The King on Trial
“If Louis is acquitted, what becomes of the
Revolution?” –Maximilien Robespierre, Dec. 3, 1792
DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS:
1)
Based on the documents below, as well as your readings in Jones and other sources,
was the National Convention justified in putting the king on trial?
2)
Based on the documents below, as well as your readings in Jones and other
sources, do you think the National Assembly should have held an “appeal to the
people” on the King’s fate?
3)
Based on the documents below, as well as your readings in Jones and other
sources, what punishment do you think the assembly ought to have given to Louis
XVI?
DOCUMENT 1: Revolutionary Timeline
1788
April: The Parlement of Paris demands that King Louis
convene the Estates-General to deal with the grave financial situation
July: The crown
backs down in its dispute with the Parlement,
announcing the convening of the Estates-General in the following year.
March: Elections
for the delegates to the Estates-General are held.
May 5:
Estates-General convenes at
June 10: In
defiance of royal wishes and led by Abbe Siéyes, the Parisian delegates of the Third Estate meet
separately
June 17: The Third
Estate proclaims itself the National Assembly
June 20:
June 23: King sides
against the reformers and declares null and void the decrees of the new
Assembly, to no avail
June 27: Under
pressure, the King orders the remaining abstaining delegates to join the
Assembly
July: Several food
riots in
July 12: King
unwisely dismisses the popular reformist finance minister Necker;
spontaneous demonstrations in protest.
July 14: Fall of
the Bastille
July 17: King
accedes to the desires of the constitutionalists.
August 8: Abolition
of feudal rights by the Constituent Assembly
August 27: Adoption
of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
October
5: March of the women to
October
16: The National Assembly moves to
November
2: Church lands are seized
December
19: Clerical lands and property worth 400 million livres
sold at auction; money used to back the new "assignat"
paper currency
February
13: Religious orders abolished, remaining monasteries and convents closed
July
12: Passage of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy
July
19: Assembly votes to revoke all titles of nobility
November
27: The Assembly demands that the clergy sign the Civil Constitution; the
Church splits over the issue
April
18: Royal family tries to visit their palace in
June
20: Royal family attempts to defect; caught at Varennes
near the Austrian border and forced to return. King's prestige destroyed
July
17: Massacre of the Champ de Mars- a crowd calling for the King to be dethroned
is attacked by national guard troops.
August
27:
September
12: King approves Constitution, giving him veto power over Assembly acts
October
1: The new Legislative Assembly is seated, and begins deliberations concerning
the war threat
March
10: Brissotin/Girondin "war party" comes
into power
April
20: The Assembly and Girondin government declares war
on
May 30:
King's bodyguard is dismissed
June
13: King dismisses the Girondins
June
20: Mob attacks the Tuilleries palace and threatens
the king
July:
War goes poorly;
August
1:
August
10: Parisian revolutionaries raid the King’s Tuilleries
palace, effectively overthrowing the monarchy, which the Assembly votes to
abolish soon afterwards
August
13: Royal family imprisoned in the
September
2-6: The September Massacres, in which Parisian radicals murder hundreds of
supposed counterrevolutionaries in the
September
20: Dumouriez's army wins victory against the
invading Prussians at the battle of Valmy
September
21: The National Convention is established: the two main power blocks are the Girondin deputies, which fears Parisian power following the
September Massacres, and a radical “Montagnard”
faction with political ties to the
September
22: Official establishment of the Republic; Louis XVI is now "Citizen Capet." Proclamation of "Year 1 of the
Republic"
November
6: Dumouriez succeeds in defeating the Austrian
armies at the battle of Jemappes, completing the
French conquest of
November
19: The Assembly votes a decree offering French assistance to "all peoples
who want to recover their liberty."
December
3: Convention votes to place the King on trial
December
11: The King goes on trial in the Convention for treason
January
14-21: The King is found guilty of treason, sentenced to death by a narrow
margin, and guillotined.
June-July:
Girondin deputies are expelled by a Parisian mob, the
“committee of public safety” takes control of
Source:
adapted from http://www.blakeneymanor.com/timeline.html
DOCUMENT 2: Relevant passages in the French
Constitution of 1791
FUNDIMENTAL PROVISIONS, TITLE III
Of Public Powers
1. Sovereignty is one,
indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. It
appertains to the nation; no section of the people nor
any individual may assume the exercise thereof.
