9 10 347 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Gentlemen, my name is Jean-Baptiste Drouet, and I am the Posting-Master at Sainte-Menehould. . . . On Tuesday the 2nd at half-past seven, after dinner, I saw two carriages in front of my door, namely a coach with six passengers and a cabriolet with two. . . . In the coach there was a woman, whom I thought I recognized as the Queen, and on the seat in front of her to the left was a man. I was struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on an assignat which I had with me at the time. Since the morning a detachment of about fifty dragoons had been stationed at the Inn nearby. The officer in charge went up to the carriages and spoke in a low voice to the couriers accompanying them. . . . They looked quite confused and kept repeating what they had said. My suspicions increased, but, being unwilling to cause a false alarm and having no one by me to consult, I let the carriages go. This I did most unwillingly. I was furious and ran about the place telling everyone that I believed the King was going away. I thought I had noticed that his face was pimply, but one of my uncles said I must have made a mistake. Perhaps I should have believed him if I had not seen the dragoons preparing to mount their horses. I then gave the alarm and made the drummer beat the call to arms. . . . I met my postilions who had accompanied the King and who were coming out of Clermont at the moment that we were going in. They told me that instead of following the road to Metz, as the couriers had proposed at my posting-station, the carriages had driven towards Varennes after leaving Clermont. We went by a side-road through the woods and reached Varennes at the same time as the carriages which were drawn up alongside the houses at the top of the town. It was then about half-past eleven and the night was very dark. However, in order not to be recognized or suspected, we took off our cross-belts and only kept our swords and then, as we passed by the carriages at a walk, we said in a loud voice. "Good Lord! we'll be very late getting to Grandpre: perhaps we shan't get there with our horses dead-beat": thus trying to pass ourselves as merchants bound for the fair at Grandpre. The carriages had stopped because there is no posting-stage at Varennes, and the postilions would not go through without resting the horses. Further down the street we found an inn, where the people were still up. I took the landlord aside and said to him, "Are you a good patriot?" He replied. "You may be sure I am." "Very well, then," I went on, "the King is at the top of the hill. He'll be passing through soon. Go quickly and collect all the good citizens you know to prevent him getting away." He went off without a word. My comrade and I wanted at first to sound the alarm, but we thought that if we did so, the King might turn round and go off at a gallop before anyone could get there to prevent him and in that way would elude us. We went to the bridge, the only place where he could get through and fortunately found there a van full of old furniture. We used it and other vehicles we found in the neighbourhood to block the bridge. We did all this in less time than it takes to tell you about it. On this side of the bridge we saw some dismounted hussars whose horses were on the other side. Then we ran to the Mayor and the Commandant of the National Guards. In less than five minutes we had collected eight or ten armed men . . . and then we marched in front of the coach which was coming down the street. We stopped it. The district attorney questioned the travellers who were they and where were they going? A lady replied that she was the Baroness de Korff (the name appeared to be German). She said she was a foreigner and that she was on her way to Frankfort. She was in a hurry and hoped that she would be allowed to pass. Asked if she had a passport, she said yes, but that she did not think it necessary to have it examined. We insisted. . . . While the passport was being examined, I said to the two ladies that I could not believe that the "baroness" was a foreigner, because if that were so she would not have the privilege in France of being escorted by detachments of dragoons and hussars. I presumed that it was the King and the Queen who were in the berline. My remarks caused the others to discuss the advantage of keeping the travelers until the next morning. The Mayor and the Attorney asked them to leave the coach, which they did without resistance. They then went to the house of the district attorney where they confessed who they were. The King said, "Here is my wife, here are my children, we adjure you to show to us the consideration which Frenchmen have always shown to their King." They were assured that they were under the protection of the law and that they had nothing to fear. This was related to me because during the conversation I was down below talking to the hussars, who were coming up with drawn swords and occupying the street. They numbered perhaps 150. Besides them the street contained about 100 men most of them armed and a great many women and children. The officer in command of the hussars, M. de Douglas or Jouglas, said that he wished to speak to the King and to guard him. He was told that he would neither guard him nor even see him. I added that if he thought he was going to snatch the King away from us, all he would get was death at our hands. I ran into the street and exhorted the women to go back to their houses, but to take with them stones to throw at the hussars, if they started any trouble. All this lasted for less than half an hour. Meantime the Commander of the National Guard had two small pieces of artillery placed at the top of the street and two others at the bottom, . . . so that the hussars would be between two fires. He ordered the officer commanding the detachment to make his men dismount and withdraw from the town. Instead of that they showed signs of slipping behind the cannons and seizing them. I seized the bridle of M. de Jouglas's horse and pushing my pistol into his chest, I cried: "Gunners, stand to. Fire if anyone moves." They took up their positions and held up the fuses, on which the hussars retreated. Then after conferring together they came and threw themselves into the arms of the National Guards. Since then they have behaved very well. Their commanding officer escaped. They made a great mistake in giving in so easily, for the guns were not loaded. Sortable Date 1791-06-21 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Georges Pernoud and Sabine Flaissier, The French Revolution, translated by Richard Graves (New York: Capricorn Books, 1970), 87–90. Description An account of the resource After a late start, the royal family followed a circuitous route through a series of small towns in the countryside. However, things started to go awry near the city of Châlons, where the loyal soldiers due to escort the royal family were not to be found. The carriage continued unaccompanied to the town of Varennes, where it stopped to get fresh horses. There, a royal postmaster Drouet, who had recognized the King at an earlier stop, caught up to the carriage and had the local prosecutor, Sauce, search it. Drouet would later describe the tense scene that followed. