Anacharsis Cloots: A Noble "Internationalist" Revolutionary, Hard to Pin Down
To this day, I still don't know if Cloots was a genuine revolutionary—both idealistic and, in a way, visionary—or a great cynical opportunist, possibly even a hypocritical revolutionary. I still can't figure him out. I once discussed Chaumette here, who I consider one of the most complex revolutionaries of this period, but at least I never doubted his revolutionary fervor. He remained clean. Cloots, however, is a different case.
Anacharsis Cloots was born in 1755 in the Duchy of Cleves. His father was an advisor to Frederick II, and his family was elevated to baronial status. He studied in France, returned to Prussia, and after his father’s death, moved back to France. He inherited an enormous fortune, largely from colonial sources. He identified as French. Cloots traveled extensively throughout Europe but hurried back when the Bastille fell. He entered political life, writing pamphlets and contributing to newspapers such as Brissot's Le Patriote Français or Desmoulins' Révolutions de France et de Brabant. He joined the Jacobin Club in 1790, proposing a motion to completely sever ties with the Church, rather than drafting a Civil Constitution of the Clergy, emulating what the Americans had done.
On June 10, 1790, Cloots presented various foreigners in support of the revolution to the Constituent Assembly, including Europeans, Arabs, and Chaldeans. He proclaimed himself the "Orator of the Foreigners' Committee" and declared that the Federation would be a celebration of the human race. According to him, “Twenty-five million free men have awakened the peoples buried in long slavery.”
He corresponded with Joséphine de Beauharnais, saying, “I was at the foreigners' celebration in the tribunes of the palace, as ambassador of the human race, and the ministers of tyrants looked at us with jealous and uncertain eyes. This national celebration transports you two thousand years back in time, by some ancient hue; it also transports you two thousand years forward, by the rapid progress of reason, of which this celebration is the early and delightful fruit.” For Cloots, the French Revolution had to extend beyond France’s borders, and in some ways, he was a precursor to internationalism.
However, he was a staunch supporter of the colonial system and was vehemently opposed to the abolition of slavery (let's not forget that his family's wealth came from the colonies, so was this cynicism, hypocrisy, opportunism, or selfishness?). During the debate between Barnave, Brissot, and Robespierre, among others, Cloots sided with Barnave. Letters have since questioned how Cloots, while claiming to be the "orator of the human race," could support slavery. Initially sympathetic to La Fayette and Barnave, Cloots later aligned with Brissot before denouncing the Girondins as enemies and even taking a shot at Marat in the process.
Cloots expressed deep hatred for the aristocracy and for Mallet du Pan, whom he grouped together with Marat, which is rather surprising. Here’s an excerpt: “March forward and we will avoid the mud of the vile Marat and the infamous Mallet du Pan.” He despised the agrarian laws proposed by revolutionaries like Momoro and later Babeuf. For Cloots, property rights were absolute (to be fair, many revolutionaries, even the so-called “enragés” or "exagérés" know as hébertists, were hesitant on this issue). Cloots believed social inequality was necessary because the rich ensured the subsistence of the poor (a summary of his thoughts by Vovelle).
After the King’s failed flight to Varennes, Cloots declared himself a republican but did not sign the Champ de Mars petition. His reasoning was that de-Christianizing the people took precedence, which seems like an odd priority compared to the petition. Here’s one of his justifications: “As long as the French attend the sorceries of the mass... it will be difficult to cure them of the deception of the royal phantom.” There were French people in favor of de-Christianization who still signed the petition, so his reasoning seems dubious. Meanwhile, Cloots argued for the abolition of nations. He initially aligned with the Girondins on the issue of war but feared the August 10th insurrection. However, after this, he distanced himself from the Girondins.
In 1792, Cloots finally obtained French citizenship. He once again attacked both Roland and Marat simultaneously. He voted in favor of the King’s death without delay, saying, "I know no other sovereign than the human race, which is to say universal reason: I say no." He also declared, "I likewise condemn to death the infamous Frederick William."