2. The nation, from which alone
all powers emanate, may exercise such powers only by delegation.
The French
Constitution is representative; the representatives are the legislative body
and the King.
3. The legislative power is
delegated to a National Assembly, composed of temporary representatives freely
elected by the people, to be exercised by it, with the sanction of the King, in
the manner hereinafter determined.
4. The government is monarchical;
the executive power is delegated to the King, to be exercised, under his
authority, by ministers and other responsible agents in the manner hereinafter
determined.
5. The judicial power is delegated
to judges who are elected at stated times by the people. {235}
CHAPTER II
Of Monarchy, the Regency, and the Ministers
2. The person of the
King is inviolable and sacred; his only title is King of the French.
3. There is no
authority in
4. On his accession to
the throne, or as soon as he has attained his majority, the King, in the
presence of the legislative body, shall take oath to the nation to be
faithful to the nation and to the law, to employ all the power delegated to him
to maintain the Constitution decreed by the National Constituent Assembly in
the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, and to have the laws executed.
If the King places himself
at the head of an army and directs the forces thereof against the nation, or if
he does not, by a formal statement, oppose any such undertaking carried on in
his name, he shall be deemed to have abdicated the throne.
7. If the King, having
left the kingdom, does not return after invitation has been made by the
legislative body, and within the period established by proclamation, which may
not be less than two months, he shall be deemed to have abdicated the throne.
{241}
The
period shall date from the day of publication of the proclamation of the
legislative body in the place of its sessions; and the ministers shall be
required, on their responsibility, to perform all acts of the executive power,
exercise of which by the absent King shall be suspended.
8. After express or legal
abdication, the King shall be classed as a citizen, and as such he may be
accused and tried for acts subsequent to his abdication.
CHAPTER V
Of the Judicial Power
1. Under no
circumstances may the judicial power be employed b the legislative body or the
King.
Source: http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/constitutionof1791.html
DOCUMENT 3: Relevant passages from Enlightenment
political thought
From Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws
“The people, which holds the sovereign power, ought itself to do everything
it can do well; that which it cannot do well must be done by its ministers.”
“Can the people manage
a [complicated] matter of state, recognize the times,
places, moments of greatest opportunity? No, it cannot.”
“All would be lost of
the same man, or the same body, whether composed of notables, nobles, or the
people, were to exercise these three powers: that of making laws, that of
executing public decisions, and that of judging crimes or disputes arising
among individuals.”
From Rousseau, The Social Contract
“[…] a particular will
cannot represent the general will, the general will in its turn… cannot
pronounce as the general will on a [particular] man or a fact.”
“The instant that the
people assembled in a sovereign body, all governmental jurisdiction
ceases…”
“Sovereignty cannot be
represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated [given up]; it
consists essentially of the general will, and the general will cannot be
represented… the deputies of the people are not then nor are able to be
representatives, they are only commissionaires; they are not able to conclude
definitively. Every law that the people in person has not ratified is null. The
English people thinks itself free, but it is strongly
mistaken: it is only free during the election of members of parliament; once
they are elected, it is a slave, it is nothing.”
DOCUMENT 4: Opinions expressed during voting in
the King’s trial
On the question, “Should the judgment of the
National Assembly of Louis Capet [the king] be submitted
to the ratification of the people: yes or no?”
Salle: “Citizens…as you are a
body of [public officials] and not a body of sovereigns, as all our decrees
ought to be sanctioned by the people… as we find ourselves in the position of a
republic always in fear of traitors; as the only means to hinder the traitors
is to appeal to the people, the sovereign itself, and to place the decree that
we will render under the sovereign’s shield; as on the eve of a war that we
will have to undertake, the only means to give to the people a truly republican
attitude, an attitude which ought to intimidate our enemies, is to [allow the
people] to intervene in this grand cause, I say yes.
Lehardy: I
recognize well that I have the power to pronounce on the means of saving the
Republic; but the Republic did not give me the power to violate the sovereignty
of the nation. Some say, citizens, that they do not want civil war, and that is
the excuse they give for forbidding the appeal to the people; but, citizens, if
I had this opinion of my constituents, of France in general, they why are we
not also afraid to submit the constitution [which the National Assembly was
writing] to the sanction of the people? Some speak of civil war. Some speak of
intrigues of priests and nobles. No one is more persuaded than myself about what we ought to do to these nobles, these
priests, this aristocrats, and even these pretended patriots; but, citizens, my
constituents charged me to overthrow tyranny, and it is only a single man that
now occupies us. Of what consequence is he? None.