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 313 Title A name given to the resource The Flight to Varennes (21–23 June 1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/313/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 21, 1791 Monarchy Provinces Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document The outrages committed upon and the threats made against my family and myself on 18 April were the reasons for my departure. Since that time several writings have sought to provoke violence against myself and my family, and thus far these insults have gone unpunished. Thenceforth I felt that I lacked security and even decency so long as I remained in Paris. . . . One of my principal motives for leaving Paris was to vitiate the argument concerning my lack of liberty, which might furnish occasion for disturbances. . . . I have never made any protest other than in the memoir which I left of my departure. Even that protest, as the contents of the memoir attest, has no bearing on the fundamental principles of the Constitution, but only on the form of sanctions, that is to say, on the scant liberty which I seemed to enjoy, and on the fact that, since the decrees had not been presented together, I could not judge the Constitution as a whole. The principal objection contained in that memoir relates to difficulties in the methods of administration and execution. During my journey I became aware that public opinion favored the Constitution. I had not believed that I could fully recognize such a public opinion in Paris; but, from the impressions which I personally acquired on the way, I was convinced of the necessity, even for the maintenance of the Constitution, of providing the established powers with authority in order that they might maintain public order. As soon as I became cognizant of the general will, I did not hesitate in the least, as I have never hesitated, to make personal sacrifice for the happiness of the people, whose welfare I have always had at heart. In order to assure the peace and felicity of the nation, I shall willingly forget all the unpleasantness which I may have suffered. Sortable Date 1791-06-27 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Hall Stewart, A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 212–14. Description An account of the resource Louis’s unsuccessful flight polarized opinion on the powers the King should have under the new constitution. For the first time, some deputies seriously proposed doing away with the monarchy altogether and declaring a republic. Those hoping to salvage the King’s credibility created a story whereby the King had not fled but had been abducted. To this end, the King appeared before the National Assembly and apologized, indicating that he had never intended to flee the kingdom or to oppose the constitution and that he had voluntarily returned to Paris upon learning of the public outcry over his departure. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 314 Title A name given to the resource Louis Apologizes (27 June 1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/314/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 27, 1791 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document You have no doubt been informed that I have accepted the Constitution and you are aware of the reasons that I gave to the Assembly. These reasons will not be sufficient for you, so I shall give you all of them. The condition of France is such that it may end up in total disintegration, and this result will come even more quickly if violent solutions are applied to all the overwhelming ills. The cause of all our problems is the partisanship that divides and destroys governmental authority. There are, however, only two ways to accomplish this: force or reconciliation. . . . Force can only be used by foreign armies and this means resorting to war. . . . I know we flatter ourselves into thinking we control immense forces, and that war will be prevented by the fact that resistance would be seen as futile. . . . But the leaders of the Revolution, they who are able to sway the people, believe they have too much at risk to ever show discretion. They could never be persuaded that they could be forgiven or pardoned for their crimes. . . . They will use the National Guards and other armed citizens . . . and they will begin by massacring aristocrats. . . . The émigrés want nothing but revenge, and if they cannot make use of foreign arms, they will enter France alone, and will exact that revenge, even if they are all sure to die. War will thus be inevitable, because it is in the interest of those in authority. It will be horrible because it will be motivated by violence and despair. Can a king contemplate all these misfortunes with equanimity and bring them down upon his people? . . . I know that my émigré subjects pride themselves on the fact that there has been a great change in people's attitudes. I myself believed for a long time that this change was brewing, but now I see that it was not. . . . One can never govern a people against its will. This maxim is as true in Constantinople as it is in a republic. Right now the will of this nation is for the Rights of Man, senseless though they be. . . . I have carefully weighed the matter and concluded that war presents no other advantages but horrors and more discord. I also believe then that this idea should be put aside and that I should try once again by using the sole means remaining to me, that of joining my will to the principles of the Constitution. I realize how difficult it will be to govern a large nation this way, I will even say that I believe it to be impossible. But the obstacles that I would have put in the way [by refusing to accept the Constitution] would have brought about the war I sought to avoid, and would have prevented the people from properly assessing the Constitution because my constant opposition would have blinded them. By adopting the principles of the Constitution, and executing them in good faith, the People will come to learn the true cause of their misfortunes. Public opinion will change, since without it [my acceptance of the Constitution], only new convulsions could be expected . . . and I prefer to proceed towards a better order than that which would result from my refusal. Sortable Date 1791-09-14 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Félix-Sébastien Feuillet de Conches, ed., Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette et Madame Élisabeth, vol. 2 (Paris: Plon, 1864), 366–75. Description An account of the resource Even after the debacle of the flight to Varennes, the King’s brothers—the Counts of Provence and of Artois—continued to plot from exile for a military strike that would dispel the National Assembly before it could adopt the new constitution. Louis, however, feared civil war more than he did the prospect of becoming a constitutional monarch. He thus accepted the new constitution, swearing an oath before the National Assembly. Ten days later, Louis wrote this letter to his brothers explaining his decision and asking them to cease their efforts to organize a coup against the Revolution. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 315 Title A name given to the resource Louis Accepts the Constitution (14–25 September 1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/315/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource September 14, 1791 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Les Révolutions de Paris The most honorable man in his kingdom! (You cowardly writers, incompetent or hired hacks, this is how you refer to Louis XVI?) The most honorable man in his kingdom, the father of the French, like the hero of two worlds, also deserted his post, and escaped in the hope of sending us, in exchange for his royal person, several years of foreign and domestic war. This conspiracy, worthy of the united houses of Bourbon and Austria, this cowardly, treacherous conspiracy, hatched for the last eighteen months, has at last been carried out. Citizens! We warned you! Remember that we didn't wait until the dénouement of 21 June to tell you what kings are capable of. He left, this vile king, but he is no doubt the last to fool you. Let him go, never to return. To have kept him any longer at our head would have been far too much of an encumbrance. But citizens, look at how all the circumstances which have preceded, accompanied, and followed this flight are criminal. Has the enforcer of righteousness, with his lethal weapons ever struck more accomplished