montagnarde1793 reblogged
I did this thing where I combined a bunch of portraits of Robespierre and Saint-just (separately of course)
Interestingly, Robespierre's facial proportions turned out quite like that Deseine bust, don't you think?
Anonymous asked:
Thank you again, i read however in that post that Robespierre complained about national justice not being exercised with the necessary strenght in Lyons so it seems there was ambiguity in Robespierre's declarations or maybe Robespierre wanted to push back against accusations of Moderantisme
It's important to remember, Citizen Anon, that repression was not all or nothing. Robespierre is equally known for supporting a certain level of repression and "terror" against enemies of the Revolution and for opposing those whom he saw as taking this too far. Where exactly Robespierre drew the line is not always entirely clear, especially in a context where telling friend from foe was not obvious. It would certainly be nice to have an itemized list of which specific acts of repression Robespierre found necessary and legitimate and which he condemned, but in most cases we can only really extrapolate from his more general assertions, as potentially unsatisfying as that may be.
Anonymous asked:
Ok but why you are so awesome -_-
You flatter me, Citizen Anon! XD;
Anonymous asked:
Hi, thank you for your answer. The post i was alluding to before claims however that Carrier's recall letter and the recall letters of some other representatives in mission did not bear Robespierre's signature and that the recall letters of these proconsuls did not seem to take issue with their violence yet it seems to be an accepted fact even among hostile historians that Robespierre was against the behaviour of these representatives in mission. Is it because of their partecipation in Thermidor or are there other sources attesting to that?
So, to start, it's worth noting a couple of things:
1) As I've had occasion to mention before, it's not particularly indicative of anything which signatures a letter or decision of the CSP's bears, because despite internal disputes, there was a certain level of solidarity in those decisions and, on a practical level, there are often different drafts with different signatures, and often it's just a question of which ones happened to be preserved;
2) Recalls of representatives on mission almost never indicate the reasoning behind the recall, so it's not surprising that Carrier's doesn't either; however, in the CSP's letter to Prieur de la Marne, they do explicitly state that Carrier's "formes violentes" are among the reasons that they want Prieur to take his place. (Note as well that for both letters, we only have a draft, so we don't even know whether the signatures on the version that was actually sent are the same, and that while Robespierre's is not among the signatures on the drafts, despite their clearly coming from the same motivation, they don't have exactly the same signatures either: Billaud-Varenne and Barère signed both of them, but Jeanbon Saint-André and C. A. Prieur only one each.)
As I mentioned, though the signatures aren't really important. The key piece of evidence concerning Robespierre's involvement in Carrier's recall is the fact that he was recalled following a letter addressed to Robespierre in particular (Jullien's letter, that I mentioned previously). It's therefore logical that Robespierre would be the driving force behind the decision. Carrier's active hostility to Robespierre and participation in Thermidor is merely corroborative.
As I mentioned, as well, we do have a number of speeches of Robespierre's denouncing excessive violence and repression by representatives on mission in general terms, notably his speeches at the Jacobins in the lead-up to Thermidor and his final speech. Their advocacy for extending repression was also one element, among others, of Robespierre's rejection of the "ultras."
Anonymous asked:
Hi, Jonatan Israel claims that Robespierre made use of "semi-criminal" individuals to fill the posts in the Paris revolutionary tribunal and in the Paris commune. Is there any evidence of that or is Jonathan Israel's elitism speaking?
I imagine this is some combination of elitism and Jonathan Israel taking Brissotin pamphlets and denunciations at face value, as he does on a number of occasions, in keeping with his extremely Manichean view of French Revolutionary politics.
Anonymous asked:
Hello, i have read a post questioning whether Robespierre really hated terrorist proconsuls like Carrier and his role in recalling them. Basically the post was asking where have historians gotten the evidence to claim that there was bad blood between Robespierre and some representatives in missio because of the brutality of their repression.Do you know something on that?
Hello, Citizen Anon,
In most cases, including Carrier's, the evidence comes down to Robespierre being among those who had the representative in question recalled (in Carrier's case after having received explicit intelligence on the part of CSP agent Marc Antoine Jullien as to his implication in atrocities committed in Nantes), often together with that representative's active participation in Thermidor. If memory serves, there are a few cases where Robespierre also denounced specific deputies in speeches as well as instances of his denouncing overly zealous repression, but likely because it wouldn't have been the most effective strategy, we don't really see instances of Robespierre explicitly accusing a given representative of excessive brutality.
I hope that answers your question! I would have gone and looked up specific examples, but I'm currently far from my personal library (besides being tired and having to teach tomorrow morning -_-).
montagnarde1793 reblogged
Look who I saw today - Portrait présumé de Robespierre (1758-1794), avocat et révolutionnaire by Louis-Léopold Boilly, 1791, Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille.
montagnarde1793 reblogged
My mother: promise me you won't get political this Christmas
Me:
montagnarde1793 reblogged
Conciergerie copy of the Claude-André Deseine cast in Vizille
Some of my pics of him…
montagnarde1793 reblogged
a lot of anti-historian stuff comes across like “i want history to be simple and i am suspicious of people who tell me it’s not” and this is a thing you see from people on any place on the political spectrum
montagnarde1793 reblogged
Tallien: Look how they are cheering for us. The crowd is already marrying us even more strongly than the law. Thérésia: Yes. Fouché: The triumph of the rascals is beginning. Babeuf: Monsieur Fouché, this sounds almost like Robespierre. Fouché: Almost, indeed. Babeuf: I don't understand you. Tallien has overthrown the tyran, and it seems to me all of Paris is applauding him for good reasons. F: My dear Babeuf, I was a physics teacher, that helps me understand many phenomenons. The reaction that is coming is like a wave, it can't stays unmoving in the atmosphere [we hear people shout "Vive Robespierre!"]. It will crush everything in its wake, you'll see, you'll see. Tallien and Barras will only stop when the last of the Jacobins will be judged, and the Republic crushed. B: Fouché, you surprise me. You were with them. You overthrew Robespierre, and now you are here at my side. F: Political combats, to be honest I esteemed him. He believed in pure ideas. What do you think a pure idea becomes when it gets down in the street? B: A weapon. F: What have I told you? Now they're beating the people up.
