I

There has been a harmful confusion in the use of the words faction, party, conspiracy, and plot; it is useful—especially at a time when these terms are used so frequently—to restrict each of them to a specific and proper meaning, in order to achieve mutual understanding. If language does not ensure this advantage, it ceases to be that fortunate discovery which most powerfully contributes to raising man above the brute and to heralding the long-term improvement of the species. Instead, it becomes a futile invention or a dangerous artifice. Men live in association, either in the form of a primary or secondary democracy with a government that maintains liberty and equality, or else in a collective under aristocratic or monarchical rule, which holds them in slavery. In both conditions, one must consider principles and persons. The word faction seems more suited to express a relation to principles; it carries more consistency and has been more frequently used in this sense. The word party has more often been used, in contemporary writings, to express a relation to persons. It would suffice simply to stick to these meanings. In this text, the word faction will constantly and exclusively express a relation to the principles of government; the word party will likewise constantly and exclusively refer to persons. A man is a factionist as soon as he is in opposition to the principles of the government. But for a faction to exist, several men must be animated by this spirit; a single man does not constitute a faction. It is the same for parties; a single man does not form a party.

II

In a state of society, citizens can be divided into two classes: 1)Patriots who are devoted to the Government; and 2) Factionists who seek to overthrow it in order to establish a form of domination. There are two kinds of faction: aristocratic and monarchical, and there can be no others. Each of these kinds is subdivided into several varieties. Patriots often divide into two parties: one supports the individuals in power, while the other rejects them. Each of these parties is also subdivided into various types. In a state of collective existence under domination, the enslaved are likewise divided into two classes: 1)Patriots who, despite their chains, strive to overthrow aristocratic or monarchical domination in order to establish a Government on its ruins; 2) Factionists who work to maintain the existing domination, or to replace it with another—namely, under monarchical domination, to substitute aristocratic rule, and under aristocratic domination, to substitute monarchical rule. These individuals are factionists not because of their efforts to overthrow the existing domination, but because of their efforts to establish another form of domination that is equally opposed to the principles of Government. Factionists who aim to preserve the existing domination often divide into parties: some remain loyal to the current rulers, while others seek to overthrow them in order to replace them within the same system of domination.

III

There may be anarchists in a society or in a collective; there may exist certain individuals whom a flaw of temperament or upbringing renders equally incapable of enduring either the salutary restraint of Government or the oppressive yoke of domination. But there can be no anarchist faction; there cannot be a group of individuals who conceive of and desire a permanent gathering of persons without any relations between the members of that gathering. As soon as there is a gathering, it becomes a moral necessity that the relationships among its members be defined in one of two forms: Government or domination. There is—and can only be—a moment of anarchy during the transition from domination to Government, or vice versa; anarchy, properly speaking, cannot endure. A gathering without relations among its members is a moral impossibility; it is an absurdity that, not entering the mind, cannot possibly enter the will of anyone. The phrase anarchist faction is a contradiction in terms.

It has been used and repeated—like so many other expressions—without any value or meaning, by the parrots of both factions, just as they repeat trinity in their catechism or liberty under a constitution that establishes monarchy or aristocracy—at best a futile use of language, if not a pernicious artifice.

IV

In society or in a collective, the most numerous class is always the patriotic one. It can only wish, in the first case, to maintain—and in the second, to establish—a Government that upholds liberty and equality. For this class, a Government is everything. It is the source of all improvements in its intellectual, moral, political, and physical condition—through education, the development of sentiment, the absence of oppression, and the increase of absolute individual well-being, resulting from enhanced intelligence and a better distribution of labor, regardless of differences in relative comfort. A system of domination, on the other hand, weighs upon it with every form of physical, political, moral, and intellectual suffering: by darkening the understanding, repressing sentiment, degrading it to the state of purely passive beings, and ultimately imposing excessive labor—unpaid or poorly paid—as a direct consequence. That is all it has to fear. The traveler sees these truths at a glance; the historian finds them in every memoir; reflection reveals them to philosophers; and every honest soul ardently desires their sincere application to the nation—even if it requires the sacrifice of personal advantages rooted in prejudice. But an even stronger instinct makes each individual within the great mass feel them. Hence come—and will always come—insurrections at more or less frequent intervals, until, through a possible perfection of the human species and society, Governments are firmly established and beyond reach of subversion. In societies, there are rarely factious among the governed; but the Governors often are. They tend to exploit the advantages of their position to alter the Government—an unfortunate consequence of that human weakness which leads men, when not sufficiently enlightened, to desire the growth or preservation of power. In collectives under domination, the rulers are essentially factious. They maintain their rule as long as possible by rejecting, obscuring, and slandering even the idea of a true Government.

V

In both society and collective gatherings, there are almost always parties among the factionists and among the patriots. The latter, though in agreement on principles, often disagree regarding the individuals in power. Some have perceived certain circumstances that others are unaware of. Thus, differing considered opinions emerge about the same individuals, apart from the diversity of personal feeling that arises from sympathy or antipathy, from similarities or contrasts in characterand demeanor, and also apart from differences stemming from other social relationships. Patriots, factionists, and partisans all conspire or plot.

VI

To conspire is to aspire together toward the same goal: our wishes conspire toward your return, everything conspires to my happiness. Applied to politics, conspiracy is, in itself, morally neutral; it is the aim of the conspiracy that determines its nature. One may conspire for or against principles—the former type of conspiracy is as virtuous as the latter is vicious. It would be useful to have distinct words to express conspiracies related to principles and those related to individuals, and likewise to distinguish between virtuous and vicious conspiracies within each category. But in its current state, language does not offer sufficient resources for this distinction. People may conspire without knowing one another, without any communication, without ever having had any prior relationship. Conspiracy may occur from one end of a state to the other, or from one end of the globe to the other. Conspiracy is simply a disposition of the soul.

VII

To conspire is to make a mutual promise, a reciprocal oath to help one another achieve, through a public and external act, a common political goal. The promise or mutual commitment may be verbal or written, conditional or absolute, provoked or spontaneous, bought or disinterested. Conspiracy is, in itself, as neutral as plot; it is the object of the conspiracy that gives it its moral character. A conspiracy can be either for or against the principles of government: the first kind is as virtuous as the second is criminal. A conspiracy can be for or against governing or ruling individuals: the moral quality of those individuals determines that of the conspiracy. It is false to claim that the success or failure of a conspiracy unfairly distributes admiration or scorn over the memory of the conspirators through the ages. That is a prejudice propagated or maintained by aristocratic or monarchical rulers to restrain noble spirits—souls more devoted to their reputation than to their lives.

Respect surrounds the Sixteen—conspirators who, according to a royalist historian, were as feared by the leaders of the League, the Lorrainer and the Spaniard, as they were by the heir to the crown —because they aimed at a democratic government. Respect surrounds them even though a new coalition of parliamentarians, Sorbonne scholars, and high bourgeois—who secretly still favored inequality—suddenly formed among them, split off, and then established tactics and intrigues designed to weaken them, at which they were more skilled. In the end, these men handed themselves over to Mayenne to betray the democrats, causing the generous enterprise to fail.

Contempt surrounds the Count of Brissac and his staff—conspirators who, upon seeing the growing strength of public spirit after the fall of the Sixteen and the people’s subsequent indifference to a Revolution benefiting only a handful of aristocrats, secretly negotiated with the King of Navarre. They sold him Paris for a Marshal’s baton and pensions, delivered him its gates, and thus this flat, aristocratic coalition of parliamentarians, Sorbonne scholars, and high bourgeois plunged once again into slavery—dragging the rest of France with them. Respect surrounds the people of La Rochelle and Guiton—conspirators for the establishment of a Republic whose system might have extended over all Gaul. For this sacred cause, they endured one of the longest and most brutal sieges. Guiton even offered his life and body to the most starving among them to prolong the fight in hope of external aid. Respect surrounds them despite their lack of success. Hatred and contempt cover the conspirators Louis XIII, Richelieu, and his horde—bathing in the blood of these unfortunate republicans, feasting on their provisions, and committing all sorts of cruelties to gain over their exhausted remains a rule that bored the first, who was so burdened by it that he debased himself before the second, who was willing to relieve him. Meanwhile, the second was in turn equally exhausted, his soul as cowardly as it was fierce, constantly prey to such fears that he dared not move from one room to another without guards.

Respect surrounded the conspirators who stormed the Bastille on July 14th, those who brought Louis XVI and the Constituent Assembly back to Paris on October 6th—even had they failed. Hatred and contempt cover the conspirators Louis XVI and Bouillé for the massacre at Nancy; and the conspirators Bailly, Lafayette, and the constitutional revisionists for the massacre at the Champde-Mars, despite their horrible success. Respect would surround the conspirators of August 10th, even had they been crushed by the Swiss Guards and the fine grenadiers; the conspirators of May 31st, even if the ascendancy of reason and the necessity of preserving the Republic had not brought them success. And contempt would cover the conspirators of Thermidor and of Vendémiaire, enemies of the Republic, even had they succeeded. The riches of eloquence, the charms of poetry—so often in the service of rulers—do not alter the sense of natural justice; nothing corrupts that precious instinct which commands us to respect the defender of liberty and stirs our hearts against those who, even successfully, betray the cause of nations, the cause of humanity. Our current language lacks precise and distinct terms exclusively devoted to describing these various kinds of conspiracies. One might use federation in a positive sense, league in a negative sense, when dealing with principles; union in a positive sense, cabal in a negative one, when dealing with people. One cannot conspire without knowing one another—or at least without corresponding, by voice or in writing, directly or indirectly. Sometimes the conspirators are in the same place; sometimes they are scattered from one end of the state to the other.

VIII

One can transform a conspiracy into a conjuration through several methods. Those who bring about the change, those through whose intervention the conspirators become the conspirators, are the heroes or the criminals, since without them, without their transformative actions, there would have been no conjuration, and the conspirators would have remained simple conspirators.

