Discover Top Posts Tagged with #turreau

Popular Recent

Children who became victims of their parents’ legacy during the French Revolution, the Napoleonic era, or the Restoration

I am not infallible, so please feel free to correct me.

I decided to try to bring together as many examples as possible of people who suffered because of the legacy of their parents.

Madame Royale and Louis XVII

We could begin with Madame Royale and Louis XVII. While their parents and aunt cannot be considered innocent victims of a bloodthirsty people—far from it, and they bear the greatest responsibility for what happened to them—Madame Royale and Louis XVII were innocent , as they were only children. I understand the situation in which the revolutionaries lived; they were not bloodthirsty by nature, and often reacted to threats from their adversaries. The royalists’ plans to use Louis XVII and Marie-Thérèse as symbols to destabilize the Republic again certainly did not help.

However, even considering the context, the children should not have been treated the way they were. They should have been protected as much as possible, knowing they had done nothing wrong. Of course, the revolutionaries never intended for Louis XVII to die (I believe they simply forgot him amid the chaos), but even so, it was a serious case of neglect which caused his death (which remains very serious).

Madame Royale, too, lived in very harsh conditions for some time despite being innocent of any wrongdoing.

I also read that, after her liberation and arrival in Austria, many French émigrés asked her for support and material assistance because she was seen as the surviving representative of the royal family. But because she had to keep her distance from them, they claimed to be “disappointed” by her attitude—as if they bore no responsibility for her misfortunes, even though they had repeatedly attempted to destabilize France, including during the period when she was living there before her release. In my view, they bear an undeniable share of responsibility for the harshness of the regime under which she lived.

Later, she became an ultra-royalist who refused the slightest concession and who held views that made her unfit to lead France. This may partly be explained by the suffering she endured at too young an age.

Émile Babeuf

From the age of nine, he took part in the political activities of his father, Gracchus, and as a result endured persecution that would follow him all his life. After the political break between his parents and Guffroy, the latter violently threw Émile and his mother out, declaring that, as a member of the Committee of General Security, he would denounce Gracchus.

Émile was constantly watched and followed by the police, and he had to find ways to evade them in order to deliver messages to his father—whether to warn him of his mother’s arrest under the Directory, or later, during the Conspiracy of the Equals, to deliver letters from his political allies.It wasn't exactly an ideal childhood.

Even after his father’s execution, trouble continued for Émile, partly because he was the son of Gracchus Babeuf—a name sometimes even more hated than Robespierre’s. I wonder whether the police surveillance he endured as a teenager under Bonaparte (who hated Gracchus and the babouvism) was linked to that. Although the arrest warrant issued against him during the first Malet conspiracy was due to his suspicious contacts and potential involvement in clandestine anti-Bonapartist activities, his parentage seems to have played a major role as well concerning the following affair which took place during the return of the Bourbons.

Likewise, the deportation sentence he nearly suffered during the “Affaire des Patriotes” of 1816, in the midst of the White Terror, was likely due not only to his actions during the Hundred Days—particularly his support for Carnot—but also to the fact that he was Gracchus’s son, according to several sources.

After his imprisonment—a period marked by great uncertainty—he became a different man, surely broken by the accumulation of family tragedies and persecution by every regime. Once a reliable and competent revolutionary, he became politically inconsistent, reactionary, and dishonest (in the negative sense; whereas his parents and Buonarroti lied to protect others and preserve clandestine operations, Émile lied to embellish the truth).

He shares something with Madame Royale: great resilience in childhood and remarkable political potential, ultimately wasted because neither of them managed to overcome the misfortunes they suffered. In the process, their actions hurt people close to them who were not responsible for any of it—for example, Philippe Le Bas Jr., offended by what Émile wrote about his father, despite Émile’s unkept promises to amend the text; and in Madame Royale’s case, the wife of Marshal Ney, and Madame Lavalette, whose husband had defended Louis XVI on 10 August 1792. Despite her initial promise to ask Louis XVIII for Lavalette’s pardon, she refused to intercede.

