Revolutions
1
The American Revolution
Read SNT 513- 520 [“Stop at „The French Revolution‟] and the following texts
1. How revolutionary was the American Revolution?
2. The Modern Republican Argument of Madison’s Federalist # 10
Study Questions
1. What were the causes of the American Revolution? What role did the aftermath of the French and
Indian war play? How did British government actions make the issue of taxation into a cause for the
American colonists? How did the British response to colonial protests against taxation inflame
passions in the American colonies? From the British point of view, why were their actions
legitimate?
2. Why was the American cause militarily successful, even though the British government was far
more powerful in a military sense – and it won the most major battles and held most of the major
cities? What role did American Indians play in the war? What role did the French play in the war?
What does the example of the American revolution tell us about how a weaker force, fighting on
its own territory, can outlast a stronger force?
3. Why did the American Congress find the Articles of Confederation unworkable, and call for a
Constitutional Convention? What compromises provided the foundation of the American system
of government? Do you agree with the textbook that the Constitutional Convention ion 1787 was a
“nonviolent second American revolution?” Even though the Constitutional Convention produced
the “most democratic government of its era,” it was still far from a democratic government as we
would define it today. What were some of the undemocratic features of the government of the
1787 Constitution?
4. What arguments could be made against the “revolutionary” character of the American revolution?
What argument could be made for the “revolutionary” character of the American revolution? On
the whole, which side of this debate do you find more convincing?
How revolutionary was the American Revolution?
Richard Price, a British Unitarian minister, called the American Revolution the most important event
in the history of the world since the birth of Christ. At first glance, this seems like a gross
overstatement.
The American Revolution was not a great social revolution like the ones that occurred in France in
1789 or in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949. A true social revolution destroys the institutional
foundations of the old order and transfers power from a ruling elite to new social groups.
Nevertheless, the Revolution had momentous consequences. It created the United States. It
transformed a monarchical society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, into a republic,
in which they were citizens and participants in the political process. The Revolution also gave a new
political significance to the middling elements of society-- artisans, merchants, farmers, and
traders--and made it impossible for elites to openly disparage ordinary people.
During the colonial era, the percentage of white men who voted or participated in politics was low.
There were no organized political parties, and adult white men tended to defer to gentlemen.
Established merchants, wealthy lawyers, and large planters held the major political offices. But in the
years leading up to the Revolution, popular participation in politics increased. Voter turnout climbed
as did the number of contested elections. Political pamphleteering also became more common. By the
time the Revolution was over, ordinary people had become much more heavily involved in the
political process.
Revolutions
2
The revolution also profoundly altered social expectations. It led to demands that the vote be
extended to a larger proportion of the population and that public offices be elected by the people.
During and after the Revolution, smaller farmers, artisans, and laborers began increasingly to
participate in state legislative elections, and men claiming to represent their interests began to win
office and wield power. Leaders in the new state governments were less wealthy, more mobile, and
less likely to be connected by marriage and kinship than those before the Revolution. For the first
time, state assemblies erected galleries to allow the public to watch legislative debates.
Above all, the Revolution popularized certain radical ideals – especially a commitment to liberty,
equality, government of the people, and rule of law. However compromised in practice, these
egalitarian ideals inspired a spirit of reform. Slavery, the subordination of women, and religious
intolerance – all became problems in a way that they had never been before.
The Revolution also set into motion larger changes in American life. It inspired Americans to try to
reconstruct their society in line with republican principles. The Revolution inspired many Americans
to question slavery and other forms of dependence, such as indentured servitude and apprenticeship.
By the early 19th century, the northern states had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual
emancipation plans. Meanwhile, white indentured servitude had virtually disappeared.
The Revolution was accompanied by dramatic changes in the lives of women. Before the Revolution,
many women were involved in campaigns to boycott British imports. During the conflict, many
women made items for the war effort and ran farms and businesses in the absence of their husbands.
After the Revolution, American women, for the first time, protested against male power and
demanded greater respect inside and outside the home. Lucy Knox, the wife of General Knox, wrote
her husband in 1777: "I hope you will not consider yourself as commander in chief of your own
house – but be convinced...that there is such a thing as equal command." After the Revolution, the
first feminist writers, such as Judith Sargent Murray, demanded equal rights for women.
The Modern Republican Argument of Madison’s Federalist # 10
Read the following text.
Study Questions
1. How does Madison define factions? Would political parties fit this definition? Why or why not?
Would a trade union fit this definition? Why or why not? Would a civil rights organization or a
feminist organization fit this definition? Why or why not?
2. According to Madison, what are the primary causes of factions? What role does property play in
their formation? Do you agree with his assessment that factions are "sown into the nature of man"?
Do you agree with Madison that one can not control the causes of factions without limiting liberty
in an unacceptable way, so that the only solution is to attempt to mitigate their effects?
3. Why does Madison consider factions a "mortal disease of popular governments" – the greatest
threat to republican government? Do you agree with Madison? Why or why not? Madison asserts
that "democracy offers no cure for the mischiefs of factions." Why? What advantages does he find
in a republic? How would his modern republicanism control factions?
4. What can he inferred from Federalist Paper No. 10 about Madison's views on human nature and
social hierarchy? How central are these views in shaping his political philosophy? In Federalist
Paper # 51, Madison wrote:
...what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to
be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you
Revolutions
3
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the
next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no
doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has
taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
What insight into the argument of Federalist Paper # 10 does this passage provide? What does it
tell us about Madison‟s view of human nature? How is his theory of government based on that
theory of human nature?
5. Some scholars believe that Madison linked liberty more with property than with democracy. Do
you agree? In your assessment, does Madison's anti-democratic sentiment betray the ideals and
vision outlined in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence? Why or why not? Why do you think
that Madison is more concerned with the “tyranny of majority” factions than the “tyranny of
minority” factions? What does Madison have in mind when he talks of “tyranny of the majority?”
6. How does Madison‟s modern republicanism compare to classical republicanism? Which version
of republicanism do you think is more likely to achieve the common good?
The Fears of the American Founding Fathers
James Madison (1751-1836) was one of Virginia's leading patriots during the Revolutionary War,
was elected fourth president of United States, and led the nation during the War of 1812 with Britain.
But he is probably most remembered for his pivotal role in the crafting and ratification of the United
States Constitution (ratified in 1789) and its first ten amendments, more commonly known as the Bill
of Rights (1791). Known and respected among his contemporaries for his skilled writing and
argumentation, Madison was one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers.
