fundamentally, the supposed incapacity of Black people for liberty and equality. However, none of these arguments are legal.
Beyond philosophical condemnation, the law of May 20 and especially the decree of July 16 are legally open to criticism. This represents a clear reaction not only against revolutionary principles but against revolutionary laws themselves.
In terms of form, the law of 30 Floréal was duly voted, promulgated, and published. However, the same is not true of the decree of 27 Messidor, which is irregular. The first legal issue is whether Bonaparte even had the authority to make such a decision. A priori, the answer is no.
The Constitution provided for special laws governing the colonies—not simple regulatory measures. Moreover, while the laws of 1794 and 1798 could be considered repealed by the law of May 20 in certain colonies, this was not the case for others such as Guadeloupe. Therefore, those revolutionary laws theoretically remained in force there, and a simple decree could not repeal them.
Bonaparte and his advisers were aware of this legal difficulty and attempted to resolve it. One option was to use a senatus-consultum, but this was abandoned. Another was to rely on Article 4 of the law of May 20, which delegated authority to the First Consul. However, this delegation itself was likely unconstitutional.
The government rejected the only fully legal solution: passing a law. This reveals both embarrassment and caution.
The issue of publication is also revealing. The decree of 27 Messidor was not published in the Bulletin of Laws, and Bonaparte specified that it should only be communicated to the Minister of Colonies. This suggests an attempt to keep the measure secret and reflects awareness of its weak legal basis.
This lack of publication further undermines its legality and demonstrates arbitrariness and contempt for the rule of law typical of the most extreme forms of colonialism. It also explains why this text was ‘forgotten’ for so long.”
Furthermore, from an economic perspective, this policy was pointless. Saint-Domingue was no longer prosperous. Leclerc himself noted that the resources provided by Bonaparte were insufficient, as Bonaparte believed that “war must pay for war,” which shows a clear disconnect from reality on these.
The reestablishment of slavery was also a major strategic mistake. It contributed directly to the loss of Saint-Domingue, as Bonaparte greatly underestimated both the mindset of formerly enslaved people and the strength of their leaders (such as the Bélair couple and Dessalines). He should have known that extreme repression only fuels further rebellion.
Moreover, this policy cost him many promising officers, such as Delgrès, Dumas and others. It also alienated groups of formerly enslaved fighters who had previously fought against the British using guerrilla tactics. One example is their victory at the Battle of Rabot in 1795, with the support of Governor Victor Hugues (one of the symbolic figures associated with this movement was Flore Bois Gaillard).
Ultimately, the decision to restore slavery benefited no one.
As for Lentz and Branda, they have written very good historical articles, particularly on Saint-Domingue, but I disagree with them on certain points (this is a subjective matter they are very good historians whose work should be read.). I sometimes feel that they attempt to downplay the destruction caused by Bonaparte in the restoration of slavery by emphasizing atrocities on both sides. Yes, that is true—but the brutality came primarily from the French side, as I have already explained here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758502228409614336/here-we-come-about-a-shocking-act-by-french-army?source=share
Honestly, even some of the worst representatives-on-mission of Year II, such as Fréron, seem mild compared to what was done by Leclerc, Rochambeau, Lacrosse, and others.
In my opinion, one of the best historians on this subject is Frédéric Régent, whom I strongly recommend. One of his strengths is that he refuses to rely on a single scapegoat. He has explained that while Leclerc was indeed extremely brutal (his proposal to kill all Black people over the age of twelve in saint Domingue is horrifying), he was not alone—just as Rochambeau was not alone in his atrocities. It is similar to Turreau in the Vendée: Turreau was certainly brutal, but he was not the only one, even if his name is the one most remembered.
The problem with the subject of Napoleon’s restoration of slavery is that we often encounter two schools of thought that are both highly flawed and based on clichés.
The first one—ironically often promoted by the same people who condemn the revolutionaries of Year II—claims that Napoleon restored slavery simply because it was “of his time” (which is false), and fully justifies it as a form of necessary pragmatism. By that logic, Turreau’s “infernal columns” should also be seen as “necessary pragmatism.” Some even go further and argue that since slave owners had not been compensated, restoring slavery was therefore justified (yes, that argument actually exists).
The second school of thought goes to the opposite extreme: it compares Napoleon to Hitler on this issue ( stupid thing to do), claiming that he sought to create a “new man” by massacring as many Black people as possible—which is just as absurd.
There is a third, somewhat more serious school of thought that հարց whether Napoleon may have been racist. The problem is that the word “racist” did not exist at the time, even though the attitude itself certainly did. Personally, I do not think Napoleon acted primarily out of such attitudes, but rather out of opportunism.
But once again, Joséphine had no role in the restoration of slavery. Had she not been there, things would have unfolded exactly the same way. And she was not the one giving orders.
Marie Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: from radical Hébertist revolutionary to Baroness of the Empire — and ultimately, to poverty
Once again, I am not infallible, so please feel free to kindly correct me if I am mistaken.I don't know much about this Valais affair under Bonaparte's Consulate. I had to take the only two documents I could find. Please don't hesitate to provide any information if you know.
Note: warning regarding domestic violence, illness, etc...
I would like to apologize for any lack of fluency of these post, as well as for certain language errors or repetitions. My computer is currently experiencing serious issues, and I am at risk of losing this file. For that reason, I am publishing it here as it stands; I plan to revise and improve it later, as I have already been working on it for several days.
Regarding her physical appearance, for now, I haven't found anything concerning Marie-Angélique Lequesne, only that she was reportedly quite pretty according to historian Thomas Fleming.
Marie Angélique Lequesne was reportedly born in Paris on July 18, 1767. She was the daughter of Laurent Lequesne, administrator of accounting for the equipment of the Republic's armies, and the late Agnès Leullier, residing on Boulevard Montmartre. She also had a brother, Alexandre Lequesne, and a sister, Geneviève Gabrielle Lequesne.
According to the unreliable Genanet website, she was reportedly a cantinière (sutleress) in 1793 (which falsely accuses her of embezzlement). But if the position she held was true, it would fit well with the type of woman of action she was. It is also possible that she met her future husband, Charles-Philippe Ronsin, there.
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of the marriage ceremony; her marriage contract indicates that it must have taken place on June 15, 1793.
Here is an excerpt from Hérlaut's text "Le Général Rouge Ronsin":
"Ronsin arrived in Paris from Vendée a few days prior. He had left Tours on June 6 to present his operation plan in person to the Committee of Public Safety. The Committee granted Ronsin an audience on June 14 and sent him back to Vendée to continue his mission. Ronsin left Paris around June 18. Therefore, the date of the marriage celebration must be placed between June 11, the date of the contract's signature, and June 18.
The honeymoon of the two spouses was extremely brief, as it does not seem that Ronsin took his young wife to Vendée. His enemies, particularly Philippeaux, would have denounced the pomp and splendor that allegedly characterized citizen Ronsin's stay in Vendée with the vain "general minister," her husband. No document mentioning her presence in Vendée is known.
The marriage contract stipulated that the future spouses "would share all movable and 'coquet' immovable property according to the Commune of Paris."
Ronsin declared that his assets consisted only of "furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to fifteen thousand livres according to the valuation made between the parties."
The future wife "declared that her assets consisted only of the following items: 1° the sum of ten thousand livres, at which she valued her still unliquidated rights in her mother's estate, whose assets were in the possession of Citizen Lequesne, her father.
2° in furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to the sum of seventy thousand livres according to the valuation made between the future wife and the future husband, who agreed to be charged with this sum of seventy thousand livres as a dowry for the future wife."
In the event of the death of one spouse, "the survivor shall take, as a prior claim, and before the division of the community property, the sum of ten thousand livres in furniture of their choice or the said sum in ready cash, at their discretion."
Finally, Ronsin declared that he paid a rent of one thousand livres for his lodging: "but having only occupied it for a short time, he had not yet been assessed for movable property tax, and previously, he only paid 400 livres in rent."
From the clauses of this contract, it can be deduced that Ronsin possessed no personal fortune, and that his future wife, while comfortably situated, did not have considerable resources.
Although everything indicates that Ronsin did not take his wife with him to Vendée (unlike his friend Momoro who did so with his wife Sophie), she nonetheless shared his ideas. She often attended and followed the debates of the Cordeliers Club, as did Marie-Françoise Hébert, Sophie Momoro, the wife of Ancard, Vincent's wife, and Albertine Marat, sister of Jean-Paul Marat. She approved of dechristianization, and this ideology followed her for a very long time in her life, even 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. 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."
She also supported her husband during some of his worst moments. In December 1793, when he and Vincent were arrested and imprisoned, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. Marie-Angélique Ronsin with Vincent's wife often visited him in prison and had lunch in their company. 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.
When he was later arrested a second time, early in the morning at his home at 27 Boulevard Montmartre, in the presence of his brother Jean-César, then director of military relays, and Marie-Angélique. As he accepted his arrest, Marie-Angélique told one of the aides-de-camp present, "Quick, mount your horse. Go tell Hanriot about my husband's arrest. He greatly contributed to his release (after his first arrest); he might still be able to help him."
While she initially escaped immediate arrest, unlike the wives of Hébert and Momoro who were arrested hours after their husbands, she was arrested in the same apartment on 1st Germinal by "general security measure," and taken to the prison known as Les Anglaises on Rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor. A search of the home took place, and the Revolutionary Committee of the Mont-Blanc section declared that there was nothing suspicious at the Ronsin couple's home and no denunciation against his wife.
She was reportedly very anxious during the three days leading up to her husband's execution. This anxiety only increased upon learning of the death of her husband, his companions, and the death of Hébert's wife. She also feared being accused of complicity and suffering the same fate, according to Herlaut again.
Strangely, while some press outlets had vilified Sophie Momoro and Marie-Françoise Hébert – “Although their lawful husbands had been held in the Conciergerie for two days, it is said that the ‘princesses’ were not found alone when the guards came to arrest them at night. It is perfectly understandable—two widows cannot be left alone in such circumstances; they need consolation” – or others mocked Sophie Momoro's physical appearance and her role as the Goddess of Reason, I found nothing concerning Ronsin's wife. Furthermore, the widows of Vincent and Ancard were spared this arrest, which sometimes shows the somewhat random nature of the arrests of revolutionaries' wives.
Likely out of prudence, Marie-Angélique Ronsin made no efforts to be released until 22 Thermidor (even when Sophie Momoro was released in Prairial Year II). From that date, she addressed a request for release to the Committee of General Security. She declared that she had "in no way shared her husband's errors" and that it was necessary for her to be free, "all the more necessary as, having no fortune, the work of her hands becomes indispensable to provide for her existence." She received no reply and made her request again on 27 Thermidor, asking for the reasons for her detention.