Her failings were more serious, as they concerned life-and-death matters rather than writings, but in both cases, neither Émile nor Madame Royale proved politically trustworthy in the end—not the “Babouvist hope” nor the “royalist heroine.” Another reason for their personalities is that too much was expected of them from a very young age, which must also have contributed to this disaster.

Napoleon II

Even if I understand that certain factions hated Napoleon I, I find it difficult to accept that some of them also hated or violently criticized his son, who had nothing to do with his father’s actions. I need to find the source again (I am not sure of its reliability), but I once read that some ultra-royalists claimed a rope should always be kept ready and offered a large reward to anyone who killed him. Certain politicians also belittled him simply because he was Bonaparte’s son.

His relationship with his mother was also complex; one could say she neglected him (though to be fair, motherhood at the time was not a choice but an obligation in arranged marriages, so I cannot entirely blame her).

In some ways he was treated “better” than Louis XVII, Madame Royale, or Émile Babeuf: his grandfather genuinely loved him, and he had the strong support of Archduchess Sophie and others. Yet, like them, it is sad to see what he endured because of his father’s enemies, and because he was Napoleon’s son.

Alexandrine Cléophée Turreau

Alexandrine was the daughter of Louis-Marie Turreau and Marie-Angélique, widowed Ronsin, later Mme Turreau. After opposing the Directory (especially Marie-Angélique), the couple eventually rallied to Bonaparte. Turreau even served as ambassador to the United States. But despite this high social position, life was far from easy for Alexandrine and her brothers.

Turreau beat his wife—whipping her, hitting her with a cane—and ordered music to be played to cover her screams while their children cried. He even planned to have her forcibly separated from the children and sent back to France, and if Judge Thornton and her close friend Dolley Madison had not helped her, this would have happened. He refused to let her say goodbye to the children, though they eventually went to live with their mother, who now lived in poverty. French authorities refused to help her; only a few friends among the American elite provided assistance, though her mistreatment at Turreau’s hands was used by newspapers opposing Jefferson.

Falling from wealth into poverty must have been traumatic for Alexandrine, and it did not end there. After returning to France, Turreau—perhaps to “punish” his wife—refused to provide financial support for the children, while he lived comfortably after rallying to the Bourbons. He even removed Alexandrine from her boarding school to place her in a convent; her mother had to obtain a legal order for her release.

Even after Turreau’s death, Marie-Angélique and her four children remained poor. Her attempts to obtain a pension based on Turreau’s service to the Bourbons were all rejected. She attempted to return to America, a country she loved, to open a school, but it failed and left her destitute.

Alexandrine lived alone in poverty for the rest of her life. Here is what Le Bien public wrote 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, in a hospice. It seems her brothers, who were better off, did not help her.

How does this relate to Alexandrine suffering for her father’s crimes? It is simple: when Marie-Angélique requested documents or financial aid, one might think her requests were rejected because of her reputation as a “neo-Jacobin” during the Directory or because she had been the widow of a well-known Hébertist. But when Alexandrine—born in 1798 —asked for assistance, she too was denied.

It seems that, because Turreau was rightly viewed as someone who committed atrocious acts, they made the daughter pay for the father’s crimes. Yet this is deeply unfair. In my view, Turreau should have been held accountable while he was alive—not his children, who were victims of their father just as anyone else.

This, in my opinion, is why some families close to Bonaparte’s power benefited from support during these time, but not hers. Alexandrine’s story illustrates not only the terrible laws that failed to protect wives and children from an abusive husband and father, but also how she was punished for her father’s actions. Again, this is just a hypothesis.