Madison was born at Port Conway, Virginia, in 1751, the oldest child of an affluent, plantation
owning family. After studying law and government at the College of New Jersey (Princeton
University), he returned to the family estate of Montpelier in Virginia and took up the cause of the
American Revolution. Al though he served in the Virginia colonial government, he was barred from
military service in the Continental Army because of poor health. Chosen by Virginia's governor to
represent the state in the Continental Congress from 1780 to 1789, Madison earned fame for crafting
a model of government that became the blue print of the Constitution. Madison believed in the value
of a strong federal government whose power was divided among three branches and monitored
through a system of "checks and balances." To promote its ratification by the states, Madison joined
Alexander Hamilton of New York in penning The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays that were
intended to explain and justify features of the new government. Following the ratification of the
Constitution in 1789, Madison was elected to the new House of Representatives and sponsored the
adoption of the Bill of Rights. After serving as secretary of state during the Jefferson administrations
(1801-1809), Madison was elected to his own two terms as president from 1809 to 1817. Following
his presidency, he retired to his plantation at Montpelier, and he remained interested and engaged in
politics until his death in 1836.
The Federalist Papers are considered one of the most significant collection of documents in
American political thought. Written primarily by Madison and Hamilton in 1787-1788 under the
pseudonym Publius the eighty-five essays promoted the provisions and philosophy of the proposed
new Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 10 Madison discussed the threat of "factions" that could
undermine the basic rights and liberties of citizens. Distrustful of democracy, he advocated a
representative government made up of wise and propertied male citi zens who might better discern
"the true interests" of the country. Although some critics have charged that Madison and the other
Founding Fathers were more eon cerneci with protecting property than they were with liberty or
equality, others credit Madison for establishing a stable and responsive government that has sur
vived the test of time.
Revolutions
4
FEDERALIST NO. 10 (THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION
AND INSURRECTION) (1787)
James Madison
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more
accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of
popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he
contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on
any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it.
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the
mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be
the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious
declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular
models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an
unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as
was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous
citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our
governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and
that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor
party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we
may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to
deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation,
that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of
our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for
many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of
public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to
the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a
factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the
whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to
the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other,
by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty
which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same
passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty
is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less
folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would
be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its
destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man
continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the
Revolutions
5
connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a
reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach
themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not
less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first
object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property,
the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence
of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society
into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought
into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for
different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of
speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for
pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to
the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual
animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate
for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that
where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been
sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most
common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed
interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser
interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by
different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the
principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and
ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his
judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of
men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important
acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single
persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of
legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed
concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the
debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be,
themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction
must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by
restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed
and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public
good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to
require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater
opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every
shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render
them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in
many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote
considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in
disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Revolutions
6
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief
is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which
enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may
convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the
Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other
hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of
other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and
at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to
which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of
government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be
recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the
same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having
such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to
concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to
coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate
control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their
efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy
becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society
consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can
admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every
case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of
government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an
obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic
politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by
reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be
perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a
different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in
which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the
efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the
government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater
number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by
passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the
true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice
it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public
Revolutions
7
voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good
than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect
may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue,
by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the
people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the
election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two
obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives
must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however
large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a
multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the
two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the
proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a
greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large
than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success
the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more
free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive
and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which
inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the
representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by
reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and
pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect;
the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State
legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be
brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance
principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the
fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same
party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass
within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable
that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if
such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own
strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that,
where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked
by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in
controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the
Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives
whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and
schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to
possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater
Revolutions
8
variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In
an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this
security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment
of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it
the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable
to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a
political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of
it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for
an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project,
will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same
proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the
diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride
we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character
of Federalists.
PUBLIUS
The French Revolution
Read SNT 520-522 [stop at ‘The Napoleonic Era…’] and read the Declaration on the Rights of Man
and Citizen [below].
Study Questions
1. Which groups and classes in French society were part of the Third Estate? How did the economic
and social polarization of French society among the three estates, and the growth of an
unemployed urban poor, lead to the French Revolution? What caused the fiscal crisis of the French
monarchy, and how did this crisis contribute to the French Revolution? What do you think was
more important in the French Revolution – the economic inequality and impoverishment of many
French, or the rising expectations of the French that a better world was possible?
2. The agenda of the French Revolution is often captured in a three word slogan: “liberty, equality,
fraternity.” What do you think is meant by this slogan? How does the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and Citizen embody these three principles? How does the Declaration fundamentally
challenge the foundations of the ancien regime and absolutism?
3. What ideas does the French Declaration draw from Locke‟s Second Treatise and Jefferson‟s
Declaration of Independence? What ideas does it draw from Rousseau? Is the French Declaration
closer to the American Declaration or the American Bill of Rights?
4. What statements of the equality does the French Declaration have that appear in neither the
American Declaration or the Bill of Rights? Are these statements closer to those in the Fourteenth
Amendment? What do these statements of equality demand of government?
5. Article 2 identified that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of "liberty, property,
security, and resistance to oppression." Do these rights have precedents in modern political
thought?
6. Article 3 states, "The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor
individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation." What
does this mean? What are the possible implications of this statement?
7. Do you think that the protections of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression in Articles
10 and 11 is greater or lesser than the protections of the First Amendment in the American Bill of
Rights? Explain your reasoning. Does it make sense to have the idea of taxation and of the public
Revolutions
9
taking of private property – eminent domain – laid out in Articles 13, 14 and 17?
A Declaration of the Rights of Man
In August 1789, the French National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen. Together with Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690) and the American
Declaration of Independence (1776) and the United States Constitution (1789), the Declaration of
the Rights of Man and Citizen is considered one of the pivotal documents in the development of
political liberalism. In its concise seventeen points, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen espouses the Enlightenment ideals of human equality, natural rights, and a government that
emanates from the will of the people.
The Declaration was also a reaction against royal absolutism and the huge disparities of wealth,
status, and power that defined and characterized the three main social classes or "estates" of the Old
Regime. The first and second estates, comprising the clergy and nobility, made up less than 10
percent of the population and controlled most of the nation's wealth but were exempt from paying
taxes. Consequently, the financial and labor burden of France was borne chiefly by the third estate, a
disparate group made up of the professional middle classes (doctors, lawyers, merchants, and so on),
the rural peasants, and the urban working class. Political rights were also uneven. Power rested in
the person of the king, who ruled in an absolute manner, sanctioned by divine right. But the royal
bureaucracy was so intrusive, corrupt, and inefficient that all social classes dreamed of a change.