villains than those who have just fled the Tuileries Palace by night? Julius Caesar, stabbed to death by the Romans, Charles I, decapitated by the English, were innocent compared to Louis XVI. Our former King (for Louis XVI is no longer King and can no longer be King) first greedily demands 25 million from the Civil List and numerous estates. He wants his debts and those of his brothers paid off. He even sends his wet-nurse before the nation to be paid for the milk that she lavished on the royal wolf-cub. He orders the felling of his woods. He no longer has to pay his ministers and his armed guard is no longer maintained at his expense. Yet already he finds himself in debt. He needs advances. The royal cannibal devours all the cash and when he has converted the people's bread into gold, he is still ravenous for whatever money we have left. Le Père Duchêsne You my King. You are no longer my King, no longer my King! You are nothing but a cowardly deserter; a king should be the father of the people, not its executioner. Now that the nation has resumed its rights it will not be so bloody stupid as to take back a coward like you. You, King? You are not even a citizen. You will be lucky to avoid leaving your head on a scaffold for having sought the slaughter of so many men. Ah, I don't doubt that once again you are going to pretend to be honest and that, supported by those scoundrels on the constitutional committee, you are going to promise miracles. They still want to stick the crown on the head of a stag; but no, damn it, that will not happen! From one end of France to the other, there is only an outcry against you, your debauched Messalina, and your whole bastard race. No more Capet, this is what every citizen is shouting, and, besides, even if it were possible that they might want to pardon you all your crimes, what trust could now be placed in your remains? You vile perjurer, a man who has broken his oath again and again. We will stuff you into Charenton and your whore into the Hospital. When you are finally walled up, both of you, and above all when you no longer have a Civil List, I'll be stuffed with an ax if you get away. Sortable Date 1791-06-25 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Les Révolutions de Paris, no. 102 (18–25 June 1791), 525–26; and Le Père Duchêsne, no. 61 (June 1791), 1–8. Description An account of the resource The news of the King’s flight and subsequent arrest provoked strong responses in the press, most of which attacked Louis as a traitor and questioned the National Assembly’s acceptance of his excuse that he had been "kidnapped." The Revolutions of Paris, previously somewhat supportive of the King, aggressively attacked him as a "traitor," "criminal," and "cannibal." Even more striking was the response of Jacques–René Hébert in his popular newspaper, Père Duchesne. Also a supporter of the King, Hébert declares that Louis is "no longer king" and not even a citizen." He suggests that the King and Queen should be imprisoned in the asylum of Charenton. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 316 Title A name given to the resource Press Reports of the King’s Flight: Révolutions de Paris (25 June 1791) and Père Duchesne (1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/316/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 25, 1791 Monarchy Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Legislators, the nation entrusts you with the maintenance and defense of its liberty, its independence, and the sovereignty of its rights. The law establishing the monarchy, which your predecessors set up without any regard for the claims and grievances of the nation, is contrary to the rights of man. It is time that this tyrannical law at last be abolished, that the nation make use of all its rights, and that it govern itself. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can only be based on the usefulness to the community." Legislators, these are the principles of the constitution of every free nation. We are entitled to them because your predecessors decreed them and because Frenchmen have adopted them and have sworn to defend them. The goal of every political association is the preservation of man's natural and inalienable right to liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. All citizens are equal before the law. All are equally worthy of human dignity and equally eligible to all public offices, positions, and employments, based on their abilities, and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents. Legislators, such are the eternal basis of all political principles. Whatever is contrary to such principles must be excluded from a free constitution. How, then, could our constituents, your predecessors, establish upon these bases the monstrous pretension of one particular family that the crown be delegated hereditarily, by order of primogeniture? What can become of that reigning family at a time when everything must be regenerated? What has that reigning family done to be preferred to every other? Should there be a law that makes one person inviolate? Does that inviolability guarantee him against the assassin's blade? Does this privilege not subvert every principle? Who would recognize therein the principles of that sovereign reason which consecrated the inalienable rights of man by decreeing that there no longer was any hereditary distinction? Is that supreme distinction founded upon usefulness to the community? What constituent is wise enough to be able to ensure and guarantee that the son of the greatest and most just of kings will be like his father, not a traitor or a scoundrel? According to this pernicious law, would it not follow that the son could be wicked, and with impunity bring misery upon men that the same law would subject to the fury of his crimes? No, legislators, it is only the hired fomenters of tyranny who have been capable of abandoning themselves to such delirium! And it is in the sanctuary destined for the triumph of liberty, reason, and justice that this undeserved claim has obtained the force of law! What infamy! The nation cannot subscribe to it. Empty claims have been made in the past that are supposed to be in effect today. Because there is one sole sovereign, he has the incontestable right to approve or reject the laws that its representatives impose on him. What, then, has this ruling family done to be elevated to this position? What has given rise to this homage? Could it be the ruin of our finances? Could it be the iron scepter that is used to smite us stealing our gold and exhausting our subsistence? Or could it be the descendants of that family, rife with emigrant rebels and criminals burdened with debt and accusations that our constituents have forced us to recognize as masters? Do not be offended by that word, Legislators. It signifies nothing to us. But such is the pretension of kings, such is the intention of cowards and slaves. . . . Does not the gold required by the enormous civil list, which cannot be reduced until a change of reign, perpetuate the means of corruption? And might not those means ruin the nation before it had the right to abolish them? And as for the independent guard which our constituents granted their King, which the nation pays for by maintaining the civil list, can a private force exist in accordance with the terms of the Rights of Man? And if it is a public force, must it serve only the King? And is not that law that allows the King alone to chose and dismiss the ministers, despite his alleged sense of responsibility, an inexhaustible source of abuse, crime, and disorder, as well as an eternal wellspring of division and contradiction? And, finally, does not that suspensive veto, which allows a single person to oppose our best laws despite the general will, completely destroy our Constitution? Can the legislative power survive in the presence of that destructive law? And can the judicial power, created