To learn more (this is where you can see my sources):

I wrote a post, supplemented by excellent comments from @mathildeaquisexta, about Madame Royale: https://www.tumblr.com/mathildeaquisexta/778220050110922752/i-quite-agree-with-everything-written?source=share

The one about Marie-Angélique, widow Ronsin, wife Turreau — from Hébertist to baroness of the Empire and later poverty — is here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share

On Emile Babeuf, who went from a fervent Babouvist republican to a Bonapartist and then a royalist: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/797365648777953280/the-beginning-of-the-revolutionary-period?source=share

#frev #french revolution #history #france #napoleonic era #bourbon #madame royale #marie therese charlotte #louis XVII #napoleon II #duke of reichstadt #turreau #alexandrine cleophée #napoleon bonaparte

Console Table, Bernard Turreau, French, 1715-20

From the Cincinnati Art Museum

#console table #table #furniture #history #french #bernard turreau #turreau #1715 #1720 #1710s #1720s #1700s #18th century #baroque #rococo

Une chronologie de l’emprisonnement de la famille Duplay (3/5)

Pour les parties précédentes, c’est ici (1/5) et ici (2/5).

En suivant toujours l’ordre des mises en arrestation, c’est de Simon Duplay qu’il s’agit aujourd’hui.

Simon a été mis en arrestation par arrêté du CSG du 13 thermidor an II. Il devait être emprisonné à la Force et il l’a peut-être été dans un premier temps, mais c’est des Madelonnettes qu’il adresse une première pétition au CSP le 7 fructidor an II (AN F 7 4694 Duplay).

Un mois plus tard, le 7 vendémiaire an III, le concierge des Madelonnettes rappelle au CSG que Simon Duplay n’a pas encore été interrogé. Il y a également un certificat médical en date du 13 vendémiaire an III qui évoque les souffrances de Simon (qui a perdu une jambe à Valmy, on s’en souviendra), une nouvelle sollicitation du concierge en sa faveur en date du 17 vendémiaire et une lettre d’une des commissions exécutives qui la relaie au CSG en date du 19 vendémiaire (AN F 7 4694 Duplay).

Cependant, Simon ne sera pas interrogé avant le nivôse an III, mais pas avant d’avoir été transféré au Plessis à une date inconnue. Il y a un premier arrêté du CSG en date du 2 nivôse an III relatif à l’interrogatoire, mais il a dû être reporté, parce qu’on en trouve un autre en date du 12 nivôse an III, portant qu’il serait finalement interrogé le jour même à 13h, comme son cousin Jacques Maurice — interrogatoires qui auront effectivement lieu (AN F 7 4694 Duplay).

Après, Simon a dû être transféré, mais à une date inconnue, à Port-Libre/La Bourbe, où il a retrouvé Jacques Maurice et Éléonore, puisque tous les trois ont ensuite été transférés de là au Plessis par arrêté du 2 floréal an III (en compagnie de Claire Lacombe et des généraux Turreau et Huchet, entre autres) (APP AA 30).

Simon, Éléonore et Jacques Maurice ont pétitionné le CSG courant floréal an III (la pétition est sans date, mais Éléonore sera transférée de nouveau le 27 floréal). C’est la dernière pièce que j’ai trouvée sur Simon. J’ignore donc à quelle date il a été remis en liberté (AN F 7 4694 Duplay).

#Simon Duplay #famille Duplay #Thermidor #Réaction thermidorienne #Révolution française #an III #Éléonore Duplay #Jacques Maurice Duplay #Claire Lacombe #Turreau #Huchet

Some Interesting Facts About Madame Royale

Here is an excerpt from Turquant in which she gives her opinion on Joséphine-Ludmille Fouché:

“One should certainly not equate Mlle Fouché, daughter of the Duke of Otranto, who married Monsieur de Terme, with those people. Aside from her avarice, she was irreproachable, and her husband was highly respectable. However, when someone asked the Dauphine if she would receive her, she replied with a certain melancholy: ‘I see so many others!...’”

(Excerpt from The Last Dauphine: Madame the Duchess of Angoulême )

Given her well-known aversion to Joseph Fouché—particularly because of his vote in favor of the execution of her father, Louis XVI—it appears that she did not believe in guilt by association. This statement, along with the melancholy tone she adopts when speaking about Joséphine-Ludmille Fouché, seems to support that view. Her refusal to receive her was likely motivated more by the need to preserve the appearances required by her rank and court etiquette than by any personal hostility toward Fouché’s children (that's my interpretation) .