montagnarde1793 reblogged
A quick ~3hr sketch of Maxime based on the Claude-André Deseine bust 🙏 Am currently experimenting with new styles and trying to use colour schemes out of my comfort zone.
montagnarde1793 reblogged
Henri-Pierre Danloux - A young boy pleading with his older sister for the return of his Polichinelle puppet (ca. 1790s)
Deux comptes rendus de mon livre "La République de Prieur de la Marne"
Celui de Biard est... prévisible. Pas négatif, loin de là, mais il n'a pas vraiment saisi le fond de ma démarche. Et en plus il aurait été sympa d'avoir la perspective de quelqu'un qui n'avait pas déjà fait partie de mon jury de thèse.
En revanche, j'ai été agréablement surprise par celui de Paul Hanson pour H-France (en anglais).
montagnarde1793 reblogged
it’s always morally correct to make fun of Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette
Pour la défense du terme "réaction (thermidorienne)"
Voici une section d'un article que je suis en train de faire à partir de la 4e partie (encore inédite) de ma thèse, que je viens de rédiger et qui va sans doute finir par être réduite de beaucoup, mais que je pense pouvoir intéresser mes abonnés ici. Il s'agit d'une réflexion sur la pertinence du terme "réaction (thermidorienne)".
Grosso modo, je suis plutôt d'accord avec l'idée qu'utiliser "Réaction thermidorienne" pour désigner la période 9 thermidor an II-4 Brumaire an IV n'est pas génial, parce que cela ignore les mois de flottements et de luttes politiques de la fin de l'an II et du début de l'an III (je préfère parler de la période de la "Convention thermidorienne"), mais je pense qu'il est insensé de prétendre que le projet politique qui a fini par triompher au cours de cette période n'était pas réactionnaire :
À l’instar des critiques de l’usage de « la Terreur », que ce soit comme désignant d’une « politique[1] » cohérente ou simple chrononyme, d’autres termes traditionnels connaissent en ce moment historiographique une remise en question salutaire. Celui de « Réaction thermidorienne » en fait partie. Comme le dit Michel Biard en parlant des désignants des acteurs, « « thermidorien » n’a aucun sens précis, « réacteur » est abusif puisqu’on ne peut réduire la période qui suit Thermidor à une « réaction » au sens politiquement piégé du mot[2] ». On ne peut qu’être d’accord avec Biard sur premier terme. Le problème du mot « thermidorien » — qui peut s’appliquer tant aux personnes ayant participé au coup d’État parlementaire du 9 thermidor ou qui y ont adhéré après, qu’à celles qui en profiteront par la suite pour dénoncer et renverser les politiques adoptées au cours de 1793 et de l’an II — est connu depuis longtemps. Néanmoins, l’usage continué du terme de « réacteur », qui a précisément été adopté pour différencier les individus de la seconde catégorie de ceux du premier, et avec lui de « réaction », me paraît justifié à trois titres. D’abord, comme il s’agit d’un terme d’époque, il peut être utile pour comprendre l’état d’esprit de ceux qui l’employèrent. Mais au-delà de ce premier type d’usage, et sans vouloir englober toute la dernière séquence de la Convention à partir du 9 thermidor dans le terme de « Réaction », ce qui serait effectivement abusif, il y a fondamentalement un processus de « réaction » au premier sens du mot à l’œuvre puisque il y eut chez beaucoup de conventionnels une volonté affichée (quoique sélective) de revenir sur l’œuvre des mois précédents. Ensuite, le terme de « réaction » au sens fort du terme, non comme chrononyme, mais pour désigner la politique d’abandon des mesures et jusqu’aux principes démocratiques, sociaux et jusnaturalistes de 1793-an II, et de « réacteur » pour désigner ceux qui soutenaient un tel projet politique, me paraît adapté. On peut reconnaître la complexité de la « réaction » contre une « terreur » construite de façon à imbriquer aussi étroitement violence et participation populaire, de façon cynique chez les anciens Montagnards et sans doute beaucoup plus sincère, tant le lien leur paraissait naturel (leurs propres expériences semblant confirmer les écrits des auteurs anciens hostiles à la démocratie) chez les « Brissotins » réintégrés. On peut même se demander comment situer par rapport à ce terme les démocrates qui ont participé à la construction de l’épouvantail « terroriste » en croyant ne s’opposer qu’au volet répressif des politiques de 1793-an II mais qui finirent par dénoncer la « réaction ». Néanmoins, on ne peut comprendre une période qui vit l’abandon de la constitution de 1793 en faveur de celle qui fonda le Directoire, qui réprima la gauche et anéantit le mouvement populaire, sans pouvoir nommer le projet politique antidémocratique, antisocial et donc réactionnaire qui fut la cause de ces retournements, et ceux qui en étaient porteurs. [1] Patrice GUENIFFEY, La politique de la Terreur, 2000. [2] Michel BIARD, Les derniers jours de la Montagne, 2023, p. 23.