IX

The conjuration, once formed by this change, has different degrees of consistency at different times. There are the plans for actions, and there is their execution: there are preparatory acts, intermediate acts, and the final act.

Those who move the conjuration from one degree to another—from the plan of actions to their execution, or from the preparatory acts to the intermediate acts, or from the intermediate acts to the final act, or from certain plans to others, or from certain preparatory or intermediate acts to others— are still the heroes or the criminals, since, without them, the stationary conjuration would not have progressed in either plans or actions, whether preparatory, intermediate, or final.

X

The conjuration, at any time and at any degree, must be considered in terms of the means that make the final act possible, or that reduce it to a daydream, chatter, or scribbling. It is the possibility of the final act, through the means at the disposal of the conspirators, that makes the conjuration a serious matter and worthy of occupying a nation and posterity. It is not enough to dream of a revolution, to discuss it with three or four patriots while promising to help one another if circumstances allow for its possibility, in order to receive the honors due to the benefactors of humankind; one must either have executed it, or after taking preparatory actions and gathering solid means that make the success of the conjuration highly probable, one must at least have begun executing the intermediate acts. It is not enough to dream of a revolution, to discuss it with three or four accomplices while promising to help one another if circumstances allow for its possibility, in order to receive the punishments due to criminals of lese-humanity; one must have executed it, or after taking preparatory actions and gathering solid means that make the success of the conjuration highly probable, one must at least have begun executing the intermediate acts.

I have seen a royalist speaker say that in conspiracies, in the absence of deeds, the intention should be punished. This proposition is not that of a Barbarian. Barbarians do not possess the civility of civilized men, but they are not devoid of natural feelings, and they do not dilute them with vain subtleties. It is the proposition of one of those men whose moral organs are reversed, like the physical organs of those monstrous children who have their esophagus at their backside; it is the proposition of one of those men who, thus organized against nature, has lived in a state contrary to nature. Indeed, it is within dominations that this maxim was invented. Tyrants sought to impose fear through the threat of punishments, and what punishments! I will not go back to the bull of Phalaris, but we have all seen, under the reign of humanity, human parliamentarians order, at the request of the human Louis XV, that a man be clamped by his nipples and other sensitive parts of his body, that molten lead be poured onto his bleeding wounds, and that eight horses then rip apart all the nerves of his four limbs through quartering. His painful and agonizing screams still echo in our ears. This fear of punishments for the slightest offense was not enough for them; they devised ways to make people fear even their thoughts, to add to terror the guilt of conscience; they went so far as to make man responsible for his dreams, and they were aided by priests and judges degraded by slavery. But in a society, there can be no rewards or punishments distributed in such a manner. There must be 1) facts, and 2) intent. With intent but no facts, just as with facts but no intent, there are neither punishments nor rewards; both are graduated according to the facts.

XI

In every gathering, the essentially patriotic people are in permanent conspiracy for a Government against domination: from time to time, there are conspiracies. Their intervals are determined by the concurrence of several constants. The factious rulers are in permanent conspiracy and conjuration against the principles of the Government and against all means that would lead to its establishment. In every society, some factious individuals, among whom we can unfortunately almost always count rulers, are in permanent conspiracy against the principles of governments. There is very rarely conjuration on the part of the governed factious, but there is ordinarily permanent conjuration on the part of these factious rulers. In every gathering, the factious, party men, are in permanent conspiracy against the rulers, and from time to time, there are conspiracies on their part. In every society, the parties among the patriots conspire against the rulers, and sometimes this leads to conjuration.

XII

In any society where the rulers fulfill their duties, conspiracies and conjurations are not dangerous. If it is the governed who attack the principles of the Government, a vast majority defends them. If it is patriots, patriotic men, who mistakenly attack these good rulers, a vast majority defends them.

XIII

In any society where the rulers do not fulfill their duties, there are two cases. The conspirators and conspirators are either rulers or the governed. If it is the rulers who attack the principles of the Government, the conspiracy is dangerous; for although a vast majority supports these principles, the means of seduction and force employed by these factious rulers can temporarily harm the public good.

XIV

If it is the governed who are the conspirators and conspirators, or if they are factious individuals who want to overthrow the Government, they are not dangerous, as we have seen, because a vast majority supports it against their weak attacks. Or if it is patriots who, not as party men, but as patriots, attack the bad rulers who are enemies of the principles of the Government; in this case, the conjuration, far from being dangerous, is salutary, it is desirable; there are too few of this kind. It saves the public good.

XV

In these circumstances, the great art of factious rulers is to make people believe that the generous patriots are themselves factious, to make them so, if not in reality, at least in appearance. They would not dare to claim that conspiring against their persons is conspiring against the State. This maxim is reserved for dominations, where it is proven to the incredulous by tearing them apart, just as the non-existence of the antipodes was proven to other skeptics by burning them. One would laugh in the face of the sophists in their pay if they were to propose such a statement; even children today know that the rulers are not the Government, and therefore that conspiring against the rulers is not conspiring against the Government. In this predicament, they resort to all possible tricks to create some circumstances or inspire certain acts from which it can be inferred, as it suits their interests, that these generous patriots who attack their persons also want to attack the Government.

XVI

The number of conspiracies in any society is the measure of the qualities of the rulers. If this number is small, the rulers are tolerable. If it is large, the rulers are necessarily very bad.

What good and prudent rulers must do is reduce this number: 1º by enlightening the factious about the principles, in order to attach them to the Government; 2º by rectifying their own conduct, so as not to be justly disapproved and pursued by the patriots, who will always prevail in the long run because they have the right and reason on their side.

A Government is not instituted, nor are rulers maintained, to kill men abruptly; one institutes the former and maintains the latter to bring back lost citizens to the principles, or to restore embittered citizens to better feelings, by superiorly directed means, according to circumstances and minds, by gentle, humane, social, and skillful ways; it is not to crush factions, to crush parties against each other with colossal force, it is to alleviate them through the influence of reason, the attraction of methods, the charms of gentleness; it is not to make criminals of weak men in order to punish them according to severe laws, it is to strengthen them, to prevent them from falling into crime, and to avert the misfortune of having to inflict terrible punishments on them; it is not to inoculate the virus of crime into men whose temperaments are already too harsh, it is to keep away even the miasma of contagion from them; it is not to destroy, it is to preserve, and to preserve through the preventive method: if it deserves preference in physical medicine, it is a perfect and rigorous duty in political medicine.

XVII

Rulers who suppose conspiracies are therefore fools, who proclaim their own ineptitude or vices in front of their contemporaries and posterity, unless they are driven by some major personal interests, and the discovery of these personal interests usually transforms them from fools into factious individuals. If they use these supposed conspiracies as a means to shed innocent blood, they are criminals.

XVIII

Rulers who do not merely suppose, but actually create conspiracies, are either fools or factious individuals with an additional degree of malice. If they use the conspiracies they have created as a means to shed blood, they are criminals of a higher degree.

XIX

I know of a town where the bells had not been rung for a long time. The Christians, exercising their religion freely, had, as the democratic Jesus recommends, decided to comply with the civil law of the state. The news of the discovery of the great conspiracy of Floréal arrives there; the following Sunday, early in the morning, the bells ring out and there is a double peal. After the great mass, a young prosecutor, who has never read to the people the account of the victories of the Italian army, passionately declaims the story of the remarkable discovery that saves the Republic, and some old fanatics say to themselves: "It’s Drouet, it’s the one who arrested the king, he’s going to be guillotined, it’s God who punishes him." And fanaticism, with its acolytes, has not abated since. You can easily see that if their good God gets involved in punishing the one who arrested the king at Varennes, it is even more likely, in these minds, that He will punish those who condemned him to death and even those who allowed him to be executed, and that the anticipated punishment, perhaps requested at the morning and evening Angelus, will not give rise, when it comes, to any other feelings than those stirred by the idea of punishing Drouet. Of course, these nonsense will do nothing to the existence of the Republic, but that is the good political effect of this great coup d'état.

People came to tell me about it; I said: it is impossible that Drouet is a royalist, that he is an aristocrat, that he wants to overthrow the republican government; he can only have had the idea of toppling rulers he believes to be bad and harmful to the Government. It is impossible that those I know on this list—Cordas, Fiquet, Crespin, Paris, Antonelle, Lepelletier, Parein, Amar, Menessier, Bodson, Lindet, Chrétien—have changed, that they are anti-republicans; it is also impossible that they would accept all the aberrations attributed to what is called the anarchist faction; aberrations that might amuse the imagination, even engage the heart, but which are always rejected by sound judgment: the equal division of land, the community of property, and all the other follies that have been spread about the democrats to ruin them, just as, in other times, other tyrants accused the Jews of stabbing hosts, drawing blood from them to quench their thirst; or the Templars of killing, then roasting their own children whom they devoured; false inventions of treacherous rulers to achieve criminal goals. I know each of these men too well to not believe in their integrity, patriotism, and sound views; time will clarify this.

When, shortly after, I learned of the Grenelle affair and that they were being shot in large numbers, I said to myself, with bitterness in my heart: another conspiracy! A movement of the conspirators! It is impossible that Huguet, Cailleux, Gagnant, Javogues, Cusset—whose names were presented to me—are anti-republicans. The rulers, as I see it, suppose conspiracies and plots against the state, when at most there are conspiracies and plots against their persons, which is not the same thing. By doing so, they first show that they are bad rulers; they let it be presumed that they may have ulterior motives. Then they somehow legitimize these conspiracies and plots, they elevate the conspirators to the Pantheon, but since it’s by making them pass through a murderous pit, they are criminals.