Consequently, the financial crisis of 1789 that initiated the convening of the Estates General
reflected, in large part, the inefficiency and inequities of French society. The representatives from the
middle class seized the opportunity to push for liberal reforms and declared their intention to write a
constitution for France that would limit the power and privilege of the monarchy, the nobility, and
the clergy. Their efforts received crucial support from the urban workers, who stormed and seized the
weapons at the Bastille when King Louis XVI tried to quash the revolution. With the king under
arrest and the power of the monarchy temporarily checked, the new National Assembly adopted the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen on August 26, 1789, which marked the beginning of
the end of the Old Regime.
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND CITIZEN (1789)
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the
ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the
corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural,
unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the
members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the
acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any
moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus he more respected,
and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable
principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all.
Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of
the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon
the general good.
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of
man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
Revolutions
10
3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may
exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of
the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the
society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is
not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or
through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or
punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to
all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except
that of their virtues and talents.
7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms
prescribed by law. Anyone soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to he executed, any
arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall
submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.
8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no
one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated
before the commission of the offense.
9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be
deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be
severely repressed by law.
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided
their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man.
Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for
such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces
are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to
whom they shall be entrusted.
13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of
administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their
means.
14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the
necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix
the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.
Revolutions
11
16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers
defined, has no constitution at all.
17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall he deprived thereof except where
public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the
owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalization of the French Revolution
Read the following text.
Study Questions
1. What kind of society did the sans-culottes and "Gracchus" Babeuf want to create in revolutionary
France? Why did Babeuf see the equality of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as
insufficient? What sort of equality did he advocate for his Republic of Equals? Would you have
supported Babeuf‟s call for a more radical, more thorough going equality?
2. What kind of society did Robespierre wish to create in revolutionary France? How did his vision
compare with the one implied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen? What is
significant about the differences?
3. To what extent did Robespierre adopt a Rousseauian view of democracy and political life?
Robespierre claimed that democracy was sustained by "virtue." What does he mean by virtue? To
what extent was he referring to the civic virtue of classical republicanism? Do you agree with
Robespierre‟s assessment of virtue? Why or why not?
4. Putting to the side for the moment the means Robespierre used to defend and advance his political
ideas, would you have supported his conception of democracy? Why or why not?
5. In order to finish the "war of liberty against tyranny," Robespierre said that one must "lead the
people by reason, and the people's enemies by terror." How did he define "terror" and justify its
usage? In your view, does the use of terror betray or defend the ideals of the revolution? Is it
possible to be reasonable and democratic with some fellow citizens, yet employ terror with other
citizens?
6. In the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution, Robespierre was remembered as an evil and
radical zealot. From today's perspective, how radical were his ideas and methods? Was he evil? Or
was he a man before his time?
7. Contrary to Robespierre's assessment, some historians have concluded that the ideals of
liberalism/democracy and nationalism are actually in opposition to each other. Using
Robespierre‟s speech and life as evidence, how might you explain the relationship between
democracy and nationalism?
As the French Revolution moved to the left, its supporters attempted to articulate standards of
conduct that exemplified republican dedication. The next three documents illustrate the connections
made between personal conduct, economic values, and political "morality." In the first document the
sans-culottes of Paris define themselves. The term sans-culottes referred to the trousers worn by
ordinary workers and shopkeepers, in contrast to the knee breeches favored by aristocrats. As the
document indicates, the Parisians who considered themselves sans-culottes believed in democracy, in
virtuous conduct, and in direct action to support a revolution that took power from the rich and
privileged. In the second document, "Gracchus" Babeuf (1760-1797) insists that the revolution ought
to end economic as well as political inequality. The editor of the newspaper The Tribune of the
People, Babeuf represents a socialist strand in the French Revolution. In 1796 he led a group
determined to overthrow the Directory and replace it with leaders committed to economic reform. He
was arrested and executed in 1797. In the third document, Maximilien Robespierre (1758- 1794)
urges the Convention to remove any opponents of the revolution from its midst. He delivered this
speech as a representative of the Committee of Public Safety, the executive body of twelve men that
Revolutions
12
effectively ruled France in this period. The speech offers justification for what became known as the
"reign of terror" during 1793-1794.
Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), known to his contemporaries as "the Incorruptible," remains
one of the most controversial figures of the French Revolution. To his enemies, he was viewed as the
Devil incarnate; to the Parisian masses of 1793, he was seen as the unwavering champion of freedom
and equality. Under his leadership, the French Revolution entered its so-called radical phase
(1792-1794), when as many as 40,000 people were guillotined in order to complete what he viewed
as "the war of liberty against tyranny."
Robespierre was born to a poor family in the French town of Arras in 1758. With the aid of a
scholarship, he studied law in Paris and became enamored with the ideas of Rousseau, especially his
concept of the ultimate and infallible "general will" of the people. After practicing law for several
years, Robespierre was elected to the Estates General in 1789, where he joined the more radical,
pro-democratic Jacobin party. He was an energetic and uncompromising advocate of democratic
reforms, and he won the admiration and support of the Parisian working classes as he rose to
leadership within the Jacobins. In 1793, he was elected to the twelve-member Committee of Public
Safety, where he continued to consolidate his power. Robespierre believed that he understood the
needs and aspirations of the people, as well as the cunning treacheries of their enemies, and he was
willing to adopt extreme measures in order to protect and preserve his vision of the revolution. In
early 1794, he arrested and executed some of his former political allies, but by midyear, his own
position was growing precarious within a divided Committee of Public Safety. In July, his enemies
issued an arrest warrant and Robespierre was tried and guillotined the following day.
Six months prior to his death, when he was at the height of his power, Robespierre gave a speech on
"The Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy" (February 1794). By this time, the
revolutionary armies of France had succeeded in repelling the foreign invaders, but Robespierre still
worried about domestic counterrevolutionaries and spies at home. His speech offers a fascinating
insight into Robespierre's vision of the revolution, as well as his justification for the use of terror. It
also raises some interesting questions about the meaning of the French Revolution, the use of
extremism in defense of liberty, and the relationship between democracy, nationalism, and "virtue.”
What Is a Sans-Culotte?