Cloots supported more revolutionary wars and aligned himself with the Hébertists, particularly due to their stance on the de-Christianization campaign. He was at the height of his glory when he became president of the Jacobins in 1793. However, revolutionaries like Robespierre began to attack him. In his newspaper Le Vieux Cordelier, Camille Desmoulins attacks Cloots (and Chaumette) "Anacharsis and Anaxagoras believe they are pushing the wheel of reason when in fact it is that of counter-revolution; and soon, instead of letting papism in France die of old age and starvation, ready to breathe its last breath without giving our enemies any advantage, since the treasure of the sacristies could not escape Cambon by persecution and intolerance against those who wish to liturgy and be liturgied, I urge to you to send a force of constitutional recruits to Lescure and Roche-Jacquelin".
Here’s an excerpt from Robespierre’s speech . When Cloots was asked where he came from, he responded that he came from Prussia, "a future department of the French Republic" in his words.
Robespierre’s attack: "Can we consider a German baron a patriot? Can we consider a man with more than 100,000 livres in income a sans-culotte? Can we believe a man who only associates with bankers and counter-revolutionaries, enemies of France, to be a republican? Citizens, do you regard as a patriot a foreigner who wants to be more democratic than the French, and who is sometimes seen with the Marais and other times with the Montagne?" He continued, "There is a third crisis that Mr. Cloots might boast of, but it will only involve fools or scoundrels. I am speaking of the movement against religion, a movement that, matured by time and reason, could have become excellent, but whose violence could bring about great misfortunes, which we must attribute to the aristocracy's calculations."
Cloots was expelled from the Jacobin Society, but he defended himself in writing, saying, "Lepeletier was once a marquis," and "if Marat had been born half a league further, he would have been Prussian." He attributed his misfortune to "loving humanity too much and not enough the cliques and personalities... France or Gaul, you will be happy when you are cured of individuals." He remained optimistic about his fate, remarking, "This speech (by Robespierre) would have had me hanged two years ago, but now it is not very dangerous in the time of organized sans-culotterie... The Abbé de Saint-Pierre was not hanged for his universal aristocracy; I will not be guillotined for my universal sans-culotterie."
However, on December 26, 1793, the Convention decreed the expulsion of citizens born in foreign countries from the national representation. Cloots was soon arrested and imprisoned. At first, he did not despair and wrote a manifesto addressed to "Hommes de bonne volonté." When Vincent and Ronsin were arrested and later released, they reportedly crossed paths with Cloots—though I would need to find the sources for that.
In any case, Cloots was brought to trial alongside the Hébertists, including Momoro, Ronsin, Vincent, Hébert, and others—some were fervent extremists, others were more dubious figures used to further discredit the Hébertists. Cloots remained very calm and defended himself the best. When a juror named Renaudin told him, "Your system of a universal republic was a deeply meditated treachery that gave the crowned heads a pretext against France," Cloots responded, "The universal republic is part of the natural order; I may have spoken of it as the Abbé de Saint-Pierre spoke of universal peace. Moreover, I can hardly be suspected of supporting kings; it would be quite extraordinary if the man burnable in Rome, hangable in London, and breakable on the wheel in Vienna were to be guillotined in Paris." Cloots faced the guillotine with great courage, urging his fellow condemned to die with dignity, reportedly in a calm tone. According to Tulard, he even made a joke to lighten the mood of the condemned, while Ronsin gave the same advice in a much harsher tone. Cloots was said to have worn a wide smile as he climbed into the cart and faced death with good humor.
So, was he just an opportunist, as Mathiez suggested? Jaurès had a great deal of sympathy for Cloots, saying he had a "warm internationalism," while Soboul referred to him as embodying a "bourgeois cosmopolitanism." Perhaps Cloots was all of these things at once, as historian Antoine Resche hypothesized.
Unfortunately, this kind of "racist" internationalism (I put it in quotes because the term didn’t exist, as far as I know, in 1790) would continue even among the most fervent figures on the left. The majority of deported Communards ( the Communards of 1870) supported the repression of the Kanaks and excluded Algerians from the fraternal republic they had dreamed of, a republic for which some had given their lives.
I’ll conclude with Antoine Resche’s excellent assessment of this figure ( in his site Veni Vidi Sensi): "Internationalist and yet a supporter of the colonial system, extremely wealthy, opposed to any form of land redistribution, yet close to the Hébertists—Cloots remains a difficult personality to pin down, but he certainly does not leave anyone indifferent."
Reddit: thanks to @anotherhumaninthisworld for finding in Camille Desmoulins' journal the passage where he attacked Cloots on dechristianization
Albert Soboul Anacharsis Cloots, l’Orateur du genre humain