I then subscribed to a patriotic newspaper, in order to regain some understanding of the current affairs. I saw in debates that the rulers had not merely supposed, but actually made or favored the formation or progressive advancement of the Floréal conspiracy, probably the one at Grenelle, and perhaps that of Brottier; that with the money and resources of the Republic, they had managed with difficulty to turn simple conspirators against their persons into conspirators, or conspirators in projects into active conspirators, and then came to boast about this noble action in front of the deputies in the legislature, some of whom had been duped, and others pretended to be. But these rulers, soaked in the blood of Grenelle, against whose shedding the Court of Cassation now calls, are criminals of a higher degree.

XX

It is the duty of the rulers to monitor the conspirators against the Government; it is in their interest to monitor the conspirators against their own persons, even to introduce among both groups men who can report everything that happens, in order to prevent harm, to correct the opinions of some, and to correct themselves according to the disapproval of others. But it is a horror to provoke evil in these two classes of conspirators, whoever they may be, in order to have the right to punish them; to transform them, almost against their will, from conspirators into plotters, or from plotters into projects, into active conspirators, in order to have the legal right to kill them.

"It is difficult," you will say, "to draw the line and to limit oneself to observation without provoking in order to make them confess." – No, it is not difficult; and if you do not know how to do difficult things, go plant your cabbages; if, not knowing how to do what is difficult, you substitute it with an act of wickedness, your names will forever be held in horror.

Surveillance is indispensable in a city as large as Paris, with a population as numerous as Olympian, where both virtues and talents from both worlds converge for the games, and where all that is most subtly vicious gathers as well; but it is the surveillance of a father. He suspects that, despite his instructions and reproaches, his son has acquired the habit of going to gambling dens; he sends a trusted man to watch him. This man must advance into the familiarity of the lost young man, to be able to accompany him everywhere. But it is not by provoking him to gamble, it is not by inflaming him even more with that fatal passion. You would reply, "We need intelligent and honest agents to grasp and apply these nuances, but all we have are Malo, Grisel." Well, do not degrade them, you will have what you need. Be good and delicate yourselves, do not give infamous commissions, and then these can be carried out by men who are at once skilled and virtuous. This too is a service to the Republic. Moreover, good faith is there. It is fixed; no human force can move it, distance it, or bring it closer. Anything that exceeds it is a crime that puts the Republic in greater danger than remaining below it; for conspiracies of governed factious people are always less perilous than attacks by rulers, and it would rather be against the latter that the phrase Salus populi prima lex could apply, though this should be used sparingly: it cannot and should not be a maxim of everyday life.

As we have seen, it is a perfect and rigorous duty for you to work towards preventing harm. You can never provoke it in order to have the right to punish it. It would be in vain for you to say that you provoke a particular evil in order to prevent a general evil by punishing it. It is an execrable sophism, since by taking the opposite side and preventing the particular evil, you would also prevent the general evil, and thus you would have nothing to punish. Provoking the particular evil is therefore an unnecessary act for the public good, for the salvation of the state, for the salvation of the people. You can only be led to it by selfish and interested motives, or else you falsely wish to present yourselves as saviors of the homeland, which was not in danger, by simulating placing it in danger yourself to appear to bring it out. Or perhaps you have an even more culpable thought. In all things and despite all the claims of genius, there is no society, no government, without morality. It is necessary; it is sufficient. I soon realized, through an undeniable fact, that the rulers were employing means opposed to those allowed by morality in the precautions required by politics.

XXI

The Minister of Police, Cochon, stated in his report of [date] that he had been informed for a month that there was a royalist agent in Paris, that this agent was supposed to, etc., etc., that he was to incite a movement in the suburbs and among the citizens who, according to Capet and the royalists, the modern aristocrats also call anarchists, and that these suburbs and anarchists were also working toward the royalists' goals. It was wisely observed in the Council of Five Hundred that the documents and charges presented nothing of this last circumstance, which seemed to be the imagination of Minister Cochon or his informants. Let’s see what was happening a month before this report from Minister Cochon.

XXII

Announcing a tendency toward a movement in any newspaper is not always the same as provoking it; however, it is known that the most effective way to make it seem probable, to make it happen, to activate it, is to have an accredited newspaper spread the word that a person in whom the people have trusted is taking an active part in it, meaning that he considers the movement necessary and certain to succeed. A larger number of citizens will pay attention, engage with it, and discuss it; atthe slightest opportunity, the group grows; its aggregation attracts proportionally more curious onlookers, and a gathering, a movement, is created.

This is not an ordinary journalist, someone whose newspaper is known for publishing news that is sometimes true, sometimes false, due to his frequent inability to verify the facts. This is Mr. Delagarde, the Secretary-General of the Directory, and editor of the official newspaper of this power, reputed in these two capacities to be informed about what is happening, especially in matters as important as a subversive or conservative movement regarding the established regime. It is this privileged journalist who announces the tendency toward a movement, adding the detail that Pache is walking through the streets of Paris on this matter, thereby taking an active part. The rulers, under whose watch Mr. Delagarde writes his newspaper, could not have been unaware that I was as calm here as I had been in the Château de Ham when, during the Prairial movement, the Grand Master of the high Convention works, who was in service with all the factions that were successively dominant, devised the motion to have me judged by a military commission without being moved; I certainly never left Thim, just as I never left Ham; the rulers and Mr. Delagarde know this. The official editor, the mouthpiece of the rulers, thus knowingly and deliberately placed this false article in his newspaper, a month before the time of Minister Cochon’s report.

XXIII

What could his aim have been? After all, a man like Mr. Delagarde does not knowingly insert a false article into such a serious newspaper on such an important matter without having a purpose. He has so many other things to discuss for the satisfaction of his subscribers and non-subscribers; the work of the Directory provides him with so many instructive or interesting notes that he cannot afford to indulge in inventing or collecting trivialities, or to entertain the public with my supposed walks, as some journalists lacking such valuable material might do. Close to that enormous heap of well-nourished sheaves, he is spared from having to glean. So what was his purpose?

As far as I am concerned, it was to compromise me by placing my name in this movement. But as for the public good, the purpose is much more serious. I do not delude myself about my real influence; however, the long and atrocious persecutions of which I have also been the victim, under all the factions, prove that a great deal was presumed about my influence, whether personal or nominal. And in this assumption, my name being placed in this context must awaken the attention of many citizens, attract more participants to the movement, make it more likely, bring it to fruition, and activate it.

XXIV

The rulers therefore wanted a movement from the suburbs and from those they called anarchists, at that time, about a month before the report of Minister Cochon. They were composing it within themselves; they were gathering its elements; those who were missing, they made them intervene; unable to involve me personally, they used my name; they determined a movement at the cost of the truth, and through a deliberate lie.

XXV

However, the rulers, who were thus creating a movement, were surely not slow in taking precautions and preparing the means to suppress it; by giving orders to Mr. Delagarde, the inciter, they were surely preparing them for Mr. Malo, the suppressor. All of this is a perfidy, a Nero-like behavior, or rather a new aristocratic dogmatism to me.

XXVI

If this infamous expedition had not been thwarted by republican journalists, who mocked Mr. Delagarde, his hunting horns, his Pache, and who enlightened the people about the trap being set for them, it would have been possible for groups of discontented citizens— not with the government, but with the rulers— to form; that curious onlookers would have swollen their ranks, that Grisel, by carrying out insurrectionary acts commanded and paid for by the rulers, would have drawn in, by the powerful means of mechanical imitation— too little considered in the judgments of the Military Commissions— some few thoughtless citizens; that some would have been sabred by Mr. Malo, and others transformed into conspirators, sentenced to be shot by a new Military Commission of the Temple. Thus, in my name, by the actions of the rulers, a crowd of good citizens would have been dragged into this double slaughter! I shudder at the thought.

XXVII

To cover up all these horrors, a proclamation and a message would have been made, in which the nation and the legislature would have been informed that the suburbs and the anarchists had formed a great conspiracy that was putting the Republic in danger; that they were, at least at that time, collaborating with the royalists, with whom a conspiracy was being fabricated or spun on the other side, in order to discover it in time. The good modern aristocrats would have loudly demanded honorable mention for the zeal of these good rulers, who so skillfully uncovered the conspiracies they had created; who bravely sabred the gatherings they formed, and they would have supported, alongside the royalists, the military commission to have those who escaped the sabre shot. Poor people, poor legislators, guilty rulers! This personal event has completely opened my eyes to their conduct.

XXVIII

I had always assumed, based on my knowledge of Carnot, that he would lead the Directory into some of the measures I had seen him strongly support during the Septemvirate; cowards are cruel. I had always assumed that he would try to restore the regime through coups d'état, which he adapted to so well. But I had not thought that such monstrosities could now accumulate so easily, nor that he could find at hand police ministers, justice ministers, Malo, Grisel, Delagarde, etc.

XXIX

However, it now seems proven to me, by Grisel’s testimonies, that it was the rulers who made almost everything that exists of the conspiracy of the 20th of Floréal; who transformed the conspiracy against their persons into what one wants to call a conspiracy against the State, against the Republic, and who progressively advanced the conspiracy. It is the rulers who provided Grisel with the financial means and seduction tools that can turn men, who without them would remain mere malcontents, into conspirators; it is the rulers who encouraged, through the lure of rewards and military ranks, Grisel—less vicious than those who employed him—to carry out the provocative acts and progressively increase the consistency of the conspiracy. Whatever degree one supposes it to have, whatever importance one gives it, whatever guilt one attributes to it, this Grisel, by his actions, would be an actor in it, because he did not remain within the limits of his functions, within the bounds of observation, and this Grisel, they are the rulers. It seems to me that similar provocations occurred in the case of Grenelle and that of Brottier. But on the fourth fact that concerns me personally, the provocation by Mr. Delagarde for a movement, using my name falsely, is indisputable.

XXX

Apart from the crime of leading innocent people to their death, one must consider the objective, one must consider the major private interest that forces the rulers to endure the shame of declaring themselves inept or vicious through this multiplication of conspiracies and movements of conspirators, which they boast of discovering.