Castelot also notes that she got along rather well with Archduchess Sophie of Austria. Of course, both shared strongly absolutist views of monarchy, along with other similarities. However, given that Sophie admired Napoleon I while Madame Royale detested him, this remains particularly noteworthy.

Castelot further recounts that in March 1815, General Turreau received her and the Duke of Angoulême as they were heading toward Bordeaux. He writes:

“The Restoration found Turreau a baron of the Empire and a Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour... Louis XVIII appointed him a Knight of the Order of Saint Louis. The former soldiers of Charette, who had fought for Louis XVII, could hardly believe their eyes at the official spectacle before them: the daughter of Louis XVI offering her hand to be kissed by the incendiary.”

What I find troubling is not, paradoxically, Madame Royale’s attitude toward Turreau. Rather, it highlights the fact that Turreau—who served under successive regimes—was never held accountable for his actions during his lifetime. Meanwhile, his daughter, Alexandrine Turreau, who was herself a victim of her father, bore the consequences of his actions and never received support, unlike other families who had served under the Napoleonic regime or during the Restoration.

To learn more about how Alexandrine Turreau suffered as a result of her father’s actions (this article discusses children who became victims of their parents’ legacy during the French Revolution, the Napoleonic era, and the Restoration—namely Madame Royale, Louis XVII, Napoleon II, Émile Babeuf, and Alexandrine Turreau), see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/800511680447660032/madame-royale-and-louis-xvii?source=share

#madame royale #joseph fouché #archduchess sophie #turreau #charette #vendée #frev #french revolution #napoleonic era #restauration of bourbons #history #france

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."

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

#frev #french revolution #women in history #napoleonic era #louis xviii #marie angélique lesquesne widow ronsin #Turreau #ronsin #hébert #america #france #gracchus babeuf #napoleon bonaparte #josephine de beauharnais #parein #rossignol #sad life

The Most Prominent Revolutionary Women Among the "Hebertists":

After the Babouvist women that I put here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776228737545060352/the-most-prominent-revolutionary-women-among-the?source=share here are the revolutionary women of my favorite faction

Marie-Françoise Goupil, wife of Hébert: She supported her husband's policies and became friends with Lucile Desmoulins while in prison. See the full and great post by @anotherhumaninthisworld on this often overlooked woman here.

Henriette Simonin Widow Chaumette : She corresponded with Gracchus Babeuf after her husband’s execution.

Sophie Momoro: Sophie played the role of the Goddess of Reason during the dechristianization ceremonies. You can find more about her role here. She also managed her husband's workshop and printing presses in his absence, accompanying him on a mission to Vendée. Momoro expressed his wife’s political views in a letter and she also drafted an appeal for assistance to the Convention in his characteristic style.

Marie-Angélique, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was overseeing Dumouriez, or possibly while she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. She married Charles-Philippe Ronsin in 1793.

Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne: “Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises. She frequently engaged with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to Jorris' correspondence, 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. He expressed his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: 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.”

Described as good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious, Marie-Angélique was diplomatic, and later, when Turreau was appointed ambassador to America, she charmed the political class. She became a close friend of Dolley Madison, one of the future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. They had a great relationship.

Unfortunately, her second marriage to Turreau became abusive to the point where he separated her from her children after years of mistreatment, as seen here, and the separation from her children here.

If you want to know more about her first husband Ronsin, it's here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share

Sylvie Audouin: Daughter of Jean Nicolas Pache (the first part of the post on Pache is here), who was the Minister of War during the French Revolution, and later the wife of the Hébertist Xavier Audouin (the post dedicated to Xavier Audouin is here). Despite being only 16 years old, Sylvie signed a 1792 manifesto alongside her father, her future husband, and revolutionaries such as Pauline Léon. According to Xavier Audouin, she openly supported his policies (and thus the Hébertist cause) and did not hesitate to speak about them.

Sylvie became more widely known when, while imprisoned and kept in solitary confinement for 100 days, she displayed immense courage and openly supported her father and especially her husband, who were also imprisoned, even earning a civic crown.