The sans-culotte... is someone who goes everywhere on foot... and who lives quite simply with his
wife and children, if he has any, on the fourth or fifth floor... If you wish to meet the cream of the
sansculotterie, then visit the garrets of the workers (ouvriers). The sansculotte is useful because he
knows how to plough a field, how to forge, to saw, to file, to cover a roof and how to make shoes. . . .
And since he works, it is certain that you will not find him at the café de Chartres, nor in the dens
where people gamble and plot, nor at the theater de Ia Nation where they are performing l'Ami des
lois... In the evening, he goes to his Section, not powdered and perfumed not elegantly dressed in the
hope of catching the eye of the citizens in the galleries, but to give his unreserved support to sound
resolutions... Besides this, the sans-culotte always has his sword with the edge sharpened to give a
salutary lesson to all trouble-makers. Sometimes he carries his pike with him, and at the first beat of
the drum, he will be seen leaving for the Vendée, for the armée des Alpes or the armée du Nord.
From "Gracchus" Babeuf, Manifesto of the Equals
People of France!
For fifteen centuries you have lived slaves, and therefore unhappy. It is now scarcely six years since
you have begun to revive in the hope of independence, happiness and equality...
Revolutions
13
Equality! First need of nature, first demand of man, and chief bond of all legitimate society! French
people! you have not been more favored than the other nations that vegetate on this wretched globe!
Always and everywhere poor humanity, in the hands of more or less adroit cannibals is the tool of
every ambition, the pasture of every tyranny. Always and everywhere men were lulled by fine
phrases; never and nowhere did they receive the fulfilment with the promise. From time immemorial
we have been hypocritically told: Men are equal: and from time immemorial the insolent weight of
the most degrading and most monstrous inequality has weighed down the human race. Since civilized
society began, this finest possession of humanity has been unanimously recognized, yet not once
realized; equality was only a fair and sterile fiction of the law. Today when it is more loudly claimed,
we are answered: Silence, wretches! real equality is but a chimera: be content with constitutional
equality: you are all equal before the law. Canaille, what more do you want? – What more do we
want? Legislators, governors, rich proprietors, listen in your turn.
We are all equal, are we not? This principle is uncontested: for without being mad one cannot say it is
night when it is day.
Well, henceforward we are going to live and die equal as we were born; we desire real equality or
death: that is what we want.
And we shall have this real equality at all costs. Woe to those who stand between it and us! Woe to
those who resist so strong a desire!
The French Revolution is but the precursor of another revolution, far greater, far more solemn, which
will be the last.
What do we want more than equality in law?
We want this equality not merely written down in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen: we want it in our midst, beneath the roofs of our houses. We will consent to everything for it;
we will make a clean sweep to hold to it alone. Perish, if need be, all the arts as long as we have real
equality!...
We aim at ... the COMMON good or the COMMUNITY OF GOODS! No more private property in
land: The earth is nobody's. We claim, we will the common use of the fruits of the earth: its fruits are
everybody's.
Ancient habits, archaic prejudices again try to prevent the establishment of the Republic of Equals.
The organizing of real equality, the only state which answers all requirements without making
victims or costing sacrifices, perhaps will not at first please everyone. The egoist and ambitious man
will scream with rage. Those who possess unjustly will cry out, injustice! Their exclusive delights,
their solitary pleasures, their personal ease will leave bitter longings in the hearts of some individuals
who have grown effete by their neighbor's toil. Lovers of absolute power, and worthless tools of
arbitrary authority, will find it hard to bring their proud chiefs to the level of equality. Their
short-sight cannot penetrate into the near future of the common good; but what is the power of a few
thousand malcontents against the mass of men, entirely happy and wondering that they sought so
long for what was beneath their hand.
On the morrow of this true revolution they will say: What, was the common good so easy? We had
but to will it. Ah, why did we not will it sooner? Was it necessary to repeat it to us so often? Yes,
Revolutions
14
without doubt, but one man on earth more rich and powerful than his fellows, his equals, shatters the
equilibrium; and crime and unhappiness arise on earth...
People of France, Open your eyes and hearts to the fulness of joy. Recognize and proclaim with us
THE REPUBLIC OF EQUALS.
From Maximilien Robespierre, The Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy (1794)
Some time ago we set forth the principles of our foreign policy; today we come to expound the
principles of our internal policy.
After having proceeded haphazardly for a long time, swept along by the movement of opposing
factions, the representatives of the French people have finally demonstrated a character and a
government... But, up to the very moment when I am speaking, it must be agreed that we have been
guided, amid such stormy circumstances, by the love of good and by the awareness of our country's
needs rather than by an exact theory and by precise rules of conduct, which we did not have even
leisure enough to lay out.
It is time to designate clearly the purposes of the revolution and the point which we wish to attain: It
is time we should examine ourselves the obstacles which yet are between us and our wishes, and the
means most proper to realize them: A consideration simple and important which appears not yet to
have been contemplated. Indeed, how could a base and corrupt government have dared to view
themselves in the mirror of political rectitude? A king, a proud senate, a Caesar1, a Cromwell2; of
these the first care was to cover their dark designs under the cloak of religion, to covenant with every
vice, caress every party, destroy men of probity, oppress and deceive the people in order to attain the
end of their perfidious ambition. If we had not had a task of the first magnitude to accomplish; if all
our concern had been to raise a party or create a new aristocracy, we might have believed, as certain
writers more ignorant than wicked asserted, that the plan of the French revolution was to be found
written in the works of Tacitus3 and of Machiavelli; we might have sought the duties of the
representatives of the people in the history of Augustus4, of Tiberius5, or of Vespasian6, or even in
that of certain French legislators; for tyrants are substantially alike and only differ by trifling shades
of perfidy and cruelty.
For our part we now come to make the whole world partake in your political secrets, in order that all
friends of their country may rally at the voice of reason and public interest, and that the French nation
and her representatives be respected in all countries which may attain a knowledge of their true
principles; and that intriguers who always seek to supplant other intriguers may be judged by public
opinion upon settled and plain principles.
1
Julius Caesae was the Roman general who played a pivotal role in transforming the Roman Republic into
the Roman Empire. After conquering much of Western Europe, he consolidated his power in Rome,
undermining the republican government. He was assassinated by a group of Roman senators, led by Brutus,
who sought to restore the republic.
2
Oliver Cromwell was the English political and military leader who led the Puritan Parliamentary forces in
the revolution against King Charles I, and in the brief establishment of the republican commonwealth.
3
Tacitus was a first and second century C.E. Roman senator and historian. His two major surviving works,
the Annals and the Histories, were an account of early Roman empire.