This is the main point of this writing. The rulers must monitor the governed conspirators to discover if any of them adopt a seditious spirit and bring them back. The governed must monitor the rulers to discover if any of them adopt a seditious spirit and contain them. Patriotic rulers must deliver the governed, seditious conspirators, to the courts; patriotic citizens must deliver the rulers, seditious conspirators, to national opinion. While a high jury is occupied with judging the accused governed, the nation must be concerned with judging the accusing rulers, and I bring them before its tribunal. One does not torment undeniably patriotic citizens, nor kill others through such infernally devised machinations, when one desires only the Republic, when one wants only to fulfill their duty through the faithful execution of the Constitution. It is remarkable that it is Carnot who holds the leading position; it is Carnot who confers with Malo, Grisel, who directs them, who pushes them, who fulfills, who oversteps the functions of the Minister of Police. This matter belongs more to Carnot than to the Directory. Thus, it is the revived system, but extended, but amplified, of the Septemvirate, of which he was a part, and a very essential part, for all that the Septemvirs did that was reprehensible.

XXXI

When, through the commendable work of the twelve members of the Committee of Public Safety, either within the Committee or outside it, affairs were brought to a point where there was no longer any doubt about the Republic's existence, and when people began to feel secure about its future, an almost imperceptible coalition gradually formed, through a tacit agreement, that was successively expanded to seven members. They ceased to argue, ceased to oppose one another, at least publicly, and appeared to pool their ambition and resources.

The royalist factions being dormant and silent, the Septemvirate enjoyed, for a time, the power with considerable satisfaction. One becomes accustomed to it easily. An unwise continuation of the same members within the Committee strengthened within them the fatal habit and gave rise to the vague and obscure desire to see their rule extended even further. This desire is such a natural consequence of the strongest inclination of a man in his thirties that it is not to be blamed, and one should have expected it. These vague desires were naturally followed by a distaste for any arrangement that would bring this power to an end, and a tendency towards any circumstance that would prolong it.

Soon came the schemes to dismiss some and provoke others, then the calculated plans, and eventually their execution.

However, the parties that, in ordinary circumstances, should not see this prolonged appropriation of power without some concern, began to feel anxious. It was believed, not without some foundation, that they might be jealous of the power. People feared it; they feared that these factions might seek to remove it, and feared losing it. This fear only attached itself more strongly to the power, like all other real and illusory possessions. The rulers then definitively sought ways to preserve it. One of the methods that presented itself to certain minds was to destroy the men of the opposing party. A pretext was needed. It was not possible to have known republicans perish without first giving an apparent reason to those Convention members they were seducing, who were forming into a Septemvirate faction, and then to the people. It was suggested and circulated among the first that the popular faction was not strong enough to completely dismantle the royalists, who were pretending to be dead; that to ensure the Republic and the Convention (the Septemvirate), it was necessary to rid themselves of the popular faction that displeased the middle class, which would rally behind them and be more capable, through its mass, of stabilizing affairs and the Convention (the Septemvirate). The extreme royalism in the proscription was understood to be in conjunction with the extreme patriotism because if only patriots had been sent away, the scheme and its purpose would have been too obvious. Those who had the greatest desire to destroy the patriots never ceased to complain, within the Committee, about the troubles they caused. They became accustomed to viewing them with suspicion, desiring their downfall, and planning to achieve it without remorse. Jealousy, envy, and all base passions completed the work. The final rallying cry was for "both extremes." As for the pretext for the people, they relied on their confidence, hoping to seduce them with trivial reconciliations.

It was then that the most trivial and false pretexts were sought to sacrifice any patriot who, either through party spirit or immutability, was suspected of not supporting the views of the Septemvirate, either now or in the future. They exhausted, irritated, embittered, divided, and assassinated them. I saw the play of personal hatreds; I saw Robespierre yield to Billaud, and Billaud yield to Robespierre, with alternating satisfaction visible in each of their expressions; but I saw a constant joy on Carnot's face for the destruction of all. It was then, finally, that in order to cover up the intrigues against the patriots in the eyes of the people, they increased the intrigues against the royalists

Despite my warnings when I saw the progress of the false and especially treacherous idea, I pointed out the horror; I observed that the popular faction was sufficient to contain or even overthrow the royalists; that the consequences being drawn from it were, moreover, immoral and politically unwise; that it would only serve to drive the enemy to despair on one side, while on the other, it would treacherously shoot our light troops; and that, with the forward positions destroyed, the main army would run a great risk of being surprised and overwhelmed. Passions had formed a callus around the hearts, blocking the brains. Patriots were killed. Carnot took pleasure in this.

XXXII

They were killed, and quite obviously because there was a desire to prolong the exercise of power, to establish a form that would secure its duration or make its return easier, rather than adhere to the order set forth by the suspended Constitution, as was originally presumed. They wanted something other than the democratic Constitution that had been solemnly accepted and proclaimed. I can still hear Carnot, sometime after the first three or four massacres of the Convention’s patriots and those outside of it, swaying by the fireside with a self-satisfied air, sneering as he said to me: ‘Well, Citizen Mayor, there will be changes to the Constitution after all.’ And changes were indeed made — they cost the blood of the best republicans. Were they worth the blood they cost?

The great majority of the Septemvirs were originally patriots, I am willing to admit that; but at that fatal time, they had become factious. They had drunk from the cup of power, and one of them — more enslaved by the love of privilege due to the early hopes of his first profession, and also more cunning than the others — took advantage of their intoxication. As factional rulers, they used the national force for their own gain; they sought to rid themselves of any obstacle or even any scrutiny. They destroyed the patriots under the pretense of crushing, with giant arms, the parties one against the other; in this terrible clash, skulls and bones were shattered, shreds of brains and marrow spurted out, and your faces are still stained with it: such were the fruits of these ambitious and spiteful schemes.

Carnot got away with it. He claimed, I was told, that he signed everything on trust, and he even abandoned those he had once openly supported when he thought a powerful faction would back them and share the spoils with him. But tell me, whom exactly was he trusting when he signed? Was it Robespierre, Couthon, and Saint-Just? No. Was it Billaud and Collot? No; those men had always regarded him as a hypocritical royalist, a shamefaced Jacobin, and treated him with contempt and harshness that could never breed confidence. Was it Barère? I never saw between them the kind of intimate relations, the complete surrender of judgment, where one man’s opinion becomes the other’s without question or difficulty.

But did his so-called trust go so far as to prevent him from hearing the debates in the Committee before decisions were made and minutes were drawn up? Did it stop him from hearing what was said to him outside the Committee about the actions that resulted from the orders he signed? I saw him constantly at that Committee, seated at the round table, taking part in every deliberation, giving his opinion not only on military matters but on every other issue, domestic and foreign policy alike. No one was more assiduous than him in that Committee. Barère, Robespierre, Collot, Saint-Just, and the others sometimes arrived late because they went to the theater or to the Jacobins; Carnot, morning and evening, was always the first to arrive and the last to leave. There is no member whose signature appears more often on the minutes of orders than Carnot’s. It seems he also excused himself by claiming he had been afraid. That, I can believe — deeply afraid; I would gladly write him a certificate of fear should he ever need one. But that fear did not date from the time he wormed his way into the Septemvirate and outbid everyone else in the use of the most extreme words and measures. Indeed, he would have been afraid of his own shadow.

XXXIII

Why does Carnot, who had patriots killed at that time because he wanted changes to the Constitution of Year II, have patriots killed today? It is because he feels about the Constitution of Year III in much the same way he felt about the other one. He still destroys patriots because they stand in his way, and in order to make their destruction acceptable, as he did in the past, he sacrifices royalists. The patriots inconvenience him. Although they may not have any enthusiasm for the Constitution of Year III, at least they want its faithful observance; they want this Constitution not just in name, but in practice, since it still contains the two foundations of democracy: the inviolability of the Constitution accepted by the people and the freedom of elections; since it can be perfected by revision assemblies; and finally, since it is being put into execution.

XXXIV

This crime of killing patriots in order to have free rein was that of the Septemvirs, who had become factious in the final days of their session, and notably of Carnot. The same machinations, in the same positions, are part of the same projects; they are part of the same plans, especially when it is the same principal man directing them. This was Carnot's crime in the Septemvirate, and it is his crime in the Directory; it is that of his collaborators in the creation of conspiracies—Cochon, Malo, Grisel, and Delagarde—and of his collaborator in the semi-legal assassination of the supposed conspirators of Grenelle, Merlin de Douai. And it must be admitted that the situation is tightly tied. With a member of the Directory who has appropriated military details, a minister of general police, and a minister of justice, one can go very far in a short amount of time. The modern aristocracy, if they don't play along, and, as a result, or in the final analysis, the royalists owe them strong protection.

XXXV

But Carnot, he serves the Republic, he repaired what Aubry had done. He repaired only partially in all areas, and in a manner that suited his particular direction; the losses resulting from his direct orders are double those of Aubry, and the share he has in the benefits does not compensate. Take these two men; it does not take a very strong hand to balance the scale. You will find that, for the Republic, Carnot is no better than Aubry; in fact, he is more dangerous. A hidden enemy harms more than an open one; and considered by himself, Carnot was more seriously concerned with the destruction of the patriots than with that of the Austrians. I saw in him a more vivid enthusiasm, a stronger determination for the first than for the second; it was with the blood of the patriots that he was most animated, and where his speech or pen flowed most easily.

But the victories of the Italian army! - We have clearer ideas, compared to the past, about the share that belongs, in victories, to the troops, the general, and the cabinet. The share of the troops is always positive. The same is not true for the general and the cabinet; sometimes their share is zero; at times, it is even negative. Condé’s share at the Battle of Rocroi was zero; Dumouriez’s at Jemmapes was negative; Bonaparte’s in Italy is positive. The share of the cabinet in the victory of Denain was zero; in the conquest of the Netherlands by Louis XIV, it had been positive; in Turenne’s campaigns of 1674 and 1675, it was negative. I refrain from discussing the proportional relationship between the shares, whether all three are positive or not; I refrain from discussing the shares in defeats, since we are talking about victories here; I refrain from presenting the scale or the measurement of these shares in both victories and defeats, on land and at sea, and I leave the details of application to others.