Her prison stay seems to have been very difficult, judging by her request of 23 Fructidor in which she provided a certificate written by health officers working in prisons and detention centers, stating that she "had been suffering for six months from violent headaches, dizziness, a continuous noise in her right ear; towards recent times had an apoplectic attack in which blood came out of her ears very abundantly." They requested that she receive appropriate treatments such as baths, bloodletting, and mineral water, and that this be done immediately as it could be fatal for Marie-Angélique Ronsin. Nevertheless, there was no response to this request either.
However, on 28 Vendémiaire Year III, when she requested "a copy of her prison register entry," the prison warden was ordered to give it to her.
The Lequesne family decided to work for her release, more specifically, her sister Gabrielle, wife of Poitevin,made a new intervention to the Committee of General Security. There was no document anywhere against Marie-Angélique Ronsin, and according to her family, the reason for her arrest was "her husband's affair in which she was in no way involved," and they requested "to return to a father, a daughter, and to brothers, a sister who has been lamenting in prison for more than six months." Her release took place shortly after, and on 18 Brumaire Year III, the seals were lifted from her home.
She then began to request from the Committee of General Security the recovery of her property, since, according to the terms of the marriage, she was a creditor in her husband's estate for the sum of ten thousand francs. In addition, her husband possessed a rather substantial library of dramatic works (which was not surprising given that her husband, before his revolutionary career, was connected to the artistic and literary milieu to the point of being friends with Jacques-Louis David); she requested to recover this property as well.
The decree of 6 Germinal Year III ruled in her favor; she benefited from the restitution of furniture and other effects worth 5135 livres, and the library was valued at 2152 livres.
On 14 Floréal Year III, Marie-Angélique Ronsin declared, "I, the undersigned, acknowledge having received all the furniture and effects included in the inventories that were made at my home, for which I discharge," signing "Widow Ronsin." Some of the carriages found at the Ronsin couple's home and the horses were sold. Some for 788 livres paid on 5 Floréal to the receiver of the domain.
Some national carriages were used for "the service of deputies and public officials on mission." The others were sold.
Following her release, Marie-Angélique Ronsin went to live on Rue des Deux-Portes. But she continued her revolutionary activities even after her husband's death, and she can be counted among the opponents of Thermidorian politics. According to Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil, she frequented what he called "ultra-revolutionary clubs." It is possible that he was referring to the Electoral Club (many of whose members would be arrested or implicated due to the Prairial uprising), animated mainly by revolutionaries like Bodson, Varlet, Legray, and Babeuf, even though an arrest warrant was issued again against the main members of this club on 3 Brumaire, and its sessions only ceased on 22 Frimaire. It is also possible that du Ménil was referring to the Pantheon Club.
In any case, the widow Ronsin subscribed to the Tribun du Peuple, continued to frequent her husband's former companions like General Rossignol, but also Parein du Mesnil, even when these two were involved in the Conspiracy of Equals (though acquitted), which suggests that Marie-Angélique Ronsin in some way approved of Babouvism.
This was not surprising, as Ronsin was close to Rossignol and must have frequented Parein, whether in Vendée or Lyon (Parein being one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon alongside people like Collot d'Herbois or Fouché, whereas Ronsin's role is still more complex to this day).
On 12 Pluviôse Year IV, she married General Louis-Marie Turreau, who was a friend of Ronsin. They had five children together: Emma, called Théodore, born August 8, 1796, and died August 21, 1872; Alexandrine-Cléophée, 1798, died June 24, 1879; Joseph-Alphonse, born July 25, 1799, died July 16, 1800; Edouard-Henri-Théodore, born July 4, 1802, died on an unknown date; and Auguste-Pierre, born July 24, 1806, and died January 3, 1870. The latter wrote to Charles-Philippe Ronsin on good terms, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766971097091538944/letter-from-turreau-to-ronsin-and-the-complex?source=share, but this did not prevent him, in order to save himself, from saying that Ronsin was responsible for a defeat in Vendée, whereas Turreau was the real culprit according to historian Jean-Clément Martin.
After the execution of Gracchus Babeuf, Turreau became the adoptive father of his son Camille Babeuf. It is possible that, given Marie-Angélique Turreau was later described as generous to the unfortunate in America and due to her sympathy for Babeuf, she convinced her husband of this adoption. In a way, she can also be considered Camille's adoptive mother.
In Fructidor Year V, "Turreau, then unemployed, along with Parein, Rossignol, and others, joined Augereau". That evening, "Marie-Angélique, still frequenting the Jacobins and dressed as an Amazon, rode on horseback. She led a column of Jacobins from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and, in the company of Parein and Rossignol, congratulated the Directory on its victory".
General Turreau received a new assignment after this event. He reportedly had the support of his cousin, who was a deputy. According to Hérlaut, this cousin was married to a woman named Félicie Gautier. And she reportedly had an affair with Bonaparte, who commanded the army's artillery. When Bonaparte became commander-in-chief of the Army of Italy, despite Turreau not being re-elected as a deputy, he was appointed army storekeeper. Later, under the Empire, when she was in destitution, Berthier would inform Napoleon of her situation, providing financial aid.
Thus, one of the reasons he would have helped Louis-Marie Turreau and his wife advance was due to his cousin.
Nevertheless, there were other reasons. Indeed, apart from their cousin, the Turreau couple clearly rallied to Bonaparte's regime along with some fervent Jacobins (despite Napoleon loathing this political category, especially those on the left, though he could make exceptions) such as Drouet, Parein du Mesnil, etc.
Under the Consulate, Louis Marie-Turreau was sent "to Valais, at the head of the occupation troops with whom he achieved successes against the Coalitions, notably before Suze, which he brilliantly invested," according to historian Jean Clément Martin.
It was in this context that the Kalbermatten affair reportedly emerged, which I found only from Rivaz, Michel Salamin, and Michel de Preux.
Indeed, Louis-Marie Turreau's mission under the Consulate was to bring Valais closer to France, even to annex it. According to former State Chancellor René de Preux, in 1801, the general had established his headquarters in the Vallaz house and "His despotic methods, reminiscent of the time when he commanded the thirty infernal columns in Vendée, quickly became intolerable to the entire population, which years of misfortune had already plunged into deep misery. He plundered administrative coffers, sequestered tax revenues, arbitrarily dismissed public officials, arrested them, and proclaimed urbi et orbi the imminent annexation of Valais to France." To "protest against this project of annexation to France, dear to General Turreau, deputies from 74 communes of Upper and Lower Valais left for Bern in February 1802." This was presented "on behalf of the Valais deputation by the Vice Grand Bailiff, Pierre-Antoine de Preux, a member of the Supreme Tribunal."
Among the deputation from the commune of Sion was Louis Grégoire de Kalbermatten, who was born "October 6, 1768, the son of Gabriel de Kalbermatten and Louise née Barberini. He served in the Courten regiment in France from 1788 to 1796. Knight of St. Louis, he married Marie-Antoinette Louise de Nucé, daughter of Gaspard Benjamin and Marie Barbe de Tornery, city councillor of Sion, in 1803. In 1814, he entered the service of Piedmont and had a brilliant career there. Elected mayor of the city of Sion in 1838, he died in that city on November 8, 1845" (according to René de Preux). Louis de Kalbermatten was a fervent defender of Valais's independence and opposed General Turreau's policy aimed at attaching the region to France.
Following this, Turreau forcibly requisitioned Kalbermatten's house, a rather large three-story dwelling, to make it his headquarters, and this reportedly exacerbated tensions to the point where "He (Kalbermatten) protested vigorously, threatening to grab the General by the collar and set fire to his house." Turreau was able to carry out this action with the help of Bailiff Augustini, who was one of the heads of the Valaisan government. Marie-Angélique also played a significant role in this, according to historian Michel Salamin. Each time Louis de Kalbermatten tried to obtain an audience with the general, it was his wife who received him and reportedly put forward several reasons that seemed flimsy to justify preventing him from recovering his house, citing some of her husband's health issues. However, it seems clear that she supported her husband's actions on this point.
She was staying with her husband, her children, and her servants, namely a chambermaid named Marie Guilmar, a cook named Catherine Vodelay, and a wet nurse named Jeanne-Marie Morisod.
However, she played a rather important role on September 5, 1803. There had been an official banquet that afternoon, organized, among others, by Bailiff Augustini, to celebrate the anniversary of Valais's independence. Augustini had gathered a small number of guests for a banquet, including Marie-Angélique Turreau. Also present were "Joseph de Lavallaz, Jean-Joseph Duc (...), the Grand Dean Oggier, the Grand Vicar Pignat, the Vice-Chatelain Janvier de Riedmatten, Mayor François Joseph de Riedmatten, Commander Valet, and Adjutant Monthion."
Europe the greatest good, peace; upon France, her religion, her prosperity, her greater and more respectable homeland; upon Valais, her own and her dear independence! Long live the immortal, invincible, and benevolent Bonaparte, First Consul of the Italian Republic, mediator of the Swiss Republic, restorer of the independence of the Valaisan Republic!" Still according to Michel Salamin, following multiple toasts, "The main ones are addressed to the French, Italian, and Swiss commissioners, to General Turreau, to State Councillor Louis Lambertenghi, and to Senator Charles Müller-Friedberg. The general's wife receives her own, as do the French officers."
Two hours later, the "Louis de Kalbermatten" affair would erupt.
Indeed, while Marie-Angélique was absent, dining in an inn owned by a certain Jean-Joseph Bruttin in the presence of Captain Cudenne and his wife, two panes of glass from her third-floor bedroom window were broken by a stone, as well as one from an adjacent room (perhaps her children's). The wet nurse and the chambermaid took refuge at Mme Alphonse de Kalbermatten's house, while the cook went to alert Madame Turreau.
Grand Bailiff Augustini interrogated Louis de Kalbermatten in front of her and several local dignitaries. Augustini asked him where he had been, forcing him to explain that he had been at Jean-Joseph Bruttin's until 7 PM, then at home, and denied going into his garden, but for Augustini, his guilt was established with meager, even non-existent, evidence.
Louis de Kalbermatten was reportedly mistreated by several French officers, both verbally by Commander Valet and physically by aide-de-camp Maussaud, who allegedly held him by the collar. But the most violent reaction was reportedly from Captain Cudenne, who allegedly grabbed, shook, and roughed him up.
Marie-Angélique Turreau was then among the women who prevented the officers from continuing their brutality against Kalbermatten and ensured he was safely escorted out, although he would be imprisoned for it.