4
The first Roman emperor, he joined forces with Marc Antony and Marcus Aurelius to form a triumvirate to
rule Rome after the assassination of his uncle, Julius Caesar. He eventually seized power from the other two,
and consolidated the power of the emperor. His rule began the period of Pax Romana, a centuries long
period of relative peace and prosperity.
5
The second Roman emperor after Augustus, and one of the Rome‟s greatest generals.
6
A first century C.E. Roman emperor.
Revolutions
15
Every precaution must early be used to place the interests of freedom in the hands of truth, which is
eternal, rather than in those of men who change; so that if the government forgets the interests of the
people or falls into the hands of men corrupted, according to the natural course of things, the light of
acknowledged principles should unmask their treasons, and that every new faction may read its death
in the very thought of a crime.
Happy the people that attains this end; for, whatever new machinations are plotted against their
liberty, what resources does not public reason present when guaranteeing freedom!
What is the end of our revolution? The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that
eternal justice whose laws have been inscribed, not in marble and stone, but in the hearts of all men,
even in that of the slave who forgets them and in that of the tyrant who denies them.
We seek an order of things in which all the base and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent
and generous passions are awakened by the laws; where ambition becomes the desire to merit glory
and to serve our country; where distinctions are born only of equality itself; where the citizen is
subject to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people, and the people to justice; where our country
assures the well-being of each individual, and where each individual proudly enjoys our country's
prosperity and glory; where every soul grows greater through the continual flow of republican
sentiments, and by the need of deserving the esteem of a great people; where the arts are the
adornments of the liberty which ennobles them and commerce the source of public wealth rather than
solely the monstrous opulence of a few families.
In our land we want to substitute morality for egotism, integrity for formal codes of honor, principles
for customs, a sense of duty for one of mere propriety, the rule of reason for the tyranny of fashion,
scorn of vice for scorn of the unlucky; self-respect for insolence, grandeur of soul for vanity, love of
glory for the love of money, good people in place of good society... which is to say, all the virtues
and all the miracles of the republic in place of all the vices of the monarchy...
What kind of government can realize these wonders? Only a democratic or republican government...
Democracy is not a state in which the people, continually meeting, regulate for themselves all public
affairs, still less is it a state in which a tiny fraction of the people, acting by isolated, hasty, and
contradictory measures, decide the fate of the whole society... Democracy is a state in which the
sovereign people, guided by laws which are of their own making, do for themselves all that they can
do well, and by their delegates do all that they cannot do for themselves...
But, in order to lay the foundations of democracy among us and to consolidate it, in order to arrive at
the peaceful reign of constitutional laws, we must finish the war of liberty against tyranny and safely
cross through the storms of the revolution: that is the goal of the revolutionary system which you
have put in order...
Now, what is the fundamental principle of popular or democratic government, that is to say, the
essential mainspring which sustains it and makes it move? It is virtue. I speak of the public virtue
which worked so many wonders in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce even more
astonishing things in republican France – that virtue which is nothing other than the love of the nation
and its laws...
Since the soul of the Republic is virtue... it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought
to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue... Thus everything that
Revolutions
16
tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human
heart toward the public interest ought to be adopted or established by you. Everything which tends to
concentrate them in the abjection of selfishness, to awaken enjoyment for petty things and scorn for
great ones, ought to be rejected or curbed by you. Within the scheme of the French revolution, that
which is immoral is impolitic, that which is corrupting is counterrevolutionary...
This great purity of the French Revolution's fundamental elements... is precisely what creates our
strength and our weakness: our strength, because it gives us the victory of truth over deception and
the rights of public interest over private interests; our weakness, because it rallies against us all men
who are vicious, all those who in their hearts plan to despoil the people... We must smother the
internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish, [and] in these circumstances, the first maxim
of our policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.
If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time
[both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent.
Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue... It has
been said that terror was the mainspring of despotic government. Does our government, then,
resemble a despotism? Yes! Subdue liberty's enemies by terror, and you will be right, as founders of
the Republic. The government of the revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
Some people would like to govern revolutions by the quibbles of the law courts and treat
conspiracies against the Republic like legal proceedings against private persons. Tyranny kills; liberty
argues. And the code made by the conspirators themselves is the law by which they are judged.
The Democratic Contagion: Women and Slaves Take Up The Call of ALiberty, Equality,
Fraternity@
Read SNT 523-524 ‘Caribbean Societies…’ and the following texts.
Study Questions
1. Do you think it is true that both Jefferson=s Declaration of Independence and the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen meant the term Athe rights of man@ literally, not to
include women? Do you think they meant to exclude people of color from the Arights of man?@
What evidence do you have for your conclusions? How did both Gouges= Declaration of the
Rights of Woman and Citizen and the Haitian Revolution challenge the French Revolution and its
faithfulness to its ideals? In your judgment, is it possible, over the long run, to successfully
exclude some groups of human beings from the Arights of man?@
2. Olympe de Gouges asserts that gender inequality is not "natural." What is the basis for her
argument? What is the importance of this argument? How does it fit with the philosophy of the
Enlightenment? Olympe de Gouges also claims that the initial stage of the French Revolution
produced a "more pronounced scorn, a more marked disdain" for women. Why might this be true?
3. Compare the articles in the Declaration of the Rights of Women with those in the Rights of Man.
What are the commonalities? What are the differences? In your view, is de Gouges arguing for
equal rights or for special rights for women? According to de Gouges, women have done "more
harm than good" in reinforcing their inferior position. How does she explain this? How do you
assess her argument?
4. Using her "Form for a Social Contract between Men and Women" as a guide, how would you infer
the status and position of most married women? How does her form attempt to correct these
problems? Would you accept this kind of contract in your own marriage relationship?
5. How does Toussaint L=Ouverture explain the origins of the slave uprising in the letter to the
Revolutions
17
Minister of Marine? Toussaint farther explains his failure to maintain alliance between blacks and
"men of color." What caused this failure, and why is it significant? What might it tell us about
identities on Haiti? In the letter to the Directory, how does Toussaint refute the charge that the
"gross negroes" of Haiti are "incapable of distinguishing between unrestrained license and austere
liberty?@ Why does he suggest that the French are hypocritical in their assessments? What impact
does this have?
6. Why does Toussaint wish to militarize agricultural society? How do his actions and explanations
compare with Robespierre's justification for terror?
7. The revolution in Haiti was clearly made more complex because of race perceptions. How does
Toussaint see the issue of race? How does he view whites? How does he view blacks? In your
assessment, was Toussaint a man guided more by principle or by pragmatic expediency? Be sure
to reinforce your conclusions with evidence.