After being freed, she fought to share the "bread and bed" of her husband, during a time when the fate of her family’s men was uncertain. She became famous in the fortress of Ham, where she communicated with them, wrote letters in their defense, and even wrote a book about her experiences. If you are interested in learning more about her revolutionary life, see the post on Sylvie here.

Jeanne Lallemand: Mother of Jean-Nicolas Pache, who was also imprisoned for 100 days during the same period as her granddaughter Sylvie. According to Xavier Audouin, she applauded her son’s and her granddaughter’s husband’s desires to serve their country.

The "good deeds" of the "rotten" revolutionaries:

Fouché: he gave a pension to the widow of Collot d'Herbois, apparently also one for Charlotte Robespierre Tallien: he participated in the day of August 10, 1792. In the end he was let go for the wrong reasons because even if he rallied to the right, he tried to make a turnaround to the left to try to prevent the royalists from returning which shows that ultimately he sought to preserve the revolution. Carrier Jean Baptiste: In Nantes he succeeded in repelling the English attempts to establish themselves in this port (which would have been a catastrophe for France if the English had succeeded) Fréron: Stayed in contact with Annette Duplessis, helped her financially after the execution of Camille and Lucile Desmoulins and helped to ensure the education of Horace Turreau: Would have adopted Camille Babeuf after the death of his father (even if it was Felix Lepeletier who was the real protector of this family until to his deportation) P.S: Off topic but I didn't expect it seems that Camille Babeuf sent in 1813 a letter to Pierre-François Réal for a request for financial aid as he is in difficult I'll send you the link if you can connect and access it I can't it seems we must have an account for see the letter https://www.proquest.com/docview/1294139227?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals Sources: Antoine Resche Jean Marc Schiappa For Fréron, don't hesitate to see the excellent post by @anotherhumaninthisworld here https://www.tumblr.com/anotherhumaninthisworld/757673440640647168/how-close-desmoulins-and-fr%C3%A9ron-were- and-what-did?source=share

#frev #french revolution #joseph fouché #freron #carrier jean baptiste #Turreau #my mental health took a hit #by dint of looking for their good deeds

Frustration when I watched a television show about the Overseas Departments and Haiti during the period of the re-establishment of slavery and in general.

The siege of the Crête at Pierrot in 1802, by A. Raffet, engraving Hébert, 1839

Warning: There are many atrocities I will talk about when we dive into the details of the Haitian Revolution and torture in the reedit in the end . So, don’t read if you’re not up for it.

Completely by chance, I caught the second half of the show "Toussaint Louverture" (though I skipped some parts, I admit) presented by Stéphane in his show "Secrets d’Histoire," which I would qualify as mediocre. However, I was surprised to see that this show, which has always been lenient towards Bonaparte and Louis XVI, finally addresses the horrible re-establishment of slavery and recalls that the second and final abolition of slavery in 1848 was unsatisfactory because financial compensation was given to the colonists, but nothing to the former slaves. The one in 1794 seemed better. The participants of the show indeed say that it was a grave mistake to re-establish slavery, both morally and strategically regarding Haiti. I don't feel they explained how disastrous the consequences were, like how these laws removed brilliant officers from the military, such as Louis Delgrès (although mentioned in the show) or Alexandre Dumas (not to mention many former slaves who served in the military or fought like the group to which belonged Flore Blois Gaillard, who allied with the French revolutionaries against the British forces). This was a severe blow to the army, especially with the laws we could call racial against Black people (though I hesitate to use this term because I'm not sure if the word racist was defined as we understand it today). It was a great blunder—if Bonaparte hadn't had the (stupid) idea to re-establish slavery, perhaps the Overseas Departments wouldn't have fallen under British influence (as for Haiti, I think it would have become independent even without the re-establishment of slavery, and France and Haiti could have been solid allies, but it would have been much less violent with fewer French and Haitian losses). All these wars cost enormous amounts of money, and I believe he wouldn’t have sold Louisiana (frankly, he surely had good reasons, but can you imagine the French revolutionaries, especially those from 1792-1794, even in their worst moments, trying to sell a territory, at least the majority of the Convention? I can't). Moreover, there is no mention of the horrible deportations endured by Guadeloupeans and Haitians to Corsica, whether men, women, or children, under atrocious conditions. The most famous victim is the deputy Jean Louis Annecy (although very forgotten), who died on the island of Elba in 1807.