and sustained by the legislature, be effective if the executive power paralyzes our laws? Legislators, admit that our constituents have created nothing; and if you wish to be something useful to the nation, repeal one law which nullifies the national will. We all know the history of our misfortunes so it would be useless to review it. The indignation which it provokes has reached its height. Let us hasten to destroy the cause of it and reestablish our rights. Let the executive power be appointed and reelected by the people, just as, with some slight differences, the other two branches of government are. That accomplished, all will soon be made right. Done at Marseilles, in the Town Hall, 27 June, Year IV of liberty. [1792] Signed: The General Council of the Commune of Marseilles Sortable Date 1792-06-27 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Hall Stewart, A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 302–4. (Slightly retranslated) Description An account of the resource In late spring 1792, a group of militant journalists and section leaders began planning an uprising that they hoped would lead to the summoning of a new assembly for the specific purpose of rewriting the constitution to create a genuine republic—thereby eliminating the King altogether. They hoped to enlist activists from the Parisian sections and armed volunteer units from the provinces who would be coming to the capital for another Festival of 14 July. Particularly noted for their revolutionary ardor were the units from Marseilles, who arrived in Paris in late June with a new battle hymn later named "the Marseillaise" and with an address to the Legislative Assembly from the municipal government. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 317 Title A name given to the resource Address of the Commune of Marseilles (27 June 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/317/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 27, 1792 Popular Politics Provinces Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Legislators, when our country is in danger, all her children should hurry to her defense. Never has so great a peril threatened our country. We have been sent to this sanctuary of law by the commune of Paris to present the wishes of an immense nation. Imbued with respect for the nation's representatives and fully confident in their courageous patriotism, Paris has not despaired of the salvation of the people, but believes that for France's ills to be healed, they must be attacked at the source without waiting another minute. It is with sadness that Paris must hereby denounce the chief of the executive power. . . . We shall not retrace all of Louis XVI's misdeeds since the first days of the revolution: his bloody policies against the city of Paris, his predilection for nobles and priests, his aversion for the National Constituent Assembly, that body of the people has been outraged by court valets and besieged by armed men, as they wandered in the middle of a royal city, and found asylum only in a tennis court. We shall not retrace the oaths that have been broken so many times, protests ceaselessly renewed and ceaselessly belied by actions, until the moment when a perfidious flight opened the eyes of even those citizens who had been most blinded by the fanaticism of slavery. We shall put aside all that which is covered by the people's pardon, but to pardon is not to forget. Besides, it would be in vain to try to forget all these misdeeds. They will soil the pages of history, and will be remembered by posterity. Royal inviolability and perpetual changes in the ministry allowed the agents of the executive power to elude their responsibilities. A conspiratorial guard appears to have been dissolved, but it still exists; it is still funded by Louis XVI and sows the seeds of trouble which will yield a harvest of civil war. Priests, as agitators, abusing their power over timid consciences, turn sons against fathers and, from the sacred land of liberty, send new soldiers to march under the banners of servitude. These enemies of the people are protected by the appeal to the people, and Louis XVI upholds their right to conspire. . . . From without, enemy armies threaten our territory. A manifesto against the French nation, as insolent as it is absurd has been published by two despots. Treasonous Frenchmen, led by the King's brothers, relatives, and allies, are preparing to strike at the heart of the country. Already the enemy, at our frontiers is sending butchers against our warriors. . . . The chief of the executive power is the key link in the counterrevolutionary chain. He seems to participate in the plots of Pillnitz, which he has so tardily made known. Every day his name is in conflict with that of the nation, and has become a signal for discord between the people and its magistrates, between the soldiers and their generals. He has separated his interests from those of the nation. We, too, separate them. Far from having opposed the enemies without and within by any formal act, his conduct is a perpetual and formal act of disobedience to the constitution. As long as we have such a king, freedom cannot grow strong and we want to remain free. Out of the remnant of indulgence, we would have wanted to be able to ask you to suspend Louis XVI for as long as the danger to our country exists, but that would be unconstitutional. Louis XVI ceaselessly invokes the constitution; we invoke it in turn, and ask that he be deposed. As it is very doubtful that the nation can have confidence in the present dynasty, once this great motion is carried, we ask that the ministers named by the National Assembly from those outside its membership wield collective responsibility. They, in accordance with constitutional law and named by free men in voice vote, will wield executive power provisionally while waiting for the will of the people, our sovereign and yours, to be legally pronounced in a national convention as soon as the security of the State permits. Meanwhile, let all our enemies, whoever they may be, form ranks beyond our frontiers. Let the cowards and the perjurers abandon freedom's soil. Let three-hundred thousand slaves come forward for they will find before them ten million free men, as ready for death as for victory, fighting for equality, for their homes, their wives, their children, and their parents. Let each of us be a soldier in turn and if we are to have the honor of dying for our country, let each of us, before breathing his last, make his memory illustrious for the death of a tyrant or a slave. Sortable Date 1792-08-03 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Le Moniteur, no. 218 (5 August 1792), 916–17. Description An account of the resource Just after the Festival of 14 July, leaders of some of the more radical Parisian sections drafted, on behalf of the French nation, a petition calling on the Legislative Assembly to take emergency measures to ensure "the salvation of the people" by dethroning the King. This petition was presented to the assembly on 3 December by the mayor of Paris, Jérôme Pétion, and then printed as a pamphlet. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 318 Title A name given to the resource Parisian Petitions to Dethrone the King (3 August 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/318/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource August 3, 1792 Clubs Monarchy Popular Politics Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Paris 10 August, midnight, in session The 4th year of liberty, 1792 The indignation was so general that it was breaking out with no fear or restraint; everyone was expecting a terrible explosion; day and night, brave and valorous knights filled the chateau, which bristled with bayonets and cannon. Yesterday the fears intensified; nevertheless, there was no real threat to justify all this excitement, so just after midnight we went to bed. . . . Upon entering the Assembly hall, I was greatly surprised to find the King, the Queen, the Prince, the King's oldest sister, Madame Elisabeth, and others [of the royal entourage] all very carefully dressed, with heads lowered like wet hens; they had all taken refuge in the Legislative Assembly to seek there the safety which could no longer be found in the palace. The cannoneers, having been ordered to do their duty if the people were to force its way into the palace, had instead simply unloaded their cannon; knowing this, the King's closest advisers had advised him to flee the palace and come amongst the nation's representatives. The Legislative Assembly was not deliberating; [under the Constitution] it could not do so in the King's presence, although it urgently needed to. The King and the royal family could not be sent out, because they were done for if they left their asylum. After great and tumultuous debate, the King moved from the president's rostrum and his family moved from inside the rail, taking up places in the little box behind the rostrum, ordinarily used by journalists. Someone came to announce that the cannon filling the Place du Carrousel were aimed against the Tuileries Palace, which the people wanted to break down like the Bastille. After a short discussion, because time was pressing, the Assembly sent a deputation consisting of twenty of its members to speak to the people in the name of the law and to appease it by persuasion. . . . This deputation left at once, preceded by an usher and surrounded by a guard. I had the honor to be in it; although this was also nearly a misfortune, because we had barely reached the door of the Tuileries Palace when our eyes were dazzled by furious musket fire at the bottom of the stairway; at once, a second round; then a cannonade knocked down part of the façade. By God, we saw our death right before us! As we did not yet feel worthy to allow it to pass behind us, we stopped in our tracks and proposed a discussion, but a well-aimed cannon rejected our proposition. We then thought we had found a safe alternative of going to the other side of the Carrousel, preferring the cannon tails to the mouths; but scarcely had we emerged from the riding-school [in which the Assembly met] when a mass of sabers, pikes, and bayonets rushed from all sides, with indescribable rage, on our brave guards, who, angered by our obstinacy in advancing into the fire instead of retreating, finally grabbed us and swooped us back into the Legislative Assembly. . . . [In the assembly hall,] brave sans-culottes had appeared at the rail and were promptly heard from. They explained to us that the sovereign people, making use of that sovereignty, had charged them to assure us of its respect, to affirm obedience to our decrees . . . and that we were the only constituted authority and there was no other in existence. They concluded by asking us to "Swear in the Nation's name to maintain liberty and equality with all your power or to die at your post." Seeing this declaration to be our only means of our salvation, all the deputies shouted eagerly and in a single voice: "I so swear!" The roll was called at once, and on the rostrum each deputy in turn pronounced the words indicated by the sans-culottes and the proposal was considered to be adopted. Our co-deputies, who had fled the hall earlier fearing for their lives, were now reassured by a declaration so easily pronounced . . . they returned to join us in session and showed the utmost courage in taking this charming oath, which they uttered with the greatest firmness, without troubling over the difficulty and even the impossibility for them of carrying it out. In the interim, a great brawl had broken out in the palace, in the Tuileries [gardens], and on the Champs Élysées. The Swiss guards, who had been deceived by the aristocratic instigators in the palace and had fired on the people . . . were now being hotly pursued and were defending themselves in the same way . . . so that corpses covered the ground. The royal palace had been pillaged, although everything of value had been carried scrupulously to the Assembly, which had in turn sent it to the Commune [i.e., city hall]; the people themselves did justice to those who concealed or stole the smallest thing . . . all the jewels, money, and other valuables found on the dead Swiss guards were carefully gathered up and returned; for instance, a true sans-culotte faithfully deposited 173 gold louis [equivalent to 3,460 livres] that he had discovered on the body of an abbot in the basement of the palace. Our sovereign people, truly French, respected the ladies of honor, or non-honor, of the court; they inflicted not the least scratch on them, ugly as certain of them may be; but they showed no mercy to the obsequious nobles of the court. . . . The King has been suspended from all his functions and powers; we have driven out his counterrevolutionary ministers and have named others worthy of public confidence. Louis, Antoinette, their children and hangers-on are still in their cell, the stenographer's box, from which they have not budged . . . and where their fare as this has consisted, deliberately, of scarcely more than bread, wine, and water. Good God, what a sight! It is really true that opinion is often all-important and that without opinion on their side the great, however great they may be, are nothing; these gods on earth, stripped and deprived of their masks . . . are now not even men, and in the end they have the same fate that false divinities have always had when the blindfolds of error fall away. Our assembly-hall commissioners are taking steps to prepare apartments for them in the former Capuchins' convent [next to the assembly-hall on the west]; for their majesties would run the risk of not being respected as they deserve if they were to go and stay in the Luxembourg Palace, which one of our decrees assigned to them today instead of the Tuileries Palace. Sortable Date 1792-08-10 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Camille Bloch, ed., La Révolution Française, no. 27 (1894), 177–82. Description An account of the resource In early August, the Legislative Assembly was deadlocked, unable to decide what to do about the King, the constitution, the ongoing war, and above all the political uprisings in Paris. On 4 August, the most radical Parisian section, "the section of the 300," issued an "ultimatum" to the Legislative Assembly, threatening an uprising if no action was taken by midnight 9 August. On the appointed evening, the tocsin sounded from the bell tower and a crowd gathered before the City Hall and headed toward the Tuileries Palace. As the King’s bodyguards prepared to defend him, Louis recognized that it would be more prudent to flee. He and his family escaped through a secret passage and placed themselves under the protection of the Legislative Assembly, which arrested him. A deputy, Michel Azema, describes in this letter the dramatic events that came to be referred to as the "second French Revolution." Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 319 Title A name given to the resource The Attack on the Tuileries (10 August 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/319/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource August 10, 1792 Clubs Monarchy Popular Politics Sans-culottes Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document I shall undertake, citizens, to prove that the King can be judged. . . . I say that the King should be judged as an enemy and that even more than judge him, we must fight him. Also, in that he was not a party to the contract that unites all French people, the judicial procedure to follow is not to be found in Civil Law, but rather in Common Law. . . . Perhaps one day, men as far removed from our prejudices as we are from those of the Vandals will be astonished by the barbarity of an age in which the judging of a tyrant was thought to be something sacred. Where the people, having a tyrant to judge, raised him to the rank of citizen before investigating his crimes and were more concerned about what would be said about them than about the task at hand. And where a guilty man who belonged to the class of oppressors, the lowest class of humanity, became a martyr to their pride. One day men will be astonished by the fact that humanity in the eighteenth century was less advanced than in the time of Caesar. Then a tyrant was slain in the midst of the Senate with no formalities but thirty blows of a dagger and with no other law save the liberty of Rome. And today we respectfully conduct a trial for a man who assassinated a people, caught in flagrante delicto, his murderous hands soaked with blood! These same men who are to judge Louis also have a Republic to create. Those who attach any importance to the King receiving a fair punishment will never be able to create a Republic. For us, the sensitivity of our minds and character is a great obstacle to liberty. We make all error seem more attractive and, more often than not, truth for us is only the seduction of our tastes. . . . We must therefore courageously advance toward our goal, and if we desire a Republic, we must be serious about it. We judge ourselves severely, I would even say with rage. We think only of tempering the energy of the People and of liberty, whereas we hardly reproach our common enemy. And everyone, either from weakness or because they stand with the accused, look at each other before striking the first blow. We seek liberty, and we are becoming each other's slaves! We seek nature, and live armed, like wild savages. We desire a Republic, independence, and unity, but we are divided and treat a tyrant with gentleness . . . . It would seem that we are searching for a law that would allow us to punish the King. . . . The social contract is between citizens, not between citizens and government. A contract is useless against those who are not bound by it. Consequently, Louis, who was a party to it, cannot be judged by Civil Law. The contract was so oppressive that it bound the People, but not the King. Such a contract was necessarily void since nothing is legitimate that is not sanctioned by ethics and nature. These reasons lead you all not to judge Louis as a citizen, but as a rebel. But besides these reasons, by what right does he demand to be judged by Civil Law, which is our obligation toward him, when it is clear that he himself betrayed the only obligation that he had undertaken towards us, that of our protection ? Is this not the last act of a tyrant, to demand to be judged by the laws that he destroyed? And Citizens, if we were to grant him a civil trial, in conformance with the laws and as a citizen, it would be him who would be trying us. He would be trying the People themselves. For myself, I can see no middle ground. This man must reign or die. He will prove to you that all he has done, he has done to uphold his office with which he had been entrusted. By discussing this with him, you cannot make him incriminate himself for his hidden malice. He will lead you in a vicious circle created by your very accusations. . . . I will say more: a constitution accepted by a King did not bind the citizens. They had, even before his crime, the right to banish him and send him into exile. To judge a King as a citizen . . . that would astound a dispassionate posterity. To judge is to apply the law. A law is linked to justice, and common to mankind and kings? What does Louis have in common with the French people that they should treat him well after he betrayed them? . . . It is impossible to reign in innocence. The folly of that is all too evident. All Kings are rebels and usurpers. Do Kings themselves treat otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority? Was not Cromwell's memory brought to trial? And certainly Cromwell was no more usurper than Charles I. For when a people is so weak as to yield to the tyrant's yoke, domination is the right of the first comer, and it is no more sacred or legitimate for one than for another. These are the considerations that a generous and republican people must not forget when judging a King. You will be told that the verdict is to be ratified by the People. If that is to be, why can they themselves not pass judgment? If we did not sense the weakness of such ideas, whatever form of government we might adopt would find us slaves. The sovereign would never be in his place, nor the magistrate in his, and the people would have no guarantee against oppression. Citizens, the tribunal which must judge Louis is not a judiciary tribunal . . . it is a council . . . it is the People . . . it is you. And the laws that must guide us are those of citizens' rights. A civil trial would be unjust since the King, deemed to be a citizen, cannot be judged by the same men who have accused him. Louis is a foreigner among us. He was not a citizen before his crime: he could not vote, he could not bear arms. He is even less a citizen since his crime, and by what abuse of justice would you make him a citizen in order to condemn him? As soon as a man is found guilty, he leaves the polity, but quite to contrary, Louis would gain entry by his crime. I would go even farther . . . if you declare the King to be a citizen, he will slip from your grasp. Which of his obligations would you rely on in the current state of things? . . . I shall forever contend that the spirit in which the King will be judged is the same spirit with which the Republic will be established. The theory behind your verdict will be that of your public offices, and the measure of your philosophy in the verdict, will be the measure of your liberty in the constitution. . . . You will never see my personal will oppose the general will. I shall desire what the People of France, or the majority of its representatives, desire. But, as my personal will concerns a portion of the law which has not yet been written, I open myself to you in all frankness . . . . It is therefore you who must decide if Louis is the enemy of the French people, if he is an alien. If the majority of you decide to absolve him, then that verdict would have to be ratified by the People, for if no act of the sovereign can truly constrain a single citizen to pardon a King, even less could an act of the magistracy constrain the sovereign! . . . Sortable Date 1792-11-13 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 2d ed., 82 vols. (Paris: Dupont, 1879–1913), 53–56:390–93. Description An account of the resource The first debate over the fate of Louis XVI concerned whether the Convention could try the King at all, and if so, for what crimes. The Constitution of 1791 had promised Louis "inviolability," meaning immunity from prosecution. One of the first speakers was Louis–Antoine Léon de Saint–Just, a brilliant, idealistic, and young Jacobin deputy. He drew on Montesquieu as well as Rousseau to argue that the legislature indeed had both the political authority under the constitution and the moral justification to judge the King. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 320 Title A name given to the resource Saint–Just (13 November 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/320/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 13, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document I think it necessary that Louis XVI should be tried; not that this advice is suggested by a spirit of vengeance, but because this measure appears to me just, lawful, and conformable to sound policy. If Louis is innocent, let us put him to prove his innocence; if he is guilty, let the national will determine whether he shall be pardoned or punished. . . . Louis XVI, considered as an individual, is an object beneath the notice of the Republic; but when he is looked upon as a part of that band of conspirators, as an accused man whose trial may lead all nations in the world to know and detest the disastrous system of monarchy and the plots and intrigues of their own courts, he ought to be tried. If the crimes for which Louis XVI is arraigned were absolutely personal to him, without reference to general conspiracies and confined to the affairs of France, the plea of inviolability, that folly of the moment, might have been urged in his behalf with some appearance of reason; but he is arraigned not only for treasons against France, but for having conspired against all Europe, and if France is to be just to all Europe we ought to use every means in our power to discover the whole extent of that conspiracy. France is now a republic; she has completed her revolution; but she cannot earn all its advantages so long as she is surrounded with despotic governments. Their armies and their marine oblige her also to keep troops and ships in readiness. It is therefore her immediate interest that all nations shall be as free as herself; that revolutions shall be universal; and since the trial of Louis XVI can serve to prove to the world the flagitiousness of governments in general, and the necessity of revolutions, she ought not to let slip so precious an opportunity. The despots of Europe have formed alliances to preserve their respective authority and to perpetuate the oppression of peoples. This is the end they proposed to themselves in their invasion of French territory. They dread the effect of the French Revolution in the bosom of their own countries; and in hopes of preventing it, they are come to attempt the destruction of this revolution before it should attain its perfect maturity. Their attempt has not been attended with success. France has already vanquished their armies; but it remains for her to sound the particulars of the conspiracy, to discover, to expose to the eyes of the world, those despots who had the infamy to take part in it; and the world expects from her that act of justice. As to "inviolability," I would not have such a word mentioned. If, seeing in Louis XVI only a weak and narrow-minded man, badly reared, like all his kind, given, as it is said, to frequent excesses of drunkenness a man whom the National Assembly imprudently raised again on a throne for which he was not made—he is shown hereafter some compassion, it shall be the result of the national magnanimity, and not the burlesque notion of a pretended "inviolability." Sortable Date 1792-11-21 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Source: Moncure Daniel Conway, ed., The Writings of Thomas Paine, vol 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1967) 115–118. Description An account of the resource An Englishman acclaimed as a hero of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine had been elected to the Convention by radicals in Paris. However, his international perspective and Anglo–American background (including a Quaker upbringing) inclined him temperamentally to ally with the Girondins, who were less radically republican and who looked more favorably upon the King as an individual and an institution, and who not coincidentally often spoke some English. His speech was written in English and it was read to the Convention (in French) the day after the discovery of the letters in the King’s "locked chest." Accordingly, it called for a full investigation and trial of the King, based on his policies rather than his person. Nonetheless, compassion for the individual remained a possibility. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 321 Title A name given to the resource Paine (21 November 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/321/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 21, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document In the case where an entire nation has been wronged and is both prosecutor and judge, it is the opinion of mankind, the opinion of posterity, to which that nation is accountable. It must be able to state that all the general principles of jurisprudence that are recognized by enlightened men everywhere have been respected. It must be able to stand up to the blindest of biases so that not even the smallest rule of equity can be cited as having been violated. Then, when that nation judges a king, kings themselves, in their inmost hearts, must approve of the judgment.It is important for the happiness of mankind that the conduct of France towards the man it too long called its king be the final step in curing other nations of whatever superstitions they may still hold which favor a monarchy. Above all, we should beware lest we increase that superstition among those still ruled by a monarch. . . . Thus, it is to the laws of universal justice, common to all constitutions and unalterable in the midst of clashing opinions and the revolutions of empires, that we must subject our decisions.Can the former King be judged?An action can be grounds for legitimate punishment only if a previous law specifically identified that action as a crime; and it can be punished only with a penalty which likewise was prescribed by a previous law. . . .If, however, the law failed to distinguish in the list of crimes those which aggravating circumstances made even more heinous, it must not be concluded that the law wished to exempt them from punishment, but only that the aggravating circumstances did not seem to require the prescription of a specific penalty. The laws of Solon do not include parricide. Shall we conclude then that the monster who was guilty of this crime was intended to remain unpunished? No, surely he should receive the same punishment as a murderer.If, then, the laws of France say nothing specifically about a king who conspired against the people, even though he is much more guilty than a citizen, it does not follow that he should be spared, but only that those who wrote the laws did not wish to distinguish him from other conspirators. He should be judged then by the usual law, if another law did not specifically exclude him. . . .Two articles make this clear. In one, the person of the King is declared inviolable and sacred. The other states that for all crimes committed after his legal abdication, he shall be judged like other citizens. . . .The person of the King was declared sacred. Either 'sacred' has no meaning, or it has the sense which it is given in the tenets of the various religions. In the case of unjust acts of violence, this is a crime against religion in addition to a crime against society. In legal convictions, the guilty man is stripped of his civil rights before being sentenced so as to inspire a greater respect for what is somewhat supernatural in nature. By this, the constitutional King was likened to a bishop or a priest, persons also considered sacred but who are nevertheless not exempt from the power of the laws.The authors of the Constitution, by instituting a monarchy, created a power outside of nature which they believed required superstitious terrors in order to provide for the security of kings. But the result is merely that if the monarchy had not been abolished, the forfeiture of rights would have had to be decreed in a separate judgment.The word 'inviolable' is not defined by the Constitution as it applies to the King; but it is defined elsewhere, as it applies to the representatives of the people.Their inviolability entails two very distinct conditions, both applicable to the King. The first is that they may not be persecuted for what they did or said as representatives; and as soon as a king was established he must necessarily share in this kind of inviolability.This prerogative, extended to all the King's executive acts, posed dangers which that of the deputies did not. Thus the King was required to have these acts validated by the signature of a minister responsible for their legitimacy. The nation was not without checks, and if it did not have all those which might be