A Feminist Perspective on the Revolution
Olympe de Gouges (1745-1793) was the outspoken and unyielding feminist leader of the French
Revolution who demanded that the revolutionary liberal reforms be extended to include gender
equality in all aspects of public and private life. Born to a modest working-class family in 1745, de
Gouges at the age of sixteen married a wealthier older man who died shortly after the birth of their
only son. Vowing never to remarry, she moved to Paris in 1788, and with the funds bequeathed to her
by her husband, she decided to become a writer. When the revolution broke out the following year,
she immediately embraced the ideals and goals of the liberals but was disappointed when the French
Assembly failed to expand the new rights and liberties to women. She became a more ardent feminist
and a vocal critic of the liberals, but her ideas on gender equality were considered radical and were
never fully accepted by any group. When she dared to criticize the centralization of power under the
rule of Robespierre and the Jacobins, she was branded a counterrevolutionary and guillotined in
1793.
A prolific writer, de Gouges produced more than thirty political pamphlets during the French
Revolution, championing such diverse causes as the abolition of slavery, the creation of a national
theater, and the extension of paved roads. But her primary passion was equal rights for women. In
the Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen (1791), de Gouges provided an
interesting view of the role and status of women in France in late-eighteenth-century France. Taking
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as her inspiration, she wrote a strongly worded
counter-declaration that blamed gender inequality on both male chauvinism and female complicity.
Although her efforts to promote women's rights were largely unsuccessful, her admonition to women
that "it is in your power to free yourselves" has been heralded as one of the defining moments in
feminist history.
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN AND THE FEMALE CITIZEN (1791)
Olympe de Gouges
Man, are you capable of being just? It is a woman who poses the question; you will not deprive her of
that right at least. Tell me, what gives you sovereign empire to oppress my sex? Your strength? Your
talents? Observe the Creator in his wisdom; survey in all her grandeur that nature with whom you
seem to want to be in harmony, and give me, if you dare, an example of this tyrannical empire. Go
back to animals, consult the elements, study plants, finally glance at all the modifications of organic
matter, and surrender to the evidence when I offer you the means; search, probe, and distinguish, if
you can, the sexes in the administration of nature. Everywhere you will find them mingled;
everywhere they cooperate in harmonious togetherness in this immortal masterpiece.
Revolutions
18
Man alone has raised his exceptional circumstances to a principle. Bizarre, blind, bloated with
science and degenerated B in a century of enlightenment and wisdom B into the crassest ignorance, he
wants to command as a despot a sex which is in full possession of its intellectual faculties; he
pretends to enjoy the Revolution and to claim his rights to equality in order to say nothing more about
it.
Mothers, daughters, sisters [and] representatives of the nation demand to be constituted into a
national assembly. Believing that ignorance, omission, or scorn for the rights of woman are the only
causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments [the women] I have resolved to
set forth in a solemn declaration the natural inalienable and sacred rights of woman in order that this
declaration constantly exposed before all the members of the society will ceaselessly remind them of
their rights and duties...
Consequently the sex that is as superior in beauty as it is in courage during the suffering of maternity
recognizes and declares in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being the following
Rights of Woman and of Female Citizens.
1. Woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights. Social distinctions can be based only on
the common utility.
2. The purpose of any political association is the conservation of the natural rights of woman and
man; these rights are liberty, property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.
3. The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially with the nation, which is nothing but the union of
woman and man; no body and no individual can exercise any authority which does not come
expressly from it [the nation].
4. Liberty and justice consist of restoring all that belongs to others; thus, the only limits on the
exercise of the natural rights of woman are perpetual male tyranny; these limits are to be reformed
by the laws of nature and reason...
6. The laws must be the expression of the general will; all female and male citizens must contribute
either personally or through their representatives to its formation; it must be the same for all: male
and female citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, must be equally admitted to all honors,
positions, and public employment according to their capacity and without other distinctions
besides those of their virtues and talents.
7. No woman is an exception: she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases deter mined by law.
Women, like men, obey this rigorous law...
17. Property belongs to both sexes whether united or separate; for each it is an inviolable and sacred
right; no one can he deprived of it, since it is the true patrimony of nature, unless the legally
determined public need obviously dictates it, and then only with a just and prior indemnity.
Woman, wake up; the tocsin7 of reason is being heard throughout the whole uni verse; discover your
rights. The powerful empire of nature is no longer surrounded by prejudice, fanaticism, superstition,
and lies. The flame of truth has dispersed all the clouds of folly and usurpation. Enslaved man has
multiplied his strength and needs recourse to yours to break his chains. Having become free, he has
7
An alarm bell; a warning signal.
Revolutions
19
become unjust to his companion. Oh, women, women! When will you cease to be blind? What
advantage have you received from the Revolution? A more pronounced scorn, a more marked
disdain... [C]ourageously oppose the force of reason to the empty pretensions of superiority; unite
yourselves beneath the standards of philosophy; deploy all the energy of your character, and you will
soon see these haughty men, not groveling at your feet as servile adorers, but proud to share with you
the treasures of the Supreme Being. Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to
free yourselves; you have only to want to.
Women have done more harm than good. Constraint and dissimulation have been their lot. What
force has robbed them of, ruse returned to them; they had recourse to all the resources of their
charms, and the most irreproachable persons did not resist them. Poison and the sword were both
subject to them... anything which characterizes the folly of men, profane and sacred, all have been
subject to the cupidity and ambition of this sex, formerly contemptible and respected, and since the
revolution, respectable and scorned.
Under the Old Regime, all was vicious, all was guilty... A woman only had to be beautiful or
amiable; when she possessed these two advantages, she saw a hundred fortunes at her feet. If she did
not profit from them, she had a bizarre character or a rare philosophy which made her scorn wealth;
then she was deemed to be like a crazy woman; the most indecent made herself respected with gold...
[A]nd at an age when the slave has lost all her charms, what will become of this unfortunate woman?
The victim of scorn, even the doors of charity are closed to her; she is poor and old, they say; why did
she not know how to make her fortune.
Reason finds other examples that are even more touching. A young, inexperienced woman, seduced
by a man whom she loves, will abandon her parents to follow him; the ingrate will leave her after a
few years, and the older she has become with him, the more inhuman is his inconstancy; if she has
children, he will likewise abandon them. If he is rich, he will consider himself excused from sharing
his fortune with his noble victims.