Preux would say that Marie-Angélique Turreau had a real fright, but Rivaz claimed that she reportedly said, "It's a bit much that they want to assassinate me on the anniversary of the independence generously given to liberal Valais by the Great Nation! They will talk about it in Paris, and this attack will cause a stir there."
Preux would affirm that when the commission "confirmed, by taking this iron piece to the kitchen, that it was indeed part of the kitchen's fire-dog. General Turreau intervened at that moment, saying in a sharp tone: 'We are dwelling on small things and wasting precious time!'
Upon this, she ordered the chambermaid to inform the servants to hitch the horses and prepare everything for departure, for she added:
'I am no longer safe here.' Mr. Duc, President of the commission, reassured her about her personal safety and offered her a sufficient guard.
Mrs. Turreau calmed down a little and thanked him, assuring him that she had greatly appreciated the promptness with which the Grand Bailiff had attended to her security, and she declared: 'I will report this to Paris!' "
She rejoined her husband in Paris in the last days of September.
Despite an alibi and scant evidence, Kalbermatten remained in prison for months. He was acquitted, which was seen as a humiliation for the "pro-French" side.
Louis-Marie Turreau was appointed ambassador to the United States by Napoleon and arrived in the capital in 1804. His wife arrived in that country months later. He lived mainly in Baltimore and she in Washington.
Unlike her husband, who had a bad reputation in Washington, it seemed to have been the opposite for her. Susan Wheeler Decatur, a well-known personality in society, daughter of a wealthy mayor of Norfolk, Virginia (whom some sources say Aaron Burr and Jérôme Bonaparte had proposed to, which she refused), and having chosen to marry Stephen Decatur, described Marie-Angélique in these terms in a letter to Dolley Payne Madison: "Washington is by this time illuminated by the presence of Made Turreau ". Decatur implied that, beyond outward appearances, Madame Turreau possessed “something that passeth show,” and praised her quiet generosity. During her stay, she is said to have provided significant material support to several French families in distress, thus demonstrating sincere benevolence and a concrete commitment to her compatriots.
But Marie-Angélique then formed a much deeper friendship with Dolley Payne Madison, wife of James Madison, then Secretary of State of the United States.
Dolley Madison met Marie-Angélique Turreau through Sally McKean, wife of the Spanish minister Carlos Fernando Martinez de Yrujo, when the latter introduced her to the wives of ministers or ambassadors. Indeed, Dolley Madison frequented high society and already played an active political role. Dolley Madison established herself as a central figure in Washington's social and political life. She skillfully bypassed Jefferson's prohibition on women's involvement in politics by cleverly blending hospitality and political connections. She surrounded herself with influential women such as Margaret Bayard Smith, Anna Maria Thornton, and Marcia Burns Van Ness. She earned the esteem of her contemporaries through her charm, vivacity, and affable manners. She introduced novelties at her receptions, such as card games, which made her evenings very popular. She played a key role in warmly welcoming foreign diplomats to a still undeveloped capital. She compensated for the reserve of Jefferson and her husband James Madison with her sociability. Her home became an essential place of informal power in Washington. Through her influence, she contributed to the evolution of women's place in the public sphere.
Marie-Angélique Turreau played an additional role in Dolley Madison's political journey, notably by teaching her French very intelligently and encouragingly, and by giving her advice on how to dress with "Parisian panache," among other things. Some of the skills she taught her would prove useful when Dolley Madison became the First Lady of the United States a few years later. The two women got along extremely well; Dolley Madison wrote to her sister how much she appreciated Marie-Angélique Turreau who, with her wicked sense of humor, made her laugh. James Madison's wife emphasized that the French "are very pleasant overall and add enormously to my comfort here." The friendship between the two women transcended language barriers, as Madison amusingly noted: "She speaks no English but we understand each other very well," and they shared several daily activities: walks, rides, informal visits, and long impromptu conversations. Madison also greatly appreciated her French manners, which could sometimes seem eccentric in the United States, such as dressing according to "French ideas." Marie-Angélique Turreau reportedly showed generosity, according to Madison, "shows me everything she possesses, and would even want to give me everything."
Furthermore, Turreau's wife, in addition to frequenting American high society, was still very much interested in American politics, according to some letters.
Nevertheless, this was also the beginning of troubles for her again. Everything indicates that long before America, the Turreau couple did not get along at all, hence the fact that he arrived first in the United States and she only joined him months later. Some claimed he did not want her to follow him there. In any case, they lived in constant quarrel. Unlike his wife, he was not truly appreciated in America (even if James Madison found him moderate and Jefferson maintained a professional relationship without political incident). He was physically described pejoratively as "bald head, red face, and mustache." It was said that he had "terrible" temper and was "morbidly depressed."
The reputation he had acquired following the brutal repression in Vendée certainly did not help, but also, among other things, the mistreatment he inflicted on his wife and surely on others did not improve his reputation. One congressman called him a "savage," another man named William Plumer said of him, "This is disgraceful that such a man should be the representative of a nation." Another senator wrote, "I have never yet beheld a face so cruel and sanguinary as his." It is very clear in my opinion that it was not only his past repression in Vendée that caused his unpopularity. He did not hesitate to beat her in private and in public, and it quickly became public. He even went so far as to have her whipped in front of the servants and asked his secretary to play the flute to cover his wife's screams because of the neighbors. One day Marie-Angélique, either at her wits' end from the mistreatment she suffered or for fear for her life, once hit him in the head with a flatiron; he then struck her with a cane.
Their home became atrocious for Marie-Angélique, her servants, and her children, who also regularly screamed when their father attacked their mother. Turreau was also very unfaithful to his wife, and he insisted that prostitutes come to their home, which must have made the atmosphere there even worse.
Despite the indignation of many at Marie-Angélique's treatment, few people helped her due to her husband's position.
Dolley Madison hated Turreau for what he was doing to her friend but asked her sister not to repeat what she had said, as it would make the French appear as hateful as he, in her opinion. Furthermore, she overcame her disgust for him for essential diplomatic reasons in public.
According to Hoadley and others, Turreau, then jealous of his wife, planned to forcibly send her back to France and thus separate her from their children. When he began to lock her up at home, he eventually decided to call a troop to force her repatriation.
Marie-Angélique, understanding the plan, reportedly sent a message to Dolley Madison asking for help.
Still according to Hoadley's version, one of Marie-Angélique's servants allegedly raised the alarm to help her while she screamed "murder," which caused a crowd to gather outside their home, and despite Turreau invoking his wife's madness, the crowd reportedly took her to safety.
In another link on Jstore (although I don't remember the exact title of the text), the following excerpt stated:
"The general declared in writing on October 29, 1806: 'I declare positively that after many refusals by Mrs. Turreau to go to France, in accordance with my orders as her husband and as plenipotentiary minister of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, my intention was to use force to make her go; that, therefore, after preparing her departure on a ship (in Annapolis), I gave her repeated orders to leave, when her screams, despite my efforts to calm her, attracted a crowd of citizens (Americans) around my house; and despite my public position as minister to France and the privileges that it entails, I went to the door of my house, where a magistrate among them told me that the people had gathered due to the noise they had heard from my house; to which I asked him to enter my house to see the interior and satisfy his fellow citizens.'"
Magistrate Thornton declared to him: "In consequence of the invitation given above to the aforementioned magistrate (W. T.) as well as to Wm P. Gardner, last night around ten o'clock, we went to the house of the French minister and were led to an upstairs room where we found his wife with three French sailors or soldiers who were ready to take her by force. She tearfully declared that she sought the protection of the United States from such violence. The general turned to the sailors and said: 'Mark this, citizens; she is asking for the protection of the United States and thus renounces mine.' She said that the French government would not protect her now, but that she would seek protection from France later. We intervened in a friendly manner and asked if it would not be more appropriate, in the title of an officer of the Legion of Honor, to allow his wife to leave in peace, rather than subject her to the brutal insults of ordinary sailors who had been ordered to take her by force? It was also mentioned to her by W. T. that the crowd was waiting quietly to see if an attempt would be made to take her by force; for if that was attempted, they had said they were determined to free her. He said that the heartbreaking details of the separation are omitted, except to say that, on her knees, she pleaded to see her children one last time, and at his categorical refusal, he finally gave in, but only at the prayer of her foreign friends in his arms to 'take the infant.' She left the house, at the corner of Seven Buildings (Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street), with the magistrate and his associate."
Another version of the facts found here, according to Augustus Foster https://www.jstor.org/stable/1923081, is that Judge Thornton ordered the forced opening of the doors to finally stop the ill-treatment she was subjected to, believing that Marie-Angélique Turreau's protection outweighed the diplomatic privilege that Turreau was abusing.
Furthermore, in a book dedicated to Dolley Madison, I found the following excerpt: "Eventually, the neighbors became indignant and threatening. At the height of the uproar, the eccentric Dr. Thornton arrived and stopped the beating. When Turreau fiercely told Thornton, 'Dr. Thornton, you do not know de law of de nation,' Thornton replied, 'But I know the laws of humanity, and I intend to enforce them.' "
In any case, from late 1806 until March 1809, she lived in quarters in Georgetown without the financial support that Turreau had promised the judge so she could return to France. Nevertheless, she was able to recover her children, but they lived in poverty during this period. Marie-Angélique Turreau's situation caused a public incident because the Washington Federalist newspaper reported the entire story with the aim "that it be circulated throughout the Union" and that Madame Turreau was in destitution with her children.
The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website says that the newspaper may have used this story to embarrass President Jefferson and his administration, as it was an opposition newspaper.
Dolley Madison wrote about this to Anna Maria Thornton on August 26, 1807, that she supposed Madame Thornton, before leaving Washington, had seen Marie-Angélique Turreau, that there would have been an address in her favor, hoping that this would force Turreau to finally give his wife and children the necessary financial support. Moreover, it seems that a Madame Forrest, wife of the official of the time, Richard Forrest, one of the eight clerks of the State Department (then a friend of Dolley Madison, William Thornton, among others), generally checked on Madame Turreau's condition. Dolley Madison herself was very worried about her friend.
Louis Marie-Turreau knew the rumors that resulted from his conduct and "wrote to his friends in the French Foreign Office that he was almost mad with mortification and despair." according again to The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website, which did not prevent him from continuing to refuse to help Marie-Angélique and their children. Nevertheless, Napoleon Bonaparte did not act against him for these, and there was no trace of reprimand whatsoever for the public incidents caused by Turreau, which allowed a newspaper to potentially use instruments to discredit the Jefferson administration, nor the fact that because of this, he lost a support, which was his wife, who was very appreciated and loved by at least part of the political elite.