demanded by the principles of justice rigorously applied, at least it had all those compatible with the existence of so bizarre an institution as the monarchy. . . .. . . But it is common knowledge that he is accused of crimes outside of his royal duties. It was not as King that he paid for parodies designed to ruin the nation's credibility, or that he bribed France's enemies, or that, in concert with his brothers, he formed a league with the enemies of the nation. It was not as King that, in despite of the laws that he himself had approved, he armed foreign troops against the citizens of France.Another condition of the inviolability of the popularly elected representatives was that they could not be prosecuted except by decree of the legislature. Thus when the Constituent Assembly discussed the question of the King's inviolability this point was rightfully mentioned, for by the very nature and importance of his functions he could not be answerable before a tribunal on the summons of those public officials whose conduct he supervised. It was shown that the man who had the authority to suspend the creation of laws, the head of the executive and commander of the army and the navy, should not be exposed to the risk of being stopped from these great tasks by the will of any particular tribunal. The arguments used to exempt the deputies from the common order of judicial prosecutions were used in the king's favor, and with the same success. . . .Thus, the impunity of the King was not decreed by the Constitution. Yet that document did not set forth the way in which he was to be judged. It did state that if he ceased to be King, he would, for his subsequent crimes, be prosecuted and judged like any other citizen; but it did not decide as to how he might be judged or prosecuted for his prior crimes. . . .Moreover, how could the Constituent Assembly have set down in the Constitution the method by which the King was to be judged? In accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, the legislature could not have the power to accuse him. To whom could that power belong? To the nation alone, and from there to the representatives which it named to the Convention. It would therefore have been necessary for the Constitution to indicate to the National Assemblies precisely the same plan of conduct that the Assembly of 1792 followed on 10 August. And if one recalls the timid circumspection with which the Constituent Assembly spoke of the inalienable right of the people to change its constitutional laws, one will not be astonished to see that the Assembly has not dared facilitate the exercise of this power by placing in the Constitution a means by which, in the case of serious accusations brought against the King by the citizens, the legislature might call a National Convention. . . .It is time to teach kings that the silence of the laws about their crimes is the ill consequence of their power, and not the will of reason or equity.The question, then, has been reduced to an examination of whether the rule of justice, which requires that a prior law determine the offense and the punishment, does not also require a preexisting law in order to establish the procedure of judgment.Now I do not believe that justice demands this. . . .Let me return to the subject of this discussion. Is the existence of Louis XVI favorable or adverse to sincere or feigned supporters, to foreigners or Frenchmen, to constitutional or hereditary monarchy? Does it benefit their plans that the throne which they wish to reinstate may be occupied by a child or must necessarily be occupied by a man made vile by his conduct and odious by his crimes? Is it in the interest of the French Republic to diminish the interval which separates persons living in foreign lands from the throne, lands where they will long be the active and docile instruments of all our enemies?In a word, as the existence of these hereditary pretenders is a necessary evil, can the conservation of our liberty be truly influenced by changes in the order of the claims, in the interest, hopes, and means of the persons called to take part in this absurd substitution?Will our severity frighten or irritate the enemy kings and the devotees of monarchy? Will the still-wavering sentiments of several nations be alienated or encouraged? These are questions to which it is difficult to reply without having been able to observe the effects of our first resolution on France and on Europe. Such questions seem to demand that the National Convention reserve the right to modify the sentence of the tribunal, or to submit it to the people and tell them how to execute it.If the judgment were favorable, would the nation have lost all rights over the man who had been King? Let us suppose that in the exercise of his usurped authority, a hereditary and absolute monarch had committed no injustices, no violent acts. Let us suppose that, blinded by his education, he honestly believed that his authority was legitimate. Let us admit that these are two hypotheses which no king has ever realized. Can it not be said then that the involuntary nature of the error absolves the penalty? But the right to be cautious concerning the effects of this error nonetheless remains. One does not punish a madman, but one takes the steps necessary to assure that he can cause no harm. And if the liberty of Louis XVI, innocent, were dangerous for the safety of the nation, doubtless the nation would retain the right to deprive him of that liberty.Yet how could we, in all fairness, reserve the right to take precautions for our safety in the case of an acquittal, without at the same time reserving for ourselves the right to modify the penalty in the case of a conviction?Thus, by giving political considerations all the weight which they might be expected to have, we see that they are unrelated to the question of the judgement, and that they could only influence the commutation of the pronounced penalty or the precautions which might be required by the nation's interest. To judge an accused king is a duty; to pardon him can be an act of prudence; to retain the possibility of such a course is an act of wisdom for those to whom the political destiny of a nation has been confided.I would therefore propose a postponement of the question of whether and by whom the judgment may be modified until the other questions have been decided, and just before the tribunal is seated.Such are my reflections on a subject that belongs to the order of human things, which philosophy may treat, for once, according to the principles of justice and with a sense of cool impartiality.Kings have long been mere men in the eyes of reason; and the time approaches when they will be so for politics as well. Yet at this moment, when the prejudices which surround a throne have disappeared at last but the influence of kings on the destiny of nations still remains, is it only now that it is possible and useful to expand the people's rights of over these beings beset by error and vileness, and over the ghosts of their superstitions.When Europe has but one king to judge, then his trial, having become an ordinary case, will no longer deserve the world's attention. Sortable Date 1792-12-03 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 2d ed., 82 vols. (Paris: Dupont, 1879Ð1913), 53Ð56:146Ð53. Description An account of the resource Jean–Antoine Nicolas Condorcet, formerly a marquis, circulated a pamphlet that was a Girondin response to Saint–Just. Although he too endorsed a trial of the King, he emphasized the necessity of following constitutional procedures, meaning that any trial had to be held in accordance with the constitution and proper legal forms. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 322 Title A name given to the resource Condorcet (3 December 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/322/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 3, 1792 Monarchy Text