Marriage is the tomb of trust and love. The married woman can with impunity give bastards to her
husband, and also give them the wealth which does not belong to them. The woman who is unmarried
has only one feeble right; ancient and inhuman laws refuse to her for her children the right to the
name and the wealth of their father; no new laws have been made in this matter.
[Dr. Gouges proposes a new marriage contract between man and woman]
We, [name of man] and [name of woman], moved by our own will, unite ourselves for the duration of
our lives, and for the duration of our mutual inclinations, under the following conditions: We intend
and wish to make our wealth communal, mean while reserving to ourselves the right to divide it in
favor of our children and of those toward whom we might have a particular inclination, mutually
recognizing that our property belongs directly to our children, from whatever bed they come, and that
all of them without distinction have the right to hear the name of the fathers and mothers who have
acknowledged them, and we are charged to subscribe to the law which punished the renunciation of
one's own blood. We likewise obligate ourselves, in case of separation, to divide our wealth and to set
aside in advance the portion the law indicates for our children, and in the event of a perfect union, the
one who dies will divest himself of half his property in his children's favor, and if one dies childless,
the survivor will inherit by right, unless the dying person has disposed of half the common property
in favor of one who he judged deserving. That is approximately the formula for the marriage act I
propose for execution.
Revolutions
20
I offer a foolproof way to elevate the soul of women; it is to join them to all the activities of man; if
man persists in finding this way impractical, let him share his fortune with woman, not at his caprice,
but by the wisdom of laws. Prejudice falls, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights. Add
to this the marriage of priests and the strengthening of the king on his throne, and the French
government cannot fail.
The Haitian Revolution
Toussaint L'Ouverture was the founder of the second independent nation in the New World and the
leader of the most successful slave revolt in western history. He was born on a plantation in the
French colony of Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) and lived his first thirty-four years as a slave. His
experience in bondage was less brutal and more fortunate than that of most slaves in Haiti, and in
1777 he was granted his freedom. When the slave revolt broke out in 1791, Toussaint first helped his
former master to escape before he joined the attacks on other plantations. He soon emerged as a
principal leader among the former slaves and was determined to preserve their liberty from slavery.
When France and Spain went to war in 1793, Toussaint and his fighters initially sided with the
Spaniards of Santo Domingo (now the Dominican Republic), and they scored several victories
against their former masters. But a year later, Toussaint shifted his allegiances back to France after
the Jacobin-controlled government had abolished slavery. In return for his assistance, the French
government named him lieutenant governor of the colony. Toussaint proved himself a skilled
diplomat and master politician who eventually dismissed the island's governor and placed himself in
command. But when Napoleon seized power in France, the government announced its decision to
restore Saint-Domingue as a profitable colony, which also meant a restoration of slavery on the
island. In 1802, French forces invaded Haiti, and after first declaring their willingness to negotiate,
they secretly arrested Toussaint and sent him to life confinement in France, where he died in 1803. In
that same year, after continued bloody resistance, French forces quit Saint-Domingue, and Haiti won
its liberty and independence.
The readings from the Haitian Revolution cover a seven-year time span that highlights the tension
between Toussaint's idealistic principles and the pragmatic policies he felt compelled to adopt. In the
short Proclamation of 29 August 1793, Toussaint makes clear his goals and attempts to encourage
others to join him, in his letter to the French Minister of Marine (13 April 1799), Toussaint further
explains his goals and actions to the French government now controlled by the more conservative
Directory, which viewed Toussaint with suspicion and disfavor. In a similar letter to the Directory
(28 October 1797), Toussaint attempted to reaffirm his commitment to the ideals of liberty while also
exposing the double standards by which colonial nations have condemned the actions of the
colonized. The last document, the Forced Labor Decree of 1800, contains the essence of Toussaint's
social and economic policy, which was centered on the militarization of Haitian society. Although
Toussaint's forced -labor policy did help restore the economy of the island, it was perceived by many
to contradict his stance on liberty, and it significantly weakened his support among the black working
classes. Consequently, when French forces invaded in 1802, Toussaint was unable to rally sufficient
support, and he was arrested and sent into exile. But although Haitians were unhappy with
Toussaint, they were not willing to lose their liberty to the French. Fighting soon resumed, and when
the French recognized the futility of their efforts and withdrew their forces, Haiti proclaimed its
independence in 1803.
SPEECHES AND LETTERS OF TOUSSAINT L=OUVERTURE ON THE HAITIAN
REVOLUTION (1793-1800)
Revolutions
21
Proclamation of 29 August 1793
Brothers and Friends:
I am Toussaint L'Ouverture. My name is perhaps known to you. I have undertaken to avenge you. I
want liberty and equality to reign throughout St. Domingue. I am working toward that end. Come and
join me, brothers, and combat by our side for the same cause.
Letter to the Minister of Marine, 13 April 1799
The first successes obtained in Europe by the partisans of liberty over the agents of despotism were
not slow to ignite the sacred fire of patriotism in the souls of all Frenchmen in St. Domingue. At that
time, men's hopes turned to France, whose first steps toward her regeneration promised them a
happier future... [The whites in St. Domingue] wanted to escape from their arbitrary government, but
they did not intend the revolution to destroy either the prejudices that debased the men of color 8 or
the slavery of the blacks, whom they held in dependency by the strongest law. In their opinion, the
benefits of the French regeneration were only for them. They proved it by their obstinate refusal to
allow the people of color to enjoy their political rights and the slaves to enjoy the liberty that they
claimed. Thus, while whites were erecting another form of government upon the rubble of despotism,
the men of color and the blacks united themselves in order to claim their political existence; the
resistance of the former having become stronger, it was necessary for the latter to rise up in order to
obtain [political recognition] by force of arms. The whites, fearing that this legitimate resistance
would bring general liberty to St. Domingue, sought to separate the men of color from the cause of
the blacks in accordance with Machiavelli's principle of divide and rule. Renouncing their claims
over the men of color, they accepted the April Decree [1792].9 As they had anticipated, the men of
color, many of whom are slave holders, had only been using the blacks to gain on political
commands. Fearing the enfranchisement of the blacks, the men of color deserted their comrades in
arms, their companions in misfortune, and aligned themselves with the whites to subdue them.
Treacherously abandoned, the blacks fought for some time against the reunited whites and the men of
color; but, pressed on all sides, losing hope, they accepted the offers of the Spanish king, who, having
at that time declared war on France, offered freedom to those blacks of St. Domingue who would join
his armies. Indeed, the silence of pre-Republican France on the long-standing claims for their natural
rights made by the most interested, the noblest, the most useful portion of the population of St.