As usual, revolutionary women are forgotten. There is only a mention of Rosalie, alias Solitude, but there were many who participated in the fight, including Sanité Belair, who was executed by firing squad with her husband, Marie Claire Bonheur, the future Empress of Haiti, Victoria Montou, Dédée Bazile, Cécile Fatiman, Marthe Rose Toto from French Guiana, etc. The list is very long.

Finally, I don't like this whitewashing of Charles Leclerc (they do say that Rochambeau was terrible, at least, but since Leclerc was Bonaparte’s brother-in-law, he surely received some favorable treatment in this show). Here is an excerpt from the beginning of his horrors: "The majority of the deportees were concentrated in Corsica and the island of Elba, where they were used as labor for road construction and fortification restoration starting with the former Black soldiers" (text excerpt from "La guerre des Couleurs" of Pierre Branda and Thierry Lentz) . There was authorization to condemn Black people based on mere suspicion. Moreover, here is a letter Leclerc sent to his brother-in-law Napoleon Bonaparte: "Here is my opinion on this country. We must destroy all the Black people in the mountains, men and women, keep only the children under 12 years old, destroy half of those in the plains, and not leave a single colored man who has worn an epaulette in the colony." To think that I found the orders from the Convention in 1793-1794 frightening because they were ambiguous... Well, another reason why I find Bonaparte much more terrifying than them (already, the torture practiced by the police under Fouché in 1801 was appalling when he allowed it, the deportation without trial of many Jacobins, some of whom died, etc.), it reinforced my belief that he was much worse than the Committee of Public Safety in 1794, who nevertheless committed unforgivable acts in wartime under the infernal situation of internal-external civil war. Leclerc started the drownings in October 1802: it didn't matter whether the victims were civilians or soldiers; they were put on boats that were sunk. This strongly recalls the horrors committed by Carrier. According to Marlene L. Daut, the horrors were such that there were many desertions among French soldiers, which must not have been an easy situation for them because they could be shot for desertion and, even if they survived, forced to avoid returning home to avoid trouble with Napoleonic justice.

Leclerc (and by extension, Bonaparte) fell into the trap that some fighters, victims of an invasion or imminent invasion, have used throughout history, which seems quite old: pretending to ally with their adversaries to buy time, even if it means sacrificing their own to better fight the enemy again (and they certainly don't reach the only ones using this technique). This is what happened with Dessalines: the show doesn’t explain the armed resistance led by the Bélair couple against Leclerc, where they temporarily won victories. However, some believe this uprising might have been premature, although the insurgents weakened Leclerc with certain victories, and consequently, Dessalines allowed Charles and Sanité Bélair to be sacrificed. To be fair, the show I mentioned briefly explains that Henry Christophe and Dessalines did not betray Toussaint; they just wanted to buy time, but there is no mention of the Bélair couple. According to historians Pierre Branda and Thierry Lentz, Dessalines killed two birds with one stone by eliminating a potential rival in the person of Charles Bélair and to lull Leclerc's distrust to better attack when the time comes. In any case, by buying time, they were able to achieve better victories against Leclerc (who surely thought that by compromising Dessalines in the eyes of Black people, the insurgents would no longer dare to fight with him, but he was wrong) and later Rochambeau. Rochambeau continued by increasing atrocities, notably by releasing dogs on Black people and continuing to practice torture. There are allegations that Rochambeau locked Black people in holds and activated sulfur so they would die of asphyxiation. Thierry Lentz and Pierre Branda think it is not impossible that this happened. Bernard Gainot cites Jules Chanlatte from his work "Histoire de la catastrophe de Saint-Domingue" and published by a former sailor, Jean-Baptiste Bouvet de Cissé, in 1824: "Instead of valve boats, another type was invented, where victims of both sexes, piled on top of each other, expired suffocated by sulfur fumes." Whatever the case, the insurgents militarily defeated Rochambeau and the French troops, and their final victory was the Battle of Vertières in November 1803. Following this, Haiti's independence was proclaimed.