But I am very certain that our army in Italy would have fought just as well, that Bonaparte would have behaved just as perfectly, even if, according to Carnot's plans, Drouet and Cordas had not been on trial for a year; even if Huguet and Cailleux had not been killed; and that these tyrannical actions could not have diminished in any way our losses on the other side of the Rhine and at Kingsal. I am very certain that our army in Italy would still cover itself with glory and that, in the future, we could avoid losses on the other side of the Rhine and at Kingsal, even if Messrs. Delagarde, Grisel, Malo, Merlin, Cochon, and Carnot were not governors or agents of governors, and I firmly believe that if they had stopped meddling in public affairs a year ago, the internal situation would not be in worse condition.

XXXVI

I do not know what position the legislature will take regarding them, but being personally convinced of their atrocious perfidy in what they call the movement of conspirators, and that they are factious rulers, dangerous conspirators against the Republic, I publicly devote them to the execration of the French people and of men from all countries and all opinions who have any sense of morality. I am authorized in this by my personal experience. There is no doubt that I did not leave. Thim; there is no doubt that Mr. Delagarde and these rulers were perfectly aware of my whereabouts; one cannot doubt that it was by a deliberate lie that they placed my name in the announcement of a movement; one cannot doubt that placing my name there was meant to contribute to realizing and activating it, and that thus these rulers themselves were composing the movement; one cannot doubt that they were simultaneously preparing the two terrible means of repression, the sabre and the military commission. Although thwarted by the patriotic journalists and by the good sense of the people, this plot still sheds light on other movements, other conspiracies, and on the unbearable aristocratic dogmatism that will dominate and be called the Republic, awaiting a royal scene, if these treacherous schemes are not revealed by all those for whom the personal circumstances make them sensitive, and if these factious rulers and their supporters are not covered with the shame and hatred they deserve.

PACHE

At Thim-le-Moustier, the 21st of Floréal, Year V of the French Republic.

Source:

"Ronsin arrived in Paris from Vendée a few days prior. He had left Tours on June 6 to present his operation plan in person to the Committee of Public Safety. The Committee granted Ronsin an audience on June 14 and sent him back to Vendée to continue his mission. Ronsin left Paris around June 18. Therefore, the date of the marriage celebration must be placed between June 11, the date of the contract's signature, and June 18. The honeymoon of the two spouses was extremely brief, as it does not seem that Ronsin took his young wife to Vendée. His enemies, particularly Philippeaux, would have denounced the pomp and splendor that allegedly characterized citizen Ronsin's stay in Vendée with the vain "general minister," her husband. No document mentioning her presence in Vendée is known. The marriage contract stipulated that the future spouses "would share all movable and 'coquet' immovable property according to the Commune of Paris." Ronsin declared that his assets consisted only of "furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to fifteen thousand livres according to the valuation made between the parties." The future wife "declared that her assets consisted only of the following items: 1° the sum of ten thousand livres, at which she valued her still unliquidated rights in her mother's estate, whose assets were in the possession of Citizen Lequesne, her father. 2° in furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to the sum of seventy thousand livres according to the valuation made between the future wife and the future husband, who agreed to be charged with this sum of seventy thousand livres as a dowry for the future wife." In the event of the death of one spouse, "the survivor shall take, as a prior claim, and before the division of the community property, the sum of ten thousand livres in furniture of their choice or the said sum in ready cash, at their discretion." Finally, Ronsin declared that he paid a rent of one thousand livres for his lodging: "but having only occupied it for a short time, he had not yet been assessed for movable property tax, and previously, he only paid 400 livres in rent."

From the clauses of this contract, it can be deduced that Ronsin possessed no personal fortune, and that his future wife, while comfortably situated, did not have considerable resources.

Although everything indicates that Ronsin did not take his wife with him to Vendée (unlike his friend Momoro who did so with his wife Sophie), she nonetheless shared his ideas. She often attended and followed the debates of the Cordeliers Club, as did Marie-Françoise Hébert, Sophie Momoro, the wife of Ancard, Vincent's wife, and Albertine Marat, sister of Jean-Paul Marat. She approved of dechristianization, and this ideology followed her for a very long time in her life, even when she remarried Turreau, this is what was said about them. A.-J. de Rivaz dedicated an entire chapter to them in his Mémoires historiques sur le Valais. Turreau "commits the blunder of not publicly performing any act of the Roman religion"; his wife, Marie-Angélique, "has the audacity to speak of it with contempt," and she does not blush "to say that she had never been happier since she had shaken off the yoke of the Christian superstition in which she had been raised." She also supported her husband during some of his worst moments. In December 1793, when he and Vincent were arrested and imprisoned, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. Marie-Angélique Ronsin with Vincent's wife often visited him in prison and had lunch in their company. They were released under pressure from the Cordeliers. This episode is detailed here. This certainly did not help with any reconciliation with the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), especially since the CSG (Committee of General Security) pointed out that there was no evidence against them.

When he was later arrested a second time, early in the morning at his home at 27 Boulevard Montmartre, in the presence of his brother Jean-César, then director of military relays, and Marie-Angélique. As he accepted his arrest, Marie-Angélique told one of the aides-de-camp present, "Quick, mount your horse. Go tell Hanriot about my husband's arrest. He greatly contributed to his release (after his first arrest); he might still be able to help him." While she initially escaped immediate arrest, unlike the wives of Hébert and Momoro who were arrested hours after their husbands, she was arrested in the same apartment on 1st Germinal by "general security measure," and taken to the prison known as Les Anglaises on Rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor. A search of the home took place, and the Revolutionary Committee of the Mont-Blanc section declared that there was nothing suspicious at the Ronsin couple's home and no denunciation against his wife. She was reportedly very anxious during the three days leading up to her husband's execution. This anxiety only increased upon learning of the death of her husband, his companions, and the death of Hébert's wife. She also feared being accused of complicity and suffering the same fate, according to Herlaut again.

Strangely, while some press outlets had vilified Sophie Momoro and Marie-Françoise Hébert – “Although their lawful husbands had been held in the Conciergerie for two days, it is said that the ‘princesses’ were not found alone when the guards came to arrest them at night. It is perfectly understandable—two widows cannot be left alone in such circumstances; they need consolation” – or others mocked Sophie Momoro's physical appearance and her role as the Goddess of Reason, I found nothing concerning Ronsin's wife. Furthermore, the widows of Vincent and Ancard were spared this arrest, which sometimes shows the somewhat random nature of the arrests of revolutionaries' wives.

Likely out of prudence, Marie-Angélique Ronsin made no efforts to be released until 22 Thermidor (even when Sophie Momoro was released in Prairial Year II). From that date, she addressed a request for release to the Committee of General Security. She declared that she had "in no way shared her husband's errors" and that it was necessary for her to be free, "all the more necessary as, having no fortune, the work of her hands becomes indispensable to provide for her existence." She received no reply and made her request again on 27 Thermidor, asking for the reasons for her detention. Her prison stay seems to have been very difficult, judging by her request of 23 Fructidor in which she provided a certificate written by health officers working in prisons and detention centers, stating that she "had been suffering for six months from violent headaches, dizziness, a continuous noise in her right ear; towards recent times had an apoplectic attack in which blood came out of her ears very abundantly." They requested that she receive appropriate treatments such as baths, bloodletting, and mineral water, and that this be done immediately as it could be fatal for Marie-Angélique Ronsin. Nevertheless, there was no response to this request either. However, on 28 Vendémiaire Year III, when she requested "a copy of her prison register entry," the prison warden was ordered to give it to her. The Lequesne family decided to work for her release, more specifically, her sister Gabrielle, wife of Poitevin,made a new intervention to the Committee of General Security. There was no document anywhere against Marie-Angélique Ronsin, and according to her family, the reason for her arrest was "her husband's affair in which she was in no way involved," and they requested "to return to a father, a daughter, and to brothers, a sister who has been lamenting in prison for more than six months." Her release took place shortly after, and on 18 Brumaire Year III, the seals were lifted from her home. She then began to request from the Committee of General Security the recovery of her property, since, according to the terms of the marriage, she was a creditor in her husband's estate for the sum of ten thousand francs. In addition, her husband possessed a rather substantial library of dramatic works (which was not surprising given that her husband, before his revolutionary career, was connected to the artistic and literary milieu to the point of being friends with Jacques-Louis David); she requested to recover this property as well. The decree of 6 Germinal Year III ruled in her favor; she benefited from the restitution of furniture and other effects worth 5135 livres, and the library was valued at 2152 livres.

On 14 Floréal Year III, Marie-Angélique Ronsin declared, "I, the undersigned, acknowledge having received all the furniture and effects included in the inventories that were made at my home, for which I discharge," signing "Widow Ronsin." Some of the carriages found at the Ronsin couple's home and the horses were sold. Some for 788 livres paid on 5 Floréal to the receiver of the domain. Some national carriages were used for "the service of deputies and public officials on mission." The others were sold.

Following her release, Marie-Angélique Ronsin went to live on Rue des Deux-Portes. But she continued her revolutionary activities even after her husband's death, and she can be counted among the opponents of Thermidorian politics. According to Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil, she frequented what he called "ultra-revolutionary clubs." It is possible that he was referring to the Electoral Club (many of whose members would be arrested or implicated due to the Prairial uprising), animated mainly by revolutionaries like Bodson, Varlet, Legray, and Babeuf, even though an arrest warrant was issued again against the main members of this club on 3 Brumaire, and its sessions only ceased on 22 Frimaire. It is also possible that du Ménil was referring to the Pantheon Club. In any case, the widow Ronsin subscribed to the Tribun du Peuple, continued to frequent her husband's former companions like General Rossignol, but also Parein du Mesnil, even when these two were involved in the Conspiracy of Equals (though acquitted), which suggests that Marie-Angélique Ronsin in some way approved of Babouvism. This was not surprising, as Ronsin was close to Rossignol and must have frequented Parein, whether in Vendée or Lyon (Parein being one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon alongside people like Collot d'Herbois or Fouché, whereas Ronsin's role is still more complex to this day).