In March 1809, the judge finally managed to raise funds for Marie-Angélique Turreau. However, she returned at the same date as her husband in 1811, and they began a formal divorce process. According to this link https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-033 Turreau had even taken steps with Joséphine de Beauharnais without success. He was made Baron of the Empire in 1811, and consequently, Marie-Angélique also became one.
In 1813, they finally divorced, but according to the rembarre website, Louis-Marie Turreau had forcibly placed their daughter Alexandrine in a convent in Conches, but Marie-Angélique managed to remove her by summary judgment on September 22, 1814.
What is certain is that Marie-Angélique managed to obtain custody of her children. During the First Restoration, Turreau rallied to Louis XVIII and received the Order of Saint-Louis. He also accompanied the Duke of Angoulême to Vendée in 1816, then lived in Conches and died on December 10, 1816.
Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced Turreau, experienced severe financial difficulties with her four children. She made requests for assistance to various Ministers of War. In 1819, she sent a letter to Gouvion Saint-Cyr (Minister of War), describing herself not as a divorcée but rather as "the widow of a general officer who died without fortune and leaving four minor children in my care, three boys and one girl; due to circumstances, she is reduced to living on the fourth floor, 139, Rue Montmartre, to serve herself and to perform all the domestic chores, especially at an advanced age (she was 52 at that time) and with her health deteriorating from a series of sorrows."
On December 12, 1826, she was finally granted a pension of 1500 francs (whereas Turreau, during his lifetime, had a maximum pension of 6000 francs).
After Turreau's death, certainly out of attachment to the United States, and surely to escape the "atmosphere" of the royalist regime, which likely had little goodwill for a woman who had been Widow Ronsin, she decided to return to that country and found a school, but did not succeed. "She only managed to return to France by incurring debts of honor abroad to secure her passage."
In 1827, she reportedly made a request to the director of domains to have a prefectural decree of the Seine dated June 21, 1804, executed concerning the restitution of a succession profit from her first husband, explaining that by following her second husband Turreau to America, she was unable to make this request for execution at the time. But she was told that her property had been returned to her and there was no trace of the carriages, whose fate the administration was unaware of. As for the request for restitution of papers, she received the answer, after meticulous research, that the papers were of no interest at the time and had been destroyed.
She died on February 15, 1828, in Paris, likely in destitution.
Her eldest son, Théodore, became a Knight of the Legion of Honor in 1839, a retired captain, and died unmarried.
Her daughter Alexandrine Cléophée lived a life of precarity. Here's what the newspaper Le Bien public said about her in 1878: "We draw the attention of the Minister of War to a great misfortune to be alleviated. It concerns the 78-year-old daughter of Republican General Louis-Marie Turreau, who lives in Nancy, in the Sainte-Anne district.
Mademoiselle Turreau, one of our correspondents writes, has no resources; she has long lived in true distress.
In 1876, a local newspaper, La Sentinelle, organized a subscription for her benefit, which yielded the meager sum of 225 francs, and that was all.
Republican France, for whom General Turreau fought with such brilliance against the Vendée bands commanded by Charette and Larochejacquelin, owes it to itself to help the unique heiress of this glorious name, engraved on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, west side.
When there is talk of voting a pension of ten thousand francs to the widow of Bonapartist General d'Aurelle de Paladines, would one hesitate to grant Mademoiselle Turreau an alimony that would prevent her from starving?" She died unmarried a year later after the article appeared, in a hospice.
The third sibling, Édouard-Henri-Théodore, married in Mexico and seemed to remain there. He married twice and had several children, the most famous of whom was Eduardo Turreau de Linières, one of the founders of the Lancasterian Society, among other achievements.
As for Auguste-Pierre, he was possibly a man of letters and secretary of the sub-prefecture of Bayonne. He may have remarried twice and had two daughters.
(My sources regarding the fate of Marie-Angélique's children are on this site, so it's not really reliable "ÉVREUX - CONCHES-EN-OUCHE (27) - LOUIS-MARIE TURREAU DE LINIÈRES DE GARAMBOUVILLE DANS LE DÉPARTEMENT DE L'EURE - La Maraîchine Normande)
Marie-Angélique Lequesne's Personality, Hypotheses, and Reflections:
Marie-Angélique had a very left-leaning orientation and was an "ultra-revolutionary," at least until she rallied to Bonaparte. She often followed the sessions of the Cordeliers Club and supported her first husband during his lifetime, doing everything she could for him when he faced difficulties, such as sharing meals with him when he was imprisoned the first time, and when he was imprisoned the second time, instinctively asking influential people of their political persuasion for help to save him (like her request for help from Hanriot). If she posthumously denounced her first husband by speaking of his "errors," it was only a few months after his death, and she could potentially have been in danger (especially since, as mentioned earlier, the fate of spouses seemed entirely random). When she emerged from her dreadful prison stay, she continued her activism and actively fought Thermidorian politics while remaining in contact with her first husband's close associates and friends. It is possible that, like other revolutionaries, she feigned submission in letters while imprisoned to better emerge and continue her struggle.
She remained politically left-wing at that time. It is also possible that she married Turreau for security (as being the widow of a man not rehabilitated at the time, seen as an "extremist," could be difficult), as well as being impressed that he refused all amnesty when imprisoned to be rehabilitated in 1795.
Therefore, she cannot truly be classified as a weathercock, as she was one of the active opponents of the Directory, even at the worst moments, although she later actively rallied to the Napoleonic regime, both in Valais and in the United States. But she was not the only left-wing figure to do this; François Réal did, as did Drouet (even if Drouet refused all promotions beyond sub-prefect). It is nevertheless strange that Marie-Angélique Lequesne did not express her most fervent opposition to Bonaparte's responsibility for the deaths of several of her comrades in arms, such as her Babouvist friends (notably her friend Rossignol, with whom she was always in contact; according to Bélanger, he was not even on the list of Jacobins to be deported, it was Bonaparte himself who added him, which led to his death). I would have liked to know more about her state of mind. Perhaps she had a reactionary turn, or perhaps not.
If she was indeed a cantinière for the French army in Belgium at some point, this, in addition to the Amazonian outfits she wore under the Directory, confirms that she was a woman of action. Furthermore, she always spoke with aides-de-camp, whether with her first or second husband, dined with military captains and their wives, not to mention her good relations with other generals. She could therefore have good relationships with certain army personalities.
But she also presents a certain interesting paradox of personality. She married twice to men who at times had rather expeditious methods (especially Turreau); she often frequented Parein du Mesnil (at least during the French Revolution, whether before or after the Conspiracy of Equals), who was one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon, and she knew it. Similarly, if Salamin, Preux, and Rivaz are telling the truth (although some passages make me think they demonized her), she bears some responsibility for the attempted political downfall of Kalbermatten and the imprisonment of an innocent man.
On the other hand, she showed great generosity, whether to people who more or less shared her politics (like her possible involvement in her husband Turreau adopting Camille Babeuf after his father's death) or simply to other people, as Susan Wheeler Decatur states that Marie-Angélique helped several French families in distress in 1805. Her generosity thus extended even to people who would not advance her "personal career" or when they were in disgrace.
She is also described by Dolley Madison as "kind, intelligent, generous, simple, and curious." In the opinion of Washington's political figures, she therefore fared very well.
Furthermore, she had a great sense of humor. Not to mention that it was she who prevented Kalbermatten from being mistreated, even though she considered him an enemy.
I have a hypothesis to better understand her personality: I think that yes, she indeed possessed all the qualities mentioned above, that she was surely demonized to better destroy her first husband's reputation, first by people like Philippeaux, then by others when she surely married Turreau (like many women of the French Revolution), but that she also believed that when the homeland was in danger, the most extreme means should be used to save it, even if it meant employing Turreau's methods. Similarly, when a territory needs to be annexed, if she felt anti-French sentiment in opposition, she could use unfair methods. This was not out of sadism, but because she wanted the safeguarding of France and the revolutionary gains above all (even if at times this actually worsened the situation, as happened after the Infernal Columns). Nevertheless, she believed in the right to a trial, even for those she disliked, and was opposed to lynching her adversaries.
She also possessed diplomatic qualities, as seen in America, where she was sincerely loved by the American elite( or at least by a lot of them).
She could be pragmatic, as when there was no other recourse, she asked the Bourbons for help once the Restoration was definitive and declared herself the widow of a man she had divorced, as she was living in limited circumstances with her four children (she must have returned to France with the means her friends gave her, and the divorce costs must have been significant, especially to obtain custody of her children), but at no point did she rally to that regime. She surely wanted to leave that regime later and try a new start in America, but alas, that did not work and plunged her even further into destitution. Her pragmatism and prudence were also displayed in 1794 when she was imprisoned by deliberately not taking steps to be released for the first few months.
I believe that Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced from Turreau, is the perfect example of the tragedy of women victims of domestic violence in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even in the 21st century in some respects). The moment her second husband decided to make her life a hell, she was unfortunately "stuck" and had no recourse, even more so with the retrograde Napoleonic laws that made wives even more vulnerable to violent husbands. He benefited from great legal impunity for what he inflicted upon her, and she could do nothing but physically defend herself and protect her children. It was her American friends who helped her minimally (and even then, it took a long time), but neither foreign ministry employees nor Bonaparte, who was aware of it, helped her at a time when she could have died given the blows Turreau inflicted. I imagine the mistreatment must have started early, long before they arrived in the United States. Perhaps even at the beginning of their marriage. The moment she could finally have a legal escape to leave him and take the children with her, he made her and their children live in destitution while he lived more than comfortably. Even in death, he was a nuisance to her since he left her barely any money for herself and her four children. Turreau betrayed his friend Ronsin a first time by blaming him for a defeat for which he was actually responsible, at a time when Ronsin was truly under attack.He betrayed him a second time, this time posthumously, in a more atrocious and gratuitous manner by treating his wife horribly.
It is a pity that Marie-Angélique is a completely forgotten figure, even though she was active both during the French Revolution and under the Napoleonic period and had a very interesting, albeit tragic, destiny. But I think this also partly stemmed from the fact that she was an Hebertist. Robespierre is highly demonized in popular media and films in general, those even further to his left are either forgotten or made even "worse." Similarly, concerning the Napoleonic period, it must be emphasized that among the "Napoleonic ladies," she had one of the least acceptable political pasts: an Hebertist with Babouvist tendencies . If that's the case, it would be sexist because she wasn't the only one with this political past; other men had it and are a little more "understood." This political combination must not have pleased at all (again, I mean for popular media). But I also think of another reason. It was her marriage to Turreau that put her "out of the game." I have the impression that the horrific aspect of Turreau during the French Revolution is emphasized, but less so during the Napoleonic period (although I don't believe he managed to cause as much damage as in Vendée). It is as if they wanted to conceal as much as possible what Turreau did under Bonaparte and, consequently, Marie-Angélique.