Where I totally disapprove is when, in order to try to limit the horrors that the Blacks people have suffered, they explain their reprisals, especially with the horrible massacre of the Whites people in 1804. I have already said in a post that massacre it is absolutely condemnable and atrocious . But imagine the horror of a little less than half of the Haitian population massacred in atrocious suffering, some betrayed by France while they had fought for them, others deported in atrocious conditions and some will never see their home again. I think that if their adversaries who oppressed them and those who applauded them had suffered a quarter of an eighth of the horrors that the Haitians suffered, the carnage would have been even more terrible. I do not want to exonerate the Haitians who took part in the massacre of 1804 from the responsibility but if Bonaparte had not approved such cruel orders (and he is the number 1 person responsible for this carnage), Whites people would not have been killed at least not in large numbers. The historian Thomas Madiou, said "Is it surprising that blacks and men of color used reprisals against whites?" And in any case nothing excuses the attitude of Bonaparte, Rochambeau or Leclerc. In my eyes they behaved like Turreau and Carrier. If we try to exonerate Bonaparte and his clique responsible for these massacres by highlighting the atrocities on the other side, it is a call to also exonerate horrible people like Carrier and Turreau by saying that the Vendéens committed massacre too.

In addition, the show ignored the many Haitians who protected white people from this massacre (Including Marie Claire Bonheur, wife of Dessalines, who nevertheless ordered the massacre I mentioned here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758334606594523136/166-years-ago-empress-marie-claire-bonheur-of?source=share) and didn't said that the Polish legionnaires who were sent by Bonaparte to repress them were touched by the horrors that the Blacks suffered and many of them deserted to fight alongside the former slaves (as a form of recognition, the survivors were given Haitian nationality) were spared just like the Germans who had not participated in the slave trade ( but on the second point maybe I am wrong). For my part Rochambeau, Leclerc, Carrier and Turreau are to be put in the same bag concerning their atrocities when they were sent on a mission. Too bad Turreau and Rochambeau did not pay for their atrocities (some say that the fact that Leclerc died of yellow fever is enough karma and Carrier was guillotined and I do not pity him at all)

Finally, this isn't in the show, but I don't like when people say that Bonaparte was "a man of his time" to excuse his actions regarding slavery. No, he reinstated it, which is even worse. Sonthonax, Abbé Grégoire, Jean-Paul Marat, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, Olympe de Gouges, and many others were also from the same era as Bonaparte and were opposed to slavery. The re-establishment of slavery shocked many French people, and a white man named Monnereau, under the orders of Delgrès, was hanged in Guadeloupe because he rose up against the re-establishment of slavery and drafted Louis Delgrès' last manifesto. While Bonaparte was reinstating slavery, a white man gave his life for the fight against it (and there must have been many examples like Monnereau). So, this argument to whitewash Napoleon doesn't hold up.

P.S.: I first found the information about asphyxiation from Claude Ribbe. However, even as a convinced, even a person like me petty, anti-Napoleon person ( and a bad faith person I admit it), I find him not very credible. Comparing Napoleon to Hitler is one of the most absurd things I ever heard. That's why I'm more cautious about this statement.

My sources for this post are: Bernard Gainot Pierre Branda, Thierry Lentz, "La guerre des couleurs"

#haiti #haitian revolution #napoleon #napoleonic era #rochambeau #charles leclerc #vendée #carrier #Turreau #guadeloupe #slavery

Marie Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: from radical Hébertist revolutionary to Baroness of the Empire — and ultimately, to poverty

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.

#turreau

Trending Tags

Recently Viewed Tags

#turreau