On 12 Pluviôse Year IV, she married General Louis-Marie Turreau, who was a friend of Ronsin. They had five children together: Emma, called Théodore, born August 8, 1796, and died August 21, 1872; Alexandrine-Cléophée, 1798, died June 24, 1879; Joseph-Alphonse, born July 25, 1799, died July 16, 1800; Edouard-Henri-Théodore, born July 4, 1802, died on an unknown date; and Auguste-Pierre, born July 24, 1806, and died January 3, 1870. The latter wrote to Charles-Philippe Ronsin on good terms, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766971097091538944/letter-from-turreau-to-ronsin-and-the-complex?source=share, but this did not prevent him, in order to save himself, from saying that Ronsin was responsible for a defeat in Vendée, whereas Turreau was the real culprit according to historian Jean-Clément Martin. After the execution of Gracchus Babeuf, Turreau became the adoptive father of his son Camille Babeuf. It is possible that, given Marie-Angélique Turreau was later described as generous to the unfortunate in America and due to her sympathy for Babeuf, she convinced her husband of this adoption. In a way, she can also be considered Camille's adoptive mother.

In Fructidor Year V, "Turreau, then unemployed, along with Parein, Rossignol, and others, joined Augereau". That evening, "Marie-Angélique, still frequenting the Jacobins and dressed as an Amazon, rode on horseback. She led a column of Jacobins from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and, in the company of Parein and Rossignol, congratulated the Directory on its victory". General Turreau received a new assignment after this event. He reportedly had the support of his cousin, who was a deputy. According to Hérlaut, this cousin was married to a woman named Félicie Gautier. And she reportedly had an affair with Bonaparte, who commanded the army's artillery. When Bonaparte became commander-in-chief of the Army of Italy, despite Turreau not being re-elected as a deputy, he was appointed army storekeeper. Later, under the Empire, when she was in destitution, Berthier would inform Napoleon of her situation, providing financial aid. Thus, one of the reasons he would have helped Louis-Marie Turreau and his wife advance was due to his cousin. Nevertheless, there were other reasons. Indeed, apart from their cousin, the Turreau couple clearly rallied to Bonaparte's regime along with some fervent Jacobins (despite Napoleon loathing this political category, especially those on the left, though he could make exceptions) such as Drouet, Parein du Mesnil, etc.

Under the Consulate, Louis Marie-Turreau was sent "to Valais, at the head of the occupation troops with whom he achieved successes against the Coalitions, notably before Suze, which he brilliantly invested," according to historian Jean Clément Martin. It was in this context that the Kalbermatten affair reportedly emerged, which I found only from Rivaz, Michel Salamin, and Michel de Preux. Indeed, Louis-Marie Turreau's mission under the Consulate was to bring Valais closer to France, even to annex it. According to former State Chancellor René de Preux, in 1801, the general had established his headquarters in the Vallaz house and "His despotic methods, reminiscent of the time when he commanded the thirty infernal columns in Vendée, quickly became intolerable to the entire population, which years of misfortune had already plunged into deep misery. He plundered administrative coffers, sequestered tax revenues, arbitrarily dismissed public officials, arrested them, and proclaimed urbi et orbi the imminent annexation of Valais to France." To "protest against this project of annexation to France, dear to General Turreau, deputies from 74 communes of Upper and Lower Valais left for Bern in February 1802." This was presented "on behalf of the Valais deputation by the Vice Grand Bailiff, Pierre-Antoine de Preux, a member of the Supreme Tribunal." Among the deputation from the commune of Sion was Louis Grégoire de Kalbermatten, who was born "October 6, 1768, the son of Gabriel de Kalbermatten and Louise née Barberini. He served in the Courten regiment in France from 1788 to 1796. Knight of St. Louis, he married Marie-Antoinette Louise de Nucé, daughter of Gaspard Benjamin and Marie Barbe de Tornery, city councillor of Sion, in 1803. In 1814, he entered the service of Piedmont and had a brilliant career there. Elected mayor of the city of Sion in 1838, he died in that city on November 8, 1845" (according to René de Preux). Louis de Kalbermatten was a fervent defender of Valais's independence and opposed General Turreau's policy aimed at attaching the region to France. Following this, Turreau forcibly requisitioned Kalbermatten's house, a rather large three-story dwelling, to make it his headquarters, and this reportedly exacerbated tensions to the point where "He (Kalbermatten) protested vigorously, threatening to grab the General by the collar and set fire to his house." Turreau was able to carry out this action with the help of Bailiff Augustini, who was one of the heads of the Valaisan government. Marie-Angélique also played a significant role in this, according to historian Michel Salamin. Each time Louis de Kalbermatten tried to obtain an audience with the general, it was his wife who received him and reportedly put forward several reasons that seemed flimsy to justify preventing him from recovering his house, citing some of her husband's health issues. However, it seems clear that she supported her husband's actions on this point. She was staying with her husband, her children, and her servants, namely a chambermaid named Marie Guilmar, a cook named Catherine Vodelay, and a wet nurse named Jeanne-Marie Morisod. However, she played a rather important role on September 5, 1803. There had been an official banquet that afternoon, organized, among others, by Bailiff Augustini, to celebrate the anniversary of Valais's independence. Augustini had gathered a small number of guests for a banquet, including Marie-Angélique Turreau. Also present were "Joseph de Lavallaz, Jean-Joseph Duc (...), the Grand Dean Oggier, the Grand Vicar Pignat, the Vice-Chatelain Janvier de Riedmatten, Mayor François Joseph de Riedmatten, Commander Valet, and Adjutant Monthion."

Europe the greatest good, peace; upon France, her religion, her prosperity, her greater and more respectable homeland; upon Valais, her own and her dear independence! Long live the immortal, invincible, and benevolent Bonaparte, First Consul of the Italian Republic, mediator of the Swiss Republic, restorer of the independence of the Valaisan Republic!" Still according to Michel Salamin, following multiple toasts, "The main ones are addressed to the French, Italian, and Swiss commissioners, to General Turreau, to State Councillor Louis Lambertenghi, and to Senator Charles Müller-Friedberg. The general's wife receives her own, as do the French officers." Two hours later, the "Louis de Kalbermatten" affair would erupt. Indeed, while Marie-Angélique was absent, dining in an inn owned by a certain Jean-Joseph Bruttin in the presence of Captain Cudenne and his wife, two panes of glass from her third-floor bedroom window were broken by a stone, as well as one from an adjacent room (perhaps her children's). The wet nurse and the chambermaid took refuge at Mme Alphonse de Kalbermatten's house, while the cook went to alert Madame Turreau. Grand Bailiff Augustini interrogated Louis de Kalbermatten in front of her and several local dignitaries. Augustini asked him where he had been, forcing him to explain that he had been at Jean-Joseph Bruttin's until 7 PM, then at home, and denied going into his garden, but for Augustini, his guilt was established with meager, even non-existent, evidence. Louis de Kalbermatten was reportedly mistreated by several French officers, both verbally by Commander Valet and physically by aide-de-camp Maussaud, who allegedly held him by the collar. But the most violent reaction was reportedly from Captain Cudenne, who allegedly grabbed, shook, and roughed him up. Marie-Angélique Turreau was then among the women who prevented the officers from continuing their brutality against Kalbermatten and ensured he was safely escorted out, although he would be imprisoned for it. Preux would say that Marie-Angélique Turreau had a real fright, but Rivaz claimed that she reportedly said, "It's a bit much that they want to assassinate me on the anniversary of the independence generously given to liberal Valais by the Great Nation! They will talk about it in Paris, and this attack will cause a stir there." Preux would affirm that when the commission "confirmed, by taking this iron piece to the kitchen, that it was indeed part of the kitchen's fire-dog. General Turreau intervened at that moment, saying in a sharp tone: 'We are dwelling on small things and wasting precious time!' Upon this, she ordered the chambermaid to inform the servants to hitch the horses and prepare everything for departure, for she added: 'I am no longer safe here.' Mr. Duc, President of the commission, reassured her about her personal safety and offered her a sufficient guard. Mrs. Turreau calmed down a little and thanked him, assuring him that she had greatly appreciated the promptness with which the Grand Bailiff had attended to her security, and she declared: 'I will report this to Paris!' " She rejoined her husband in Paris in the last days of September. Despite an alibi and scant evidence, Kalbermatten remained in prison for months. He was acquitted, which was seen as a humiliation for the "pro-French" side.

Louis-Marie Turreau was appointed ambassador to the United States by Napoleon and arrived in the capital in 1804. His wife arrived in that country months later. He lived mainly in Baltimore and she in Washington. Unlike her husband, who had a bad reputation in Washington, it seemed to have been the opposite for her. Susan Wheeler Decatur, a well-known personality in society, daughter of a wealthy mayor of Norfolk, Virginia (whom some sources say Aaron Burr and Jérôme Bonaparte had proposed to, which she refused), and having chosen to marry Stephen Decatur, described Marie-Angélique in these terms in a letter to Dolley Payne Madison: "Washington is by this time illuminated by the presence of Made Turreau ". Decatur implied that, beyond outward appearances, Madame Turreau possessed “something that passeth show,” and praised her quiet generosity. During her stay, she is said to have provided significant material support to several French families in distress, thus demonstrating sincere benevolence and a concrete commitment to her compatriots. But Marie-Angélique then formed a much deeper friendship with Dolley Payne Madison, wife of James Madison, then Secretary of State of the United States. Dolley Madison met Marie-Angélique Turreau through Sally McKean, wife of the Spanish minister Carlos Fernando Martinez de Yrujo, when the latter introduced her to the wives of ministers or ambassadors. Indeed, Dolley Madison frequented high society and already played an active political role. Dolley Madison established herself as a central figure in Washington's social and political life. She skillfully bypassed Jefferson's prohibition on women's involvement in politics by cleverly blending hospitality and political connections. She surrounded herself with influential women such as Margaret Bayard Smith, Anna Maria Thornton, and Marcia Burns Van Ness. She earned the esteem of her contemporaries through her charm, vivacity, and affable manners. She introduced novelties at her receptions, such as card games, which made her evenings very popular. She played a key role in warmly welcoming foreign diplomats to a still undeveloped capital. She compensated for the reserve of Jefferson and her husband James Madison with her sociability. Her home became an essential place of informal power in Washington. Through her influence, she contributed to the evolution of women's place in the public sphere.