Monarchy is abolished, it is no more; but be careful that those anarchists,
those traitors who demand in a high voice, in all the streets, the death of the
king, are not just replacing him with another, and I am persuaded, in my
conscience, that there exists a faction which has the intention of exciting a
civil war, and I believe will be a traitor, to my constituents and my
conscience, if I do not demand an appeal to the people. I say yes.
Le Bas: I believe that the people
are not able to pronounce as sovereign upon a particular object; that when it
pronounces on an individual or on a particular act, it exercises not an act of
sovereignty, but an act of magistrature [carrying out
rather than proclaiming sovereignty]. When the law pronounces on the crimes of
a criminal, I believe that to send its judgment to the primary assemblies, is
to suppose that the people are able, as magistrate, to have a will different
from that of the sovereign. I will not do this outrage to it. I want to
demonstrate myself, not as a hypocritical friend to the sovereignty of the
people, but as a sincere defender of the people’s sovereignty. I say no
Laurent: I was invested with all
power by my constituents when they elected me to the National Convention. The
safety of the people is the supreme law. Louis XVI has favored the aristocrats,
the fanatics… the émigrés; and the civil list [money controlled by the king],
diffused throughout the different quarters of Europe, appears to have excited
this party; on the other side, it is time to give a grand example to our
enemies; they must be terrified. We must convince these people that they are
not the masters of our lives… Justice, reason, and politics are in accord that
we ought to judge Louis XVI definitively, and that there ought not be an appeal to the people; I say no.
On the
question, “What penalty should Louis, former King of the French, incur [for his
crimes]?”
Cambon:
The view of all Frenchmen is perfectly known, all want the destruction of all
privileges, and the punishment of all those who resist the establishment of the
rule of equality. Already I was obliged in the legislative assembly, for the
supreme interest of the public safety, to vote for the deportation of a caste
of people formerly privileged, who had no other crime than to refuse the oath
of fidelity to the new regime [note: he’s talking about priests who hadn’t
agreed to the constitutional oath]. With you, I was obliged to pronounce the
penalty of death to émigrés, accomplices of Louis, and against those who, in
having taken arms against their country, return to
Lanjuinais: As a private citizen, I would vote for
the death of Louis; but as legislature, considering only the safety of the
nation and the interest of liberty, I know of no better means for our
conservation and defense against tyranny, than the existence of the former king
[note: presumably as a hostage]. What is more, I hear say that we ought to
judge this affair as would the people themselves. Since the people do not have the
right to kill a vanquished prisoner; it is then following the view of the
rights of the people… that I vote for the imprisonment of the king until the
peace, and for the banishment of the king afterwards, under the pain of death
if he returns to France.
Prunelle-de-Lière: The National Convention is not an ordinary tribunal
bound within the circle of the law: it must only consult justice. I demand that
Louis should be banished, without delay, with his wife, his child, his sister,
and all is family, under the penalty of death, if the re-enter the Republic.
They cannot appeal this condemnation, as it is necessitated by the interest of
public tranquility… in pronouncing , on the contrary,
to the penalty of death, you will excite compassion in favor of the father, and
interest a grand number in favor of the [Louis’] son. If you
leave him a long time prisoner in the
Garran-Coulon:
Although the death penalty has always seemed immoral to me, and contrary to its
own ends, if I was a judge, I would find my opinion written in the penal code.
But we cannot be judges; we cannot simultaneously carry out the function of
accusers, of jury, and of judge. I believe that liberty cannot be reconciled
with this encroachment of powers. We must not put ourselves above the law; and
every government where some are above the law and some are below it is tyranny.
As representative of the people, charged to carry out a measure of general
security, I vote for reclusion [imprisonment].
Drouet:
Louis has conspired against the state. Through his treasons, he has spilled, in
huge waves, the blood of citizens. He has opened the gates of the kingdom to
enemies, and has brought misery and death to my country. He outraged the
nation, which heaped him up with benefits, only to be washed in blood. I
condemn him to death.
Source: Archives Parlementaires, 1st. Series T. LVII, January 1793
(translations by Benjamin Reilly)