What is frustrating is that Turreau was never punished for what he did, had a good end of life in a way, but I have the impression that his wife and children (especially Alexandrine) paid for his bad reputation by not receiving help (or at least not much) where some families who worked for Napoleon were able to benefit from better aid. For my part, I think it was when he was alive that he should have been held accountable, not his children, who were just as much victims of their father.
Sources:
Thomas Fleming
Jstore
Henry Adams
Michel Salamin
Auguste Philippe Herlaut
Preux
Rivaz
Raymonde Monnier
For the post I write on Ronsin it’s here : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share
Many thanks to @aedislumen. Without her help, I wouldn’t have been able to gather so much information. It’s thanks to her that I found out where I could read the biography of Ronsin by Hérlaut.
Herlaut confirmed that Ronsin was very close to Parein du Mesnil, which explains the friendship between Ronsin's widow and the latter.
According to the historian André Castelot, Turreau remained in good standing with the government of Louis XVIII, including the Duke and Duchess of Angoulême, as I mentioned here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/812549708912476160/some-interesting-facts-about-madame-royale-here?source=share.
This makes it all the more frustrating that neither his former wife nor their daughter Alexandrine received any support from the government.
"Two women, born into the Russian aristocracy, could have had brilliant marriages and lived out lives of ease in the highest ranks of St. Petersburg society — at least until 1917. One of them, Katerina Dolgorukoya, abandoned her youth, her beauty, her family, all worldly pleasures, and her place of first rank in the aristocratic world of her birth for a life of luxurious imprisonment in the inner chambers of the Winter Palace as the mistress of Aleksandr II. She was convinced she was carrying out a noble purpose of bringing happiness to a melancholy monarch and encouraging him to make concessions "to the people." The other woman, Sof'ya Perovskaya, abandoned a similar heritage for the turbulent life of a revolutionary, and in the end sacrificed her life to what she believed to be the cause of freedom for her country"
Margaret Maxwell, Narodniki women: Russian women who sacrificed themselves for the dream of freedom
I came across this excerpt, and I personally find it very well written, even though I absolutely do not subscribe to the idea of Alexander II of Russia as “the great liberator of the people” (contrary to what I’ve seen on some websites) even though he abolished serfdom, nor do I support the methods used by Narodnaya Volya, one of which was assassination. In my view, that achieves nothing except turning the ruler into a martyr and giving the ruling class an excuse to increase repression. If they truly wanted to get rid of the system, they should have overthrown it rather than killing a single leader.
That said, let’s be honest: Catherine Dolgorukov was subjected to some criticism that, in my opinion, was often sexist, particularly regarding her morganatic marriage (after the death of his first wife) to Alexander II. Some people placed more blame on her than on the ruler himself, even though he was the one who held the power to make the final decision. Of course, it must have been extremely difficult for his first wife, Maria Alexandrovna of Russia (born Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt), to witness this during her lifetime, on top of the hardships she already endured but the first person at fault in this case is her husband.. Dolgorukov was even blamed sometimes for unpopular decisions made by Alexander II, which is unfair—he was an autocrat with full power, so the decisions were his, not hers.
As for Sofia Perovskaya, she faced even harsher trials. Despite having everything, she chose to sacrifice it all for what she believed was the cause of the Russian people and freedom. Unfortunately, I’ve read articles that criticize her just as harshly, suggesting that she rose up against the tsar for little reason, as if she were “blind” and refused to see his supposed qualities (a view that relies on the idealized image of Alexander II). Even worse, I’ve come across claims that she became a determined opponent of tsarism only because of Andrei Zhelyabov—as if, because she was a woman, she needed a man to think for her.
Seriously, assassinating the tsar was, once again, a grave mistake (not to mention the civilians harmed in these attacks). However, people like her did have real grievances against him, and she was perfectly capable of thinking for herself.
Troubling Information on the Neo-Jacobin Jorry: His Links to Talleyrand and Bonaparte’s Opponents
Still searching for new information about lesser-known revolutionaries who were nonetheless quite famous in their own time, I wanted to learn more about Jorry. In truth, the only thing I knew about him was that he had been one of the most prominent neo-Jacobins during the Directory period, alongside Victor Bach, Antonelle, Varlet, Bodson, Félix Le Peletier, and Xavier Audouin—something I learned from the historian Bernard Gainot.
Naturally, I could not rely on Wikipedia, even though there is a page dedicated to him. However, I did find a short biography written by the historian Robert Legrand in his book Babeuf et ses compagnons de route. And from what I read, it is quite intriguing:
“Jorry, Sébastien-Louis-Gabriel
Was from Sedan. Former adjutant general. Friend of Rossignol.
Does not appear to have taken part in the conspiracy. Nevertheless, he was arrested as an accomplice of Babeuf. Brought before the High Court, he was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
In Year VI, Talleyrand, Minister of Foreign Relations, had one hundred louis given to him for a secret expedition. As Jorry did not account for the use of the funds, Talleyrand had him arrested. In the meantime, Jorry returned the money to the public treasury. He then sued the minister, who was condemned. A poster, written in a violent tone, denounced Jorry regarding the hundred louis. The following year, Jorry himself was acquitted of the charge of fraud brought against him.
In Fructidor Year VI, Jorry carried out a purge in the War offices. A report from Brumaire Year VII notes that he distributed seditious writings against the government and met with Lepeletier and Vatar to ‘work on’ the Faubourg Saint-Antoine. He was a member of the Société du Manège, where he gave a speech. The following year, Jorry was still under police surveillance, which was concerned about his visits to former Babouvists.
His name appeared on the provisional list of citizens to be deported on 20 Brumaire Year VIII, but the decree was not enforced.
In Prairial Year VIII (May 1800), he was reported to be serving in the Army of the Rhine in his former rank of adjutant general, battalion commander. The police noted that he maintained active correspondence with leaders of the ‘Exclusives’ in Paris, including Massard and Sambat.”
(Robert Legrand, Babeuf et ses compagnons de route)
However, several points here raise questions for me. How could Talleyrand have been in contact, at one point, with a man even loosely connected to the Babouvist conspiracy—someone who had friends in that circle, even if he played no direct role? It is quite clear that this was not his political inclination (and likely not a mutual affinity either).
Secondly, what was the secret mission Talleyrand assigned to Jorry? Did Jorry really steal from him? If so, why was he acquitted of fraud?
At the same time, Jorry consistently worked with the neo-Jacobins and was an important member of the Société du Manège. It should not be forgotten that the same individuals with whom he was associated—particularly Antonelle and Vatar—were openly hostile to Talleyrand.
In Year VIII, his correspondence with Massard and Sambat is mentioned. But who were these two men? Massard was a political associate during this time of Félix Le Peletier as can attest to by the work of Laurence Constant Ancet. A police report states:
“Massard returned last night from Versailles with his travelling companions. He brought back some money given to him by Lepeletier, both for himself and for other agents to whom he is to distribute it today. […] No decision was taken at this meeting in Versailles; as in all the others, it consisted merely of declamations against the government, wishes for an imminent change, and the distribution of Lepeletier’s money.”
(Police report, 30 Prairial, 19 June 1800)
En réalité, Félix Le Peletier, ainsi qu'Antonelle et d'autres néo-jacobins, étaient de fervents opposants à Bonaparte, allant jusqu'à financer des écrits contre lui et probablement à mener des actions clandestines durant le Consulat. Fouché lui-même adressa à Le Peletier un avertissement glaçant lui intimant de quitter le pays, malgré leur hostilité réciproque (comme vous pouvez le constater ici : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/789615197094559744/felix-le-peletier-and-joseph-fouch%C3%A9-a?source=share
et ici : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795434408403517440/felix-le-peletier-and-joseph-fouch%C3%A9-a?source=share).
Quant à Sambat, il était ami avec Topino-Lebrun et Antonelle, lui aussi néo-jacobin, il était abonné à la revue Lettres philosophiques , éditée par Rigomer Bazin, un autre opposant à Napoléon.
The fact remains that Jorry associated with individuals hostile to Bonaparte during this period. It almost seems remarkable that, given his reputation, he was not arrested during the repression following the “machine infernale” affair, when others were deported or executed for far less during these period.
Trying to understand why, I consulted his Wikipedia page. Although not very reliable, I thought it might offer a hypothesis. It claims that after 18 Brumaire, when measures were taken against the neo-Jacobins, Talleyrand intervened on Jorry’s behalf in a letter to Fouché published in Le Moniteur on 29 Brumaire. According to Wikipedia, “the request was rather self-interested, as this harsh measure had been poorly received by public opinion, forcing the Consuls to revoke the decree on 24 November 1799. That same day, the skillful Talleyrand regained his post as Minister of Foreign Relations.”
However, not only is this unreferenced, but it also seems unlikely: the Consulate at that time was still too fragile to openly attack the neo-Jacobins . So no other reason is needed to explain why Jorry and his political associates are being spared for the moment. After the Battle of Marengo and the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, however, the situation changed—the regime became stronger, and Bonaparte took the opportunity to eliminate the Jacobins, even though he knew they were not responsible for the attack.
I am still left wondering how Jorry managed to escape repression. Did he become, like Parein du Mesnil, someone who—despite being a sincere revolutionary at first—eventually switched sides, gathering information on his own political camp to pass on to Fouché or another authority (as discussed here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804861309236674560/the-role-of-women-supporting-the-jacobins-in-the?source=share )?
Or is there another reason, such as the fact that he had high-ranking allies who ensured he was not disturbed (as was the case for some others)?
The problem is that Jorry is one of those largely forgotten figures, and in my view, this question has not been sufficiently explored. I am especially curious about the political nature of his relationship with Talleyrand. Did he really steal from him? Or was it Talleyrand who deceived him (which seems more likely to me)? And above all, what was this secret mission?
If you have any further information, please feel free to share it with me.
I have always wondered how Vadier became so deeply involved with the Babouvists (even if he was not part of the innermost circle).
I know that relations between him and certain Babouvists were tense, as they reproached him for his role in Thermidor (just as they did Amar, although Buonarroti says he regretted it). Of course, I do not think everyone held this against him (at least not all of them), since some disliked Robespierre altogether—whether Bodson, because of the execution of Hébert and Chaumette, or Topino-Lebrun, a friend of Babeuf who did not take part in the conspiracy but, while opposing the trial that led to the execution of the Dantonists (though not that of the Hébertists), was hostile toward Robespierre as you can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/803498194722078720/the-life-of-jean-baptiste-fran%C3%A7ois-topino-lebrun?source=share .