Marie-Angélique Turreau played an additional role in Dolley Madison's political journey, notably by teaching her French very intelligently and encouragingly, and by giving her advice on how to dress with "Parisian panache," among other things. Some of the skills she taught her would prove useful when Dolley Madison became the First Lady of the United States a few years later. The two women got along extremely well; Dolley Madison wrote to her sister how much she appreciated Marie-Angélique Turreau who, with her wicked sense of humor, made her laugh. James Madison's wife emphasized that the French "are very pleasant overall and add enormously to my comfort here." The friendship between the two women transcended language barriers, as Madison amusingly noted: "She speaks no English but we understand each other very well," and they shared several daily activities: walks, rides, informal visits, and long impromptu conversations. Madison also greatly appreciated her French manners, which could sometimes seem eccentric in the United States, such as dressing according to "French ideas." Marie-Angélique Turreau reportedly showed generosity, according to Madison, "shows me everything she possesses, and would even want to give me everything." Furthermore, Turreau's wife, in addition to frequenting American high society, was still very much interested in American politics, according to some letters. Nevertheless, this was also the beginning of troubles for her again. Everything indicates that long before America, the Turreau couple did not get along at all, hence the fact that he arrived first in the United States and she only joined him months later. Some claimed he did not want her to follow him there. In any case, they lived in constant quarrel. Unlike his wife, he was not truly appreciated in America (even if James Madison found him moderate and Jefferson maintained a professional relationship without political incident). He was physically described pejoratively as "bald head, red face, and mustache." It was said that he had "terrible" temper and was "morbidly depressed." The reputation he had acquired following the brutal repression in Vendée certainly did not help, but also, among other things, the mistreatment he inflicted on his wife and surely on others did not improve his reputation. One congressman called him a "savage," another man named William Plumer said of him, "This is disgraceful that such a man should be the representative of a nation." Another senator wrote, "I have never yet beheld a face so cruel and sanguinary as his." It is very clear in my opinion that it was not only his past repression in Vendée that caused his unpopularity. He did not hesitate to beat her in private and in public, and it quickly became public. He even went so far as to have her whipped in front of the servants and asked his secretary to play the flute to cover his wife's screams because of the neighbors. One day Marie-Angélique, either at her wits' end from the mistreatment she suffered or for fear for her life, once hit him in the head with a flatiron; he then struck her with a cane.

Their home became atrocious for Marie-Angélique, her servants, and her children, who also regularly screamed when their father attacked their mother. Turreau was also very unfaithful to his wife, and he insisted that prostitutes come to their home, which must have made the atmosphere there even worse. Despite the indignation of many at Marie-Angélique's treatment, few people helped her due to her husband's position. Dolley Madison hated Turreau for what he was doing to her friend but asked her sister not to repeat what she had said, as it would make the French appear as hateful as he, in her opinion. Furthermore, she overcame her disgust for him for essential diplomatic reasons in public. According to Hoadley and others, Turreau, then jealous of his wife, planned to forcibly send her back to France and thus separate her from their children. When he began to lock her up at home, he eventually decided to call a troop to force her repatriation. Marie-Angélique, understanding the plan, reportedly sent a message to Dolley Madison asking for help. Still according to Hoadley's version, one of Marie-Angélique's servants allegedly raised the alarm to help her while she screamed "murder," which caused a crowd to gather outside their home, and despite Turreau invoking his wife's madness, the crowd reportedly took her to safety. In another link on Jstore (although I don't remember the exact title of the text), the following excerpt stated: 

"The general declared in writing on October 29, 1806: 'I declare positively that after many refusals by Mrs. Turreau to go to France, in accordance with my orders as her husband and as plenipotentiary minister of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, my intention was to use force to make her go; that, therefore, after preparing her departure on a ship (in Annapolis), I gave her repeated orders to leave, when her screams, despite my efforts to calm her, attracted a crowd of citizens (Americans) around my house; and despite my public position as minister to France and the privileges that it entails, I went to the door of my house, where a magistrate among them told me that the people had gathered due to the noise they had heard from my house; to which I asked him to enter my house to see the interior and satisfy his fellow citizens.'" Magistrate Thornton declared to him: "In consequence of the invitation given above to the aforementioned magistrate (W. T.) as well as to Wm P. Gardner, last night around ten o'clock, we went to the house of the French minister and were led to an upstairs room where we found his wife with three French sailors or soldiers who were ready to take her by force. She tearfully declared that she sought the protection of the United States from such violence. The general turned to the sailors and said: 'Mark this, citizens; she is asking for the protection of the United States and thus renounces mine.' She said that the French government would not protect her now, but that she would seek protection from France later. We intervened in a friendly manner and asked if it would not be more appropriate, in the title of an officer of the Legion of Honor, to allow his wife to leave in peace, rather than subject her to the brutal insults of ordinary sailors who had been ordered to take her by force? It was also mentioned to her by W. T. that the crowd was waiting quietly to see if an attempt would be made to take her by force; for if that was attempted, they had said they were determined to free her. He said that the heartbreaking details of the separation are omitted, except to say that, on her knees, she pleaded to see her children one last time, and at his categorical refusal, he finally gave in, but only at the prayer of her foreign friends in his arms to 'take the infant.' She left the house, at the corner of Seven Buildings (Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street), with the magistrate and his associate."

Another version of the facts found here, according to Augustus Foster https://www.jstor.org/stable/1923081, is that Judge Thornton ordered the forced opening of the doors to finally stop the ill-treatment she was subjected to, believing that Marie-Angélique Turreau's protection outweighed the diplomatic privilege that Turreau was abusing. Furthermore, in a book dedicated to Dolley Madison, I found the following excerpt: "Eventually, the neighbors became indignant and threatening. At the height of the uproar, the eccentric Dr. Thornton arrived and stopped the beating. When Turreau fiercely told Thornton, 'Dr. Thornton, you do not know de law of de nation,' Thornton replied, 'But I know the laws of humanity, and I intend to enforce them.' " In any case, from late 1806 until March 1809, she lived in quarters in Georgetown without the financial support that Turreau had promised the judge so she could return to France. Nevertheless, she was able to recover her children, but they lived in poverty during this period. Marie-Angélique Turreau's situation caused a public incident because the Washington Federalist newspaper reported the entire story with the aim "that it be circulated throughout the Union" and that Madame Turreau was in destitution with her children. The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website says that the newspaper may have used this story to embarrass President Jefferson and his administration, as it was an opposition newspaper.

Dolley Madison wrote about this to Anna Maria Thornton on August 26, 1807, that she supposed Madame Thornton, before leaving Washington, had seen Marie-Angélique Turreau, that there would have been an address in her favor, hoping that this would force Turreau to finally give his wife and children the necessary financial support. Moreover, it seems that a Madame Forrest, wife of the official of the time, Richard Forrest, one of the eight clerks of the State Department (then a friend of Dolley Madison, William Thornton, among others), generally checked on Madame Turreau's condition. Dolley Madison herself was very worried about her friend. Louis Marie-Turreau knew the rumors that resulted from his conduct and "wrote to his friends in the French Foreign Office that he was almost mad with mortification and despair." according again to The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website, which did not prevent him from continuing to refuse to help Marie-Angélique and their children. Nevertheless, Napoleon Bonaparte did not act against him for these, and there was no trace of reprimand whatsoever for the public incidents caused by Turreau, which allowed a newspaper to potentially use instruments to discredit the Jefferson administration, nor the fact that because of this, he lost a support, which was his wife, who was very appreciated and loved by at least part of the political elite. In March 1809, the judge finally managed to raise funds for Marie-Angélique Turreau. However, she returned at the same date as her husband in 1811, and they began a formal divorce process. According to this link https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-033 Turreau had even taken steps with Joséphine de Beauharnais without success. He was made Baron of the Empire in 1811, and consequently, Marie-Angélique also became one. In 1813, they finally divorced, but according to the rembarre website, Louis-Marie Turreau had forcibly placed their daughter Alexandrine in a convent in Conches, but Marie-Angélique managed to remove her by summary judgment on September 22, 1814.