Domingue... extinguished all glimmer of hope in the hearts of the black slaves and forced them, in
spite of themselves, to throw themselves into the arms of a protective power that offered the only
benefit for which they would fight. More unfortunate than guilty, they turned their arms against their
fatherland...
Such with the crimes of these blacks, which have earned them to this day the insulting titles of
brigands, insurgents, rebels... At that time, I was one of the leaders of these auxiliary troops, and I can
say without fear of contradiction that I owed my elevation in these circumstances only to the
confidence that I had inspired in my brothers by the virtues for which I am still honored today...
Letter to the Directory, 28 October 1797
Second Assertion [made by a critic in the French Assembly]: "Everyone is agreed in portraying the
Colony in the most shocking state of disorder and groaning under the military government. And what
8
By "men of color" Toussajnt refers to the mulattos, or people of mixed racial ancestry. In Haiti their status
and position in society was barely above that of blacks.
9
In the April Decree of 1792, the French Assembly, now dominated by liberals from the business and
commercial classes, issued a law that gave full citizenship to people of color but nor to blacks or slaves.
Some historians contend that this measure was intended to weaken Toussainr's forces and allow white
plantation owners to retake control of the island.
Revolutions
22
a military government! In whose hands is it confined? In that of ignorant and gross negroes,
incapable of distinguishing between unrestrained license and austere liberty."
This shocking disorder in which the Commission10 found St. Domingue was not the consequence of
the liberty given to the blacks, but the result of the uprising of thirty Ventose [mulattos] 11, for prior to
this period, order and harmony reigned in all Republican territory as far as the absence of laws would
allow. All citizens blindly obeyed the orders of General Laveaux; his will was the national will for
them, and they submitted to him as a man invested with the authority emanating from the generous
nation that had shattered their chains.
If, upon the arrival of the Commission, St. Domingue groaned under a military government, this
power was not in the hands of the blacks; they were subordinate to it, and they only executed the
orders of General Laveaux. These were the blacks who, when France was threatened with the loss of
this Colony, employed their arms and their weapons to conserve it, to reconquer the greatest part of
its territory that treason had handed over to the Spanish and English... These were the blacks who...,
flew to the rescue of General Laveaux... and who, by repressing the audacious rebels who wished to
destroy the national representation, restored it to its rightful depository.
Such was the conduct of those blacks in whose hands,... the military government of St. Domingue
found itself, such are those negroes accused of being ignorant and gross; undoubtedly they are,
because without education there can only be ignorance and grossness. But must one impute to them
the crime of this educational deficiency or, more correctly, accuse those who prevented them by the
most atrocious punishments from obtaining it? And are only civilized people capable of
distinguishing between good and evil, of having notions of charity and justice? The men of St.
Domingue have been deprived of an education; but even so, they no longer remain in a state of
nature, and because they haven't arrived at the degree of perfection that education bestows, they do
not merit being classed apart from the rest of man kind, being confused with animals...
Undoubtedly, one can reproach the inhabitants of St. Domingue, including the blacks, for many
faults, even terrible crimes. But even in France, where the limits of sociability are clearly drawn,
doesn't one see its inhabitants, in the struggle between despotism and liberty, going to all the excesses
for which the blacks are reproached by their enemies? The fury of the two parties has been equal in
St. Domingue; and if the excesses of the blacks in these critical moments haven't exceeded those
committed in Europe, must not an impartial judge pronounce in favor of the former? Since it is our
enemies themselves who present us as ignorant and gross, aren't we more excusable than those who,
unlike us, were not deprived of the advantages of education and civilization?
Forced Labor Decree, 12 October 1800
Citizens,
After putting an end to the war in the South, our first duty has been to return thanks to the Almighty;
which we have done with the zeal becoming so great a blessing: Now, Citizens, it is necessary to
consecrate all our moments to the prosperity of St. Domingo, to the public tranquility, and
10
In 1796, a group of civil commissioners arrived from France, instructed by the Directory to ascertain the
situation and to begin to reestablish full French authority over the island. By this time, Toussaint had
privately come to the conclusion that the liberty of blacks could be guaranteed only under an independent
black government.
11
Refers to an attempted coup in 1796 by the mulattos against French Governor Laveaux. The plotters were
thwarted by Toussaint and his army, and a grateful (and militarily weak) Governor Laveaux rewarded
Toussaint by naming him lieutenant governor.
Revolutions
23
consequently, to the welfare of our fellow citizens.
But, to attain this end in an effectual manner, all the civil and military officers must make it their
business, everyone in their respective department, to perform the duties of their offices with devotion
and attachment to the public welfare.
You will easily conceive, Citizens, that Agriculture is the support of Government; since it is the
foundation of Commerce and Wealth, the source of Arts and Industry, it keeps everybody employed,
as being the mechanism of all Trades. And, from the moment that every individual becomes useful, it
creates public tranquility; disturbances disappear together with idleness, by which they are commonly
generated, and everyone peaceably enjoys the fruits of his industry. Officers civil and military, this is
what you must aim at; such is the plan to be adopted, which I prescribe to you; and I declare in the
most peremptory manner, that it shall be enforced: My country demands this salutary step; I am
bound to it by my office, and the security of our liberties demands it imperiously. But in order to
secure our liberties, which are indispensable to our happiness, every individual must be usefully
employed, so as to contribute to the public good, and the general tranquility.
Considering that the soldier, who has sacred duties to perform, as being the safe guard of the people...
is strictly subordinate to his superior officers: It is of great importance that overseers, drivers and
field-negroes, who in like manner have their superiors, should conduct themselves as officers... and
soldiers in whatever may concern them.
Considering that when an officer... or a soldier deviates from his duty he is delivered over to a
court-martial to he tried and punished according to the laws of the Re public, for in military service
no rank is to be favored when guilty: The overseers, drivers and field-negroes, as subject to constant
Labor, and equally subordinate to their superiors, shall be punished in like manner, in case of failure
in their respective duties.
Whereas a soldier cannot leave his company, his battalion, or half-brigade, and enter into another,
without the severest punishment, unless provided with a commission in due form from his Chief;
field-negroes are forbidden to quit their respective plantations without a lawful permission. This is by
no means attended to, since they change their place of Labor as they please, go to and fro, and pay
not the least attention to agriculture, though the only means of furnishing sustenance to the military,
their protectors. They even conceal themselves in towns, in villages, and mountains, where... they
live by plunder, and in a state of open hostility to society...