However, the interesting point is that in the short biography I wrote of Darthé, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/812915014177636352/hello-i-am-glad-to-read-your-blog-and-learn-new?source=share, he is more often classified politically as a Robespierrist. His brother-in-law, Joseph Le Bon, was on good terms with Philippe Le Bas; he was the tutor of Philippe Le Bas Jr., and Émile Le Bon (Joseph Le Bon’s son) also got along well with Philippe Le Bas Jr.
Yet there is an interesting detail: Élisabeth Le Bon, Joseph Le Bon’s wife, who was as politically engaged as he was (as you can see in her own short biography here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/796013800067416064/elisabeth-le-bon-loyal-companion-in-the-struggle?source=share), seemed to hold Vadier in high esteem, though she was disappointed that he had escaped (since she shared her husband’s legalist mindset, according to which a man, whether guilty or innocent, must place himself entirely in the hands of justice and submit to its judgment). She wrote to her husband from prison:
“It is a weakness unworthy of an honest man,” she wrote upon hearing of Vadier’s escape to avoid certain sentencing. “You once wrote to me: ‘Love me, cherish a proscribed man.’ Yes, my dearest, I love that proscribed man more than ever. I cherish your person, but your soul and courage captivate me…”
I wonder what the relationship between the Le Bon couple and Vadier was.
Moreover, we should not forget that Darthé, as well as Élisabeth Le Bon, corresponded with Babeuf and became his friends (or at least held each other in high esteem—to the point that she gave him the address where she was staying for his newspaper) during this difficult period.
I also wonder (even though she played no role in the conspiracy, despite her name being mentioned at the trial) whether she or Darthé might have vouched for Vadier to facilitate his entry into the Babouvist circle.
I am curious how they reacted to the fact that he bore some responsibility for the death of Philippe Le Bas, and yet continued to appreciate him (this is not a reproach or a judgment, but a line of inquiry worth exploring).
Historians—and even amateur historians—of this period should perhaps investigate this angle further (just my opinion) .
I do not like Vadier at all, and he has much to answer for, but in my view he never betrayed the Babouvists. In a way, he remained more consistent in his republican ideology than other Thermidorians (such as Tallien, Fréron, Dumont, etc.).
His wife should also be studied. She did not hesitate to walk miles in terrible conditions to support him at the Vendôme trial and did everything she could to settle near him in Cherbourg. Taffoureau seemed to hold her in high esteem, and Buonarroti mentioned her from time to time when visiting the Vadier couple. Respect to this woman—though it would be interesting to know more about her own views.
Napoleon's alleged esteem for his mother and women
Have you ever found weird that Napoleon put his "strong" and "masculine" mother on a pedestal yet despised strongheaded women as a whole?
I must warn you this is also going to be quite an anti-Letizia rant, I'm sick of her being over-glorified because of how ✨️pious✨️ and ✨️modest✨️ she was, or because of how her BIG red flags as a mother are framed as character-building and positive for Napoleon.
Usual disclaimer: the following is my own personal interpretation of mostly psychological dynamics around these characters, and it's based mostly on emotional intuition.
I think that Napoleon didn't actually appreciate his mother. The more he gained power, the more Napoleon became self-conscious about his behaviour building an ever-lasting image, so he had a habit of saying/doing things because he rather thought they were the best/most convenient thing to say rather than because they were heartfelt. He also likely became genuinely very disconnected from his emotions, but more on that later.
And I believe that even about his own mother Napoleon's mouth wasn't where his heart was.
Letizia was sometimes downright cruel when he was a child. Like in that episode when she tricked Napoleon as a child and made him change so that she could surprise him and beat him, because of some crap he had done HOURS earlier that day. It's scarring for life when such treason comes from your own mother.
She pushed him the most to stay in those dreaded French military schools, even drowned in discrimination and bullying, because earning money for the family was more important than his own happiness. We know how much pain and nostalgia Napoleon felt for his family and life at home as a child thanks to his writing. I'd argue his obsession with Corsican independence was a way to express his own wish for freedom from all his ties to France. But his mother never aknowledged any of this, he was the main breadwinner. And even in a dangerous situation such as the Terror and post-Terror she pushed him to thrive even better. Like girl, have you no care for your son's safety either??
Another sign of her complete neglect of Napoleon's emotional needs could also be her missing his coronation, either because of Josephine or - MUCH more likely - because her repressed ass and poverty trauma found the slightest lavishness and aknowledgement of success a direct invitation for God to punish them.
And about her animosity towards Josephine. It was never about her alleged immodesty. The true reason behind it was that Napoleon had always been the parentified breadwinner they all relied upon, and now he was married to someone, a woman who wouldn't have quietly submitted to the Bonaparte's interests, such as the meek Desirée. So no matter how happy you son is, you have to override all of that with animosity for money issues.
Such is the youth and such is the mother Napoleon build his whole personality and character from. He had so many feelings, so many emotional needs to be aknowledged and met, but all in his life situation framed them as insignificant against the greater circumstances and social expectations. He had to survive psychologically other than physically, so he trained to repress and neglect his own emotional side himself, as everyone around him did. He obsessed over valuing rationality and pragmatism and despising expressions of emotion or instincts. Being culturally raised during the Enlightenment sure helped him adopting this value system. As I said, he did resonate with the Pre-Romantic culture as well, but it stayed very private.
I would add that an experience such as the failure of his political career in Corsica was very influent too. He had poured so much passion and wish of self-realization in that dream to escape from a career in France, and it had been shattered ending with a pursuit and his home burned.
I think that his failed relationship with Paoli and his whoke experience in Corsica are very underrated when it comes to explain Napoleon's personality. Many underestimate the impact of Corsica in him, given that it was his formation years.
He was the embodyment of the saying "Within a cynical there's a let down idealist".
He must have felt guilt about his idealism and feats of passion so much that he must have overcompensated with an obsession for hyper-rationality.
First of all, I would like to thank you for breaking the myth surrounding Laetizia Bonaparte. She was not an evil woman; however, within the Bonaparte family, she is often wrongly portrayed (in my opinion, especially in films and series) as an almost ideal figure, sometimes even wiser than Napoleon himself. Overall, she seems to benefit from a kind of “free pass,” much like Hortense de Beauharnais. Yet, the more I learn about them, the less they appear entirely reasonable, innocent, or beyond reproach.
What is my opinion of her? She could be opportunistic—though to a lesser extent—than her daughter-in-law Joséphine de Beauharnais, even if she was not as extravagant in her spending. If the following document is authentic, it clearly challenges the image of her as a disinterested and economically austere figure:
https://contrepoints-archives.org/banque-de-france-banque-de-lempereur/
This document suggests that Napoleon and his inner circle—if it is indeed authentic—personally enriched themselves in ways that may be considered questionable, by investing as shareholders in the bank (Napoleon, Joseph Bonaparte, Jérôme Bonaparte, Joséphine de Beauharnais, Hortense de Beauharnais, Murat, Laetizia Bonaparte, Nicolas Joseph Clary, Sieyès, Duroc, etc.).
There is a clear conflict of interest for Napoleon, who acted both as a statesman and as a shareholder, promoting laws (such as monopolies and controlled governance) that directly benefited a bank he partly controlled. This illustrates how power could be used for personal gain, both for himself and for those close to him. He therefore supported legislative decisions that served his private interests. Furthermore, there are signs of favoritism: the first major fortunes tied to the bank (such as Perregaux and Le Couteulx) were closely linked to Bonaparte. Favoring financial allies in public affairs can reasonably be interpreted as a form of systemic corruption.
However, to be fair, there are also arguments in Bonaparte’s defense. At the time, the separation between public duties and private interests remained unclear, and there were no precise laws governing conflicts of interest in certain areas. Moreover, Napoleon’s ties to the Bank of France were not hidden; there was a degree of transparency, even if this aspect tends to be overlooked today.
Still, the mere presence of Laetizia Bonaparte among these shareholders shows that we are far from a position of complete disinterest.
I also share your view regarding her disapproval of Joséphine de Beauharnais. In this case, however, it seems to have been based on the wrong reasons. There were valid grounds to oppose Joséphine—such as her involvement in corruption, particularly during the Directory, when famine caused widespread suffering and even suicides, or the fact that she and Napoleon could sometimes be toxic to one another (although this does not mean they were incapable of love—they clearly were). Yet, instead of focusing on these issues, the opposition appears to have been based on the motives you mentioned. Ironically, one of the reasons Napoleon succeeded politically and rose to power was precisely Joséphine’s political skill.
Moreover, Lucien Bonaparte also lived a very lavish lifestyle, if I am not mistaken, when he became a minister. This does not mean he was superficial or incapable of showing clemency toward Napoleon’s opponents. While Joséphine de Beauharnais intervened, notably on behalf of the Count of Polignac (and others people), Lucien, for his part, did everything he could to protect Buonarroti, for example.
Yet I do not recall Laetizia reprimanding him for this (perhaps I am mistaken). Does this suggest a double standard, or that, in her view, only members of her own blood family were allowed such behavior, unlike Joséphine?
That said, I also reject the opposite extreme—the idea that Joséphine was merely a helpless victim of the Bonaparte family—which is equally misleading (especially since Caroline Murat initially had a good relationship with her before their falling out). The truth likely lies somewhere in between.
Moreover, Laetizia displayed a certain hypocrisy when speaking about loyalty. After the death of Joachim Murat, she reportedly said to Caroline (who had taken the title Countess of Lipona), regarding their “betrayal” of Napoleon:
"If you couldn’t influence him, you should have at least opposed him. But what kind of opposition did you put up? Was any blood spilled? Only over your dead body should your husband have struck your brother, your benefactor, your master!"
If she truly said this, then before condemning Joachim and Caroline Murat, she should have applied the same moral standard to Napoleon himself when he was in power. He had been a Jacobin; yet later, instead of sharing the hardships of his former allies during their downfall (which would have been understandable), he chose to crush them in order to consolidate his power (I'm less understanding about this)L
Indeed, according to historians such as Bernard Gainot, Pierre Serna, and Annie Jourdan, the coup of 18 Brumaire was not motivated by immediate national security concerns. France was not in imminent danger at that moment. One of the less honorable reasons was that wealthy landowners feared the forced loan proposed by Lindet and the neo-Jacobins, which also alarmed bankers. The fact that sincere republicans like Carnot initially supported Bonaparte as First Consul does not negate these underlying motives.