What is certain is that Marie-Angélique managed to obtain custody of her children. During the First Restoration, Turreau rallied to Louis XVIII and received the Order of Saint-Louis. He also accompanied the Duke of Angoulême to Vendée in 1816, then lived in Conches and died on December 10, 1816. Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced Turreau, experienced severe financial difficulties with her four children. She made requests for assistance to various Ministers of War. In 1819, she sent a letter to Gouvion Saint-Cyr (Minister of War), describing herself not as a divorcée but rather as "the widow of a general officer who died without fortune and leaving four minor children in my care, three boys and one girl; due to circumstances, she is reduced to living on the fourth floor, 139, Rue Montmartre, to serve herself and to perform all the domestic chores, especially at an advanced age (she was 52 at that time) and with her health deteriorating from a series of sorrows." On December 12, 1826, she was finally granted a pension of 1500 francs (whereas Turreau, during his lifetime, had a maximum pension of 6000 francs). After Turreau's death, certainly out of attachment to the United States, and surely to escape the "atmosphere" of the royalist regime, which likely had little goodwill for a woman who had been Widow Ronsin, she decided to return to that country and found a school, but did not succeed. "She only managed to return to France by incurring debts of honor abroad to secure her passage." In 1827, she reportedly made a request to the director of domains to have a prefectural decree of the Seine dated June 21, 1804, executed concerning the restitution of a succession profit from her first husband, explaining that by following her second husband Turreau to America, she was unable to make this request for execution at the time. But she was told that her property had been returned to her and there was no trace of the carriages, whose fate the administration was unaware of. As for the request for restitution of papers, she received the answer, after meticulous research, that the papers were of no interest at the time and had been destroyed. She died on February 15, 1828, in Paris, likely in destitution. Her eldest son, Théodore, became a Knight of the Legion of Honor in 1839, a retired captain, and died unmarried. Her daughter Alexandrine Cléophée lived a life of precarity. Here's what the newspaper Le Bien public said about her in 1878: "We draw the attention of the Minister of War to a great misfortune to be alleviated. It concerns the 78-year-old daughter of Republican General Louis-Marie Turreau, who lives in Nancy, in the Sainte-Anne district. Mademoiselle Turreau, one of our correspondents writes, has no resources; she has long lived in true distress. In 1876, a local newspaper, La Sentinelle, organized a subscription for her benefit, which yielded the meager sum of 225 francs, and that was all. Republican France, for whom General Turreau fought with such brilliance against the Vendée bands commanded by Charette and Larochejacquelin, owes it to itself to help the unique heiress of this glorious name, engraved on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, west side. When there is talk of voting a pension of ten thousand francs to the widow of Bonapartist General d'Aurelle de Paladines, would one hesitate to grant Mademoiselle Turreau an alimony that would prevent her from starving?" She died unmarried a year later after the article appeared, in a hospice. The third sibling, Édouard-Henri-Théodore, married in Mexico and seemed to remain there. He married twice and had several children, the most famous of whom was Eduardo Turreau de Linières, one of the founders of the Lancasterian Society, among other achievements. As for Auguste-Pierre, he was possibly a man of letters and secretary of the sub-prefecture of Bayonne. He may have remarried twice and had two daughters.

(My sources regarding the fate of Marie-Angélique's children are on this site, so it's not really reliable "ÉVREUX - CONCHES-EN-OUCHE (27) - LOUIS-MARIE TURREAU DE LINIÈRES DE GARAMBOUVILLE DANS LE DÉPARTEMENT DE L'EURE - La Maraîchine Normande)

Marie-Angélique Lequesne's Personality, Hypotheses, and Reflections: Marie-Angélique had a very left-leaning orientation and was an "ultra-revolutionary," at least until she rallied to Bonaparte. She often followed the sessions of the Cordeliers Club and supported her first husband during his lifetime, doing everything she could for him when he faced difficulties, such as sharing meals with him when he was imprisoned the first time, and when he was imprisoned the second time, instinctively asking influential people of their political persuasion for help to save him (like her request for help from Hanriot). If she posthumously denounced her first husband by speaking of his "errors," it was only a few months after his death, and she could potentially have been in danger (especially since, as mentioned earlier, the fate of spouses seemed entirely random). When she emerged from her dreadful prison stay, she continued her activism and actively fought Thermidorian politics while remaining in contact with her first husband's close associates and friends. It is possible that, like other revolutionaries, she feigned submission in letters while imprisoned to better emerge and continue her struggle.

She remained politically left-wing at that time. It is also possible that she married Turreau for security (as being the widow of a man not rehabilitated at the time, seen as an "extremist," could be difficult), as well as being impressed that he refused all amnesty when imprisoned to be rehabilitated in 1795. Therefore, she cannot truly be classified as a weathercock, as she was one of the active opponents of the Directory, even at the worst moments, although she later actively rallied to the Napoleonic regime, both in Valais and in the United States. But she was not the only left-wing figure to do this; François Réal did, as did Drouet (even if Drouet refused all promotions beyond sub-prefect). It is nevertheless strange that Marie-Angélique Lequesne did not express her most fervent opposition to Bonaparte's responsibility for the deaths of several of her comrades in arms, such as her Babouvist friends (notably her friend Rossignol, with whom she was always in contact; according to Bélanger, he was not even on the list of Jacobins to be deported, it was Bonaparte himself who added him, which led to his death). I would have liked to know more about her state of mind. Perhaps she had a reactionary turn, or perhaps not.

If she was indeed a cantinière for the French army in Belgium at some point, this, in addition to the Amazonian outfits she wore under the Directory, confirms that she was a woman of action. Furthermore, she always spoke with aides-de-camp, whether with her first or second husband, dined with military captains and their wives, not to mention her good relations with other generals. She could therefore have good relationships with certain army personalities. But she also presents a certain interesting paradox of personality. She married twice to men who at times had rather expeditious methods (especially Turreau); she often frequented Parein du Mesnil (at least during the French Revolution, whether before or after the Conspiracy of Equals), who was one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon, and she knew it. Similarly, if Salamin, Preux, and Rivaz are telling the truth (although some passages make me think they demonized her), she bears some responsibility for the attempted political downfall of Kalbermatten and the imprisonment of an innocent man. On the other hand, she showed great generosity, whether to people who more or less shared her politics (like her possible involvement in her husband Turreau adopting Camille Babeuf after his father's death) or simply to other people, as Susan Wheeler Decatur states that Marie-Angélique helped several French families in distress in 1805. Her generosity thus extended even to people who would not advance her "personal career" or when they were in disgrace. She is also described by Dolley Madison as "kind, intelligent, generous, simple, and curious." In the opinion of Washington's political figures, she therefore fared very well.

Furthermore, she had a great sense of humor. Not to mention that it was she who prevented Kalbermatten from being mistreated, even though she considered him an enemy. I have a hypothesis to better understand her personality: I think that yes, she indeed possessed all the qualities mentioned above, that she was surely demonized to better destroy her first husband's reputation, first by people like Philippeaux, then by others when she surely married Turreau (like many women of the French Revolution), but that she also believed that when the homeland was in danger, the most extreme means should be used to save it, even if it meant employing Turreau's methods. Similarly, when a territory needs to be annexed, if she felt anti-French sentiment in opposition, she could use unfair methods. This was not out of sadism, but because she wanted the safeguarding of France and the revolutionary gains above all (even if at times this actually worsened the situation, as happened after the Infernal Columns). Nevertheless, she believed in the right to a trial, even for those she disliked, and was opposed to lynching her adversaries. She also possessed diplomatic qualities, as seen in America, where she was sincerely loved by the American elite( or at least by a lot of them).

She could be pragmatic, as when there was no other recourse, she asked the Bourbons for help once the Restoration was definitive and declared herself the widow of a man she had divorced, as she was living in limited circumstances with her four children (she must have returned to France with the means her friends gave her, and the divorce costs must have been significant, especially to obtain custody of her children), but at no point did she rally to that regime. She surely wanted to leave that regime later and try a new start in America, but alas, that did not work and plunged her even further into destitution. Her pragmatism and prudence were also displayed in 1794 when she was imprisoned by deliberately not taking steps to be released for the first few months. I believe that Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced from Turreau, is the perfect example of the tragedy of women victims of domestic violence in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even in the 21st century in some respects). The moment her second husband decided to make her life a hell, she was unfortunately "stuck" and had no recourse, even more so with the retrograde Napoleonic laws that made wives even more vulnerable to violent husbands. He benefited from great legal impunity for what he inflicted upon her, and she could do nothing but physically defend herself and protect her children. It was her American friends who helped her minimally (and even then, it took a long time), but neither foreign ministry employees nor Bonaparte, who was aware of it, helped her at a time when she could have died given the blows Turreau inflicted. I imagine the mistreatment must have started early, long before they arrived in the United States. Perhaps even at the beginning of their marriage. The moment she could finally have a legal escape to leave him and take the children with her, he made her and their children live in destitution while he lived more than comfortably. Even in death, he was a nuisance to her since he left her barely any money for herself and her four children. Turreau betrayed his friend Ronsin a first time by blaming him for a defeat for which he was actually responsible, at a time when Ronsin was truly under attack.He betrayed him a second time, this time posthumously, in a more atrocious and gratuitous manner by treating his wife horribly.

It is a pity that Marie-Angélique is a completely forgotten figure, even though she was active both during the French Revolution and under the Napoleonic period and had a very interesting, albeit tragic, destiny. But I think this also partly stemmed from the fact that she was an Hebertist. Robespierre is highly demonized in popular media and films in general, those even further to his left are either forgotten or made even "worse." Similarly, concerning the Napoleonic period, it must be emphasized that among the "Napoleonic ladies," she had one of the least acceptable political pasts: an Hebertist with Babouvist tendencies . If that's the case, it would be sexist because she wasn't the only one with this political past; other men had it and are a little more "understood." This political combination must not have pleased at all (again, I mean for popular media). But I also think of another reason. It was her marriage to Turreau that put her "out of the game." I have the impression that the horrific aspect of Turreau during the French Revolution is emphasized, but less so during the Napoleonic period (although I don't believe he managed to cause as much damage as in Vendée). It is as if they wanted to conceal as much as possible what Turreau did under Bonaparte and, consequently, Marie-Angélique. What is frustrating is that Turreau was never punished for what he did, had a good end of life in a way, but I have the impression that his wife and children (especially Alexandrine) paid for his bad reputation by not receiving help (or at least not much) where some families who worked for Napoleon were able to benefit from better aid. For my part, I think it was when he was alive that he should have been held accountable, not his children, who were just as much victims of their father.

Sources: Thomas Fleming Jstore Henry Adams Michel Salamin Auguste Philippe Herlaut Preux Rivaz Raymonde Monnier

For the post I write on Ronsin it’s here : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share