Until the Battle of Marengo, Napoleon could not openly attack his former Jacobin allies, as the regime remained fragile. However, after the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack—and there are reasons to believe he knew from the outset that the Jacobins were innocent—he unleashed a harsh repression against them.
Even more troubling, he sent to the scaffold Ceracchi, someone who had helped him in 1796 (having been introduced to him by Barras), (Ceracchi had become disillusioned after 18 Brumaire of Bonaparte and became one of his opponents). According to some historians, Ceracchi was involved in the so-called “Conspiracy of the Daggers,” while others argue he was innocent and that the affair was largely fabricated. What is certain is that he was forced to confess and to accuse Topino Lebrun (possibly under torture), whom most historians now consider innocent.
This, to me, constitutes a genuine betrayal—yet Laetizia does not seem to have criticized her son for such actions, at least to my knowledge. I am not suggesting that Napoleon was a bloodthirsty monster—that would be inaccurate—but this less flattering aspect of his rule is rarely discussed.
It therefore appears that Laetizia applied the concept of “betrayal” primarily within her own family. Furthermore, many historians today adopt a more nuanced view of Joachim and Caroline Murat and no longer see them as the selfish traitors often portrayed in films.
We might even conclude that when Laetizia encouraged Napoleon to push himself during the Revolutionary years—even under the harshest circumstances—it was not purely out of patriotism, but also out of financial opportunism.
I also have the impression (though I may be mistaken) that when Laetizia attempted to eliminate her children’s political adversaries, she did so rather ineffectively. For example, when Fouché was allied with Joséphine against Napoleon’s brothers (especially Lucien):
"Letizia Bonaparte even went to complain in the Cabinet of the First Consul, the slander spread by Fouché on his younger son (Lucien Bonaparte). Joséphine, in tears, is taken by her mother-in-law and asked to warn "her friend Fouché, that she thought her arms long enough to repent who it was that would slander her sons" ( Waresquiel, Fouché silences de la pieuvre ).
It is doubtful that Fouché—who had faced far worse—was intimidated by such words.
Later, when Fouché turned against Joséphine under the Empire, the Empress proved to be a far more formidable political opponent, according to Pierre Branda. While Fouché was occasionally challenged or outmaneuvered by Jacobins, conservatives, or royalists, Laetizia Bonaparte does not appear to have been among those capable of doing so (not that she necessarily had the ambition).
According to Clara Tschudi (whose reliability I cannot confirm), Napoleon allowed his mother and uncle to oversee certain affairs in Corsica. Here is the text excerpt:
" It is to be feared that this system can scarcely have conduced to efficiency, since the prejudice which Letizia and, in a less degree, her brother always cherished against those who had taken part against the Bonapartes in 1793 must have excluded from the administration many persons whose character and abilities would have ordinarily ensured their promotion; while, at the same time, others with nothing to recommend them save some distant relationship to the Imperial Family found themselves selected for lucrative and important posts".
Yet when one holds political responsibility, one ought to set aside personal resentments for the greater good (if what Clara Tschudi states is accurate—this should be taken with caution).
That said, I do believe Laetizia genuinely loved her son, as suggested by evidence of her maternal devotion, particularly during his exile and her reaction to his death. If she was so harsh with him—even in the most difficult times—it may also have been because she wanted him, and her other children, to have opportunities she herself never had, given the hardships of her life.
This brings to mind other historical figures whose parents loved them but were excessively harsh, even punitive, believing it would benefit them in the long run—though it often did not. Such attitudes were not uncommon at the time, even if they are clearly unacceptable by modern standards.
Moreover, some of the historical figures I study from the French Revolution behaved like loving but overly demanding parents toward their children—uncompromising and unable to understand why their children sometimes neglected their duties in the most difficult moments, wrongly believing that such severity would be good to their kids. So why not extend the same benefit of the doubt to Laetizia Bonaparte on this matter?
Finally, I wonder whether Laetizia herself may have contributed to shaping Napoleon’s views on women. Could she have played a role in transmitting certain misogynistic attitudes?
On the other hand, he—and he alone—made these decisions, including the restriction of women’s freedoms, which made them more vulnerable. The responsibility, therefore, ultimately lies with him.
This is what comes to mind when Louis Gastine explains why Napoleon chose to surround himself with Fouché and Talleyrand, while keeping Tallien as far removed from the political scene as possible (apart from assigning him a position in Alicante)
Here is what Elisabeth Le Bas writes in her memoirs after learning that Guffroy had made slanderous remarks about her to her future husband, Philippe Le Bas:
“This wicked man was poorly regarded in more than one respect; he did nothing but speak ill of everyone. He was despised by all and disliked by his colleagues. He was, I believe, a deputy for the Pas-de-Calais department, but I never saw him at my father’s house. The two Robespierre brothers held him in great contempt.”
Elisabeth Le Bon, imprisoned like her husband—and whom Guffroy would do everything to destroy, even resorting to slandering the couple—wrote to her husband Joseph Le Bon regarding Guffroy’s pamphlets:
“The masterpiece of falsehood you mentioned hasn’t reached me yet, but I am sure it will. I do not need to see that monster’s works to know what to think of him. I am no more curious to read what he says about me than what he says about other patriots. Still, I must praise him—it seems he is becoming an honest man. Follow his actions and you will see: he has not strayed for even a minute in the past nine months from serving his paymasters. Write on, sir, keep buying calumnies—the true patriot finds comfort in the good he has done.”
Later, after reading one of Guffroy’s volumes, she wrote again to her husband:
“You were right to tell me I was not spared. But he is a crude liar. Fortunately, his career will soon be over, for even his clients will abandon him. The aristocrats will not be pleased with his work; for their money, he ought to have given them something better.”
As for Marie-Anne Babeuf, the wife of Gracchus Babeuf, she initially helped print her husband’s writings at Guffroy’s press after Thermidor, spending so much time there that Gracchus wrote:
“My wife (Marie-Anne) and my son, aged nine—both as devoted and republican as their husband and father—assist me in every possible way. They make the same sacrifices. They spend day and night at Guffroy’s print shop, folding, distributing, and dispatching the newspaper. Our home is abandoned. Two younger children, one only three years old (likely Camille and Sophie, the latter having died of malnutrition), are left alone, locked inside for a month. This neglect causes them to waste away, yet they utter no complaints; they already seem filled with patriotic love and prepared to make all sacrifices. No meals are cooked anymore; during the publication period, we lived on bread, grapes, and nuts.”
However, a rift eventually developed and led to a complete break for two reasons. First, Gracchus Babeuf attacked Fréron and André Dumont, two allies of Guffroy. Second, he accused Guffroy of stealing from him, and Marie-Anne likely confronted Guffroy about this.
In issue no. 27 of his journal, Babeuf wrote:
“Guffroy shamelessly steals from me. He reaps all the rewards of my labor. My earliest issues were printed in duplicate; he sold many copies, kept all the revenue, accepted all subscriptions—and I never saw a single penny.”
Evidence of Guffroy’s guilt may also be found in a letter sent to Babeuf on 21 Vendémiaire, which included this postscript:
“The previous issues are our joint property. However, your wife (Marie-Anne) took them against my wishes. They will all be yours if you pay me for the printing.”
The dispute escalated to the point that Guffroy expelled Marie-Anne and Émile and declared to them that he would denounce Gracchus, to the Committee of General Security—a threat he carried out.
Yet months later, when Gracchus was imprisoned, he wrote insincere letters of friendship (notably in hopes of being released) to several figures, including Guffroy, on Marie-Anne’s advice. This does not seem to have worked, as Guffroy’s wife gave Marie-Anne a hostile reception.
I wonder whether Elisabeth Le Bon, Elisabeth Le Bas, and Marie-Anne Babeuf interacted much with one another. We know that Émile Le Bon, son of Elisabeth Le Bon, got along well with Philippe Le Bas junior; moreover, Philippe Le Bas and Joseph Le Bon were friends, and both women remained loyal to their husbands’ names and political legacies. Like the others, Marie-Anne Babeuf never abandoned her husband’s name, even during periods when it was dangerous to keep it.
Gracchus was very close to Elisabeth Le Bon and Darthé (who were themselves friends with Philippe Le Bas), while the Duplay family had ties to the Babouvist conspiracy. Given that Marie-Anne Babeuf acted as his liaison, political adviser, and close collaborator, it would not be surprising if connections existed between these circles.
Furthermore, although Émile Babeuf later wrote an article on Philippe Le Bas that Philippe Le Bas Jr. considered very poor, Buonarroti wrote to Émile in 1830 asking, among other things, for news of Elisabeth Le Bas and the Duplay family.
Interestingly, both Marie-Anne Babeuf and Elisabeth Le Bon were viewed very negatively by certain Napoleonic authorities and were kept under close surveillance.
There would, however, be a major point of divergence between Marie-Anne Babeuf and Elisabeth Le Bon. The former would have had no scruples about helping her allies and political friends escape if she deemed it necessary (after all, Gracchus had entrusted her with his own escape attempt, and she covered for him several times whenever he fled from the judicial authorities pursuing him). Elisabeth Le Bon, on the other hand, was a fervent legalist, like her husband. For her, whether a person was innocent, guilty, or unjustly persecuted, they should not escape but instead face their trial. Hence her disappointment when she learned that Vadier, a man she seems to hold in high regard, had escaped.
In any case, one can imagine the conversation these three women might have had about Guffroy, if such a meeting ever took place.
To learn more about the collaboration and eventual break between the Babeuf couple and Guffroy, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780339711912869888/the-collaboration-and-eventual-break-between?source=share
For a detailed look at Babeuf’s false letters of friendship (including those addressed to Guffroy), as well as Marie-Anne’s letter about her visit to the Guffroy couple, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/813012577104871424/the-fake-letters-of-friendship-written-by?source=share
For more on the life of Émile Babeuf and his trajectory from a revolutionary child to a reactionary royalist, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/797365648777953280/the-beginning-of-the-revolutionary-period?source=share
For more on the life of Elisabeth Le Bon, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/796013800067416064/elisabeth-le-bon-loyal-companion-in-the-struggle?source=share
For links to documents explaining in detail the conflict between Joseph Le Bon and Guffroy, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780574222159331328/links-to-documents-on-the-le-bon-vs-guffroy?source=share
For more on the life of Darthé, see:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/812915014177636352/hello-i-am-glad-to-read-your-blog-and-learn-new?source=share
I once received a question asking which historical female figure of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era suffered the most or had the most tragic fate (unfortunately, I lost the question).
Sorry for the poor organization of this text, which I will correct later. I preferred to publish it rather than risk losing it permanently due to my temperamental computer.
Content warning: this text contains descriptions of executions (including those involving children) and suicide, which may be distressing for sensitive readers.
Before giving my answer, I want to make it clear that this is not about minimizing the suffering of other women. Their suffering was very real, and this is not a competition.
One might first think of women such as Lucile Desmoulins and Marie-Françoise Hébert. Both lost their husbands and were then executed in turn, leaving behind very young children.
The same can be said of Marie-Françoise Quétineau, wife of General Quétineau, who was executed after suffering a miscarriage. https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/802273057231257600/forgotten-women-executed-during-the-french?source=share
More broadly, many mothers outlived children who had been executed during the Revolution—an immense and often overlooked suffering
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776321761376616448/parents-who-survived-their-children-executed?source=share Suzanne Pétion also endured a succession of tragedies. She was imprisoned, then learned of the execution of her mother, followed by that of Manon Roland, who had supported her. She later discovered the death of her husband and the horrific condition of his body. She was not released until December 1794.
Sophie Momoro’s story is equally tragic. Imprisoned shortly after her husband Antoine-François Momoro was arrested, she witnessed the destruction of their reputation through slander in the press. She learned of his execution, as well as those of his companions and of Marie-Françoise Hébert. She also faced uncertainty regarding the fate of her young child and harassment from Laboureau. After her release, she lived in poverty. Her second marriage was unhappy; she divorced, took a lover (which was socially condemned), had a third child during the stricter Napoleonic era, and ultimately died in poverty.
The Duplay sisters also suffered after Thermidor: temporary imprisonment, the loss of loved ones to the guillotine, and the demonization of their name (the black legend surrounding people like Robespierre had already begun).
Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard endured imprisonment and poverty. Despite their efforts to preserve the legacy of Jean-Paul Marat, they saw him vilified and remained under police surveillance during the Directory, under Bonaparte, and even under the monarchy.
Henriette Simonin, widow of Chaumette—whom I discussed here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804044312295964672/the-information-i-have-been-able-to-find-about?source=share
—survived her husband’s execution, likely witnessed the rise of his “black legend,” lost their daughter, and was imprisoned after the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise during the repression of the Jacobins.
Élisabeth Le Bon, whose life I discussed here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/796013800067416064/elisabeth-le-bon-loyal-companion-in-the-struggle?source=share
was imprisoned with her two children.
Although she was able to correspond with allies and make friends during that time, she endured many trials, including seeing her husband’s name (and by extension her own) vilified and unjustly portrayed as monstrous. She also suffered harsh persecution from her enemies in prison, which she endured with stoicism. After her husband’s death, during the Conspiracy of Equals, she also had to endure the loss of her brother-in-law Darthé and her friend Gracchus Babeuf, with whom she had formed a bond through correspondence during imprisonment. She was even kept under surveillance and likely remained socially ostracized, despite her efforts to rehabilitate her husband Joseph Le Bon.
Anne-Catherine Joséphine Catoir, widow of Collot d’Herbois (her life is described here Facebook) , and Anne-Angélique Doye ( her history is here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/801393590312075264/biography-about-anne-ang%C3%A9lique-doye-wife-of?source=share), first wife of Billaud, saw their lives collapse after their husbands’ arrests. They were ostracized, persecuted, and ruined. Angélique even had to use a false name. Both attempted everything to save or support their husbands, but in vain. Collot died in deportation. Angélique divorced Billaud in order to enter a marriage of convenience to support him, but he rejected her afterward despite mediation attempts.
Sophie Lapierre, a Babouvist activist and singer, was arrested during the Conspiracy of Equals. She learned of her uncle Joseph Monnard’s death during the repression at the Grenelle camp. At her trial, she refused to recognize the court’s authority, signed manifestos, and sang revolutionary songs such as the Hymn of Goujon, which the audience joinedhttps://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804946147651272704/sophie-lapierre-activist-of-the-french-revolution?source=share . She survived Darthé (sometimes rumored—without evidence—to have been her lover) and Babeuf. Though acquitted, she left prison destitute.
Sophie Carnot also experienced tragic moments, as shown in this post of @aedislumen :
https://www.tumblr.com/aedislumen/782234046319280128/hello-do-you-know-anything-or-have-any-resources?source=share
She and her husband first had a stillborn child, then lost another son in 1795. When Carnot was proscribed during Fructidor, their property was seized. She initially refused to divorce him (which would have protected her), until both her father and husband persuaded her to do so. This allowed her to assist him more effectively while he was in exile, though she had to endure slander in the press and pamphlets. After Brumaire, when he was able to return to France, the divorce was annulled—yet this still illustrates the tragedies she endured.
Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and later divorced from Turreau—whose full biography I wrote here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share
—supported her first husband, Charles-Philippe Ronsin, as best she could during his difficult times. She was then imprisoned for six months, during which she saw her husband and many of her friends executed, while she herself was seriously ill.
After her release, she remarried one of her husband’s friends, Turreau. However, in addition to losing a child, her husband proved to be a cruel man who beat her (with whips or a cane, in front of their crying children). Hardly anyone dared to help her, except for her friend Dolley Madison, Thornton, and a few americans. Out of revenge, Turreau left her in poverty with their children; even after the divorce, he lived comfortably while she and her children struggled to obtain even minimal financial support. Her plan to return to America during the Restoration and open a school also failed, and she died in poverty (as did her daughter Alexandrine).
Marie-Anne Babeuf lived in constant poverty, saw her husband executed, and lost many friends. She was imprisoned twice under harsh conditions and subjected to police surveillance and proceedings multiple times. She outlived at least four of her five children (possibly all) and lived under the stigma of the Babeuf name. She also witnessed her son Émile gradually abandon revolutionary ideals and distort the truth as demonstrated here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/797365648777953280/the-beginning-of-the-revolutionary-period?source=share .
Suzanne Le Peletier fought to marry the man she loved but suffered a disappointing marriage and the loss of children. She remarried, was later widowed again, and gradually turned toward religion and royalism under the weight of her personal tragedies as we can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795252246414819328/the-relationship-between-f%C3%A9lix-le-peletier-and?source=share .
Bonne-Jeanne Fouché lost several children, sometimes during periods when her husband was in political danger, preventing normal grieving even if this didn’t stop them from being devastated by their losses, as the evidence shows .
Charlotte Robespierre lost both her brothers on the same day and was never able to reconcile with them.
Even if one may criticize Madame Royale for what she later became—especially after returning to France as the Duchess of Angoulême, as discussed here https://www.tumblr.com/mathildeaquisexta/778220050110922752/i-quite-agree-with-everything-written?source=share —she endured imprisonment as a child alongside her younger brother and witnessed members of her family die one after another. (Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette, and Madame Élisabeth bear responsibility for their political fate, but Madame Royale and her brother were innocent and should never have suffered such a fate.)
Many women suffered at the hands of foreign troops, who showed little mercy during the sack of towns and villages during the frev revolution.
Others suffered during the famine of Year III or from violence by the Muscadins. Some mothers, driven to despair, committed suicide with their children by throwing themselves into the Seine.
Madame Dunel represents this extreme despair: persecuted and crushed by inequality and repression, she poisoned her entire family and herself. Only her husband, who was being pursued by the police, survived.
Women affiliated with the Jacobin movement suffered greatly after the repression ordered by Bonaparte, as you can see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804861309236674560/the-role-of-women-supporting-the-jacobins-in-the?source=share
They fought in vain to prevent their husbands from being deported and risked insults and physical violence in the streets. Madame Dufour, a mother of six whose neo-Jacobin husband had been deported, gave public speeches in support of the Jacobins—but to no avail, as he had already died. Many of these women fell deeper into poverty, as their husbands had been their main source of income, which only added to their suffering. Furthermore, they were betrayed by a former comrade-in-arms, Parein du Mesnil, who had gained their trust during difficult times in order to better report their conversations to the government.
One could also mention the wife of General Maurepas, who died on September 19, 1802, in Haiti when Napoleon attempted to restore slavery. Here is how the Maurepas family died (the general had been suspected of participating in the Haitian revolt after surrendering to the French army in February 1802):
“He is immediately seized by several sailors (he is then aboard the flagship off Tortuga), stripped in a frenzy, and tied to the mainmast. The French officers are astonished by the calm and resignation of this warrior, as well as by the superhuman courage of his wife, who urges him to die as a hero. Maurepas sees his wife and his children hanged from the yards. Insults fly from all sides, but his lips express only indignation at such crimes. ” (Thomas Madiou)
Even though she showed great courage, it was a tragedy for this mother to be hanged alongside her two young children. Unfortunately, when Bonaparte restored slavery, such atrocities were all too common.
I think that, whether or not one agrees with what these women did, one can only admire how they faced their tragedies.
At least all the women mentioned above experienced, at some point, at least a measure of freedom, love, or human connection—even if fleeting.
Others never had that chance.
Women like her were born into bondage, deprived of legal protection, separated from their families (whether they will see each other again depends entirely on the will of their owners)and subjected to violence and exploitation. Even the small freedoms they had were merely survival strategies.
This is why I believe that cases like Émilie—who was enslaved by the mother of Joséphine de Beauharnais and executed on accusations of poisoning her mistress—represent some of the most tragic fates imaginable. Here is her short biography:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795013242335444992/a-delicate-question-the-responsibility-of?source=share
When Émilie was accused of attempting to poison Rose Claire des Vergers de Sannois, one must remember that the slaveholding class imposed a regime of terror. At the slightest suspicion or rumor, Black people—including free people of color—could be executed without trial or tangible evidence. After slave revolts, suspicion weighed especially heavily on enslaved domestic workers like Émilie. For many slave owners, every Black person was seen as a “potential poisoner.” No proof or witnesses were required: mere suspicion could send someone to the stake. It was also a convenient pretext to eliminate enslaved individuals no longer trusted.
Émilie only confessed to the accusations (which may well have been false) in an attempt to save her mother and sisters. She was not granted the “mercy” of the guillotine but was executed by burning. No influential figure intervened on her behalf or that of her family, even though others under the Empire, far more “guilty” than she, sometimes benefited from such support.
This woman was simply trying to survive in an inhuman system—and she was killed for it, a victim of paranoia and the slaveholders’ thirst for vengeance.
At least women executed such as Marthe Rose Toto and Rosalie (known as Solitude) in Guadeloupe were able to fight alongside their companions against the restoration of slavery before being executed by hanging. Émilie, by contrast, never took up arms nor attempted to oppose the Bonapartist regime, despite having every reason to do so—yet this did not spare her tragic fate.
Women like Émilie, in my view, suffered the most tragic destinies of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era.
