#chaumette

I am not infallible, so please feel free to correct me.

It is generally accepted in historiography that after the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, which targeted Bonaparte, although the royalists were in fact the real perpetrators, the event allowed Napoleon to eliminate the left-wing opposition, more specifically the Jacobins.

Until the Battle of Marengo, Bonaparte’s regime still rested on fragile foundations, but after Napoleon’s victory, he was finally able to rid himself of this opposition. Some historians believe that Napoleon genuinely thought the Jacobins were responsible for the attack. However, I believe that he knew they were innocent and that the attack merely served as a convenient pretext. The proof lies in the fact that even after the real culprits were identified, he nevertheless allowed the repression to continue, as seen in the executions of Topino-Lebrun, Ceracchi, Arena, and Demerville during the Conspiracy of the Daggers, as well as in the deportation of other Jacobins. Some of these deportees were only able to return in 1809, others not until 1814, and some never returned at all; several died as a result of their deportation.

Moreover, some of those deported had already been imprisoned since 1797 (I am thinking in particular of the Babouvists Charles Germain, Cazin, and Moroy), which made it impossible for them, despite their opposition to Bonaparte, to have conspired against him.

But what was the place of women in all this? I will first highlight the position of those who were imprisoned beginning on 16 Nivôse, Year IX, and explain why they were the ones “chosen” to be incarcerated despite their innocence.

On 14 Nivôse, Year IX, a sénatus-consulte ordered the deportation of certain individuals outside European territory. Among those concerned were opponents of the Consulate such as Félix Le Peletier, Rossignol, and Lamberthé, as well as individuals such as Dufour, Chrétien, Brisevin, René Vatar, René Lebois, Mathurin Bouin, and others.

On 17 Nivôse, other Jacobin opponents were placed under surveillance, including Antonelle, as well as men such as Laignelot, Cochet, and Ricord. However, the day before, on 16 Nivôse, Year IX, an order for administrative detention was issued. This order concerned the arrest and incarceration of certain women.

Hébert and Chaumette both lived in Paris for the majority of the revolution (Hébert was there already at the outbreak of it and Chaumette arrived in the fall of 1790), yet the lack of private documents left behind by both and the so far incomplete digitalization of others (such as Hébert’s journal Père Duchesne) has lead to me not finding a connection between the two until December 1792, when Chaumette was made public prosecutor (agent national) and Hébert substitute public prosecutor of the Paris Commune. Throughout the remainder of their lives, we find the two occasionally take part in the same debates at the Commune. On February 22 1793, both advocated for going to the Convention and obtaining the death penalty for all hoarders (Le Républicain français, number 100 (23 February 1793), page 404), on March 16 they supported a journalist complaining about the council’s secretary and clerks (Nouvelles politiques, nationales et étrangères, number 77 (18 March 1793), page 307), on September 13 they got charged with writing a petition to the Convention alongside two others (Feuille du Salut Public, number 77 (5 September 1793), page 4), and on January 8 1794 they both opposed a proposal that they viewed as illegal (Annales patriotiques et littéraires de la France, et affaires politiques de l'Europe, number 372 (8 January 1794), page 1675)

On February 8 1793 we do however find a piece that could suggest the two had more than a professional relationship. On the day in question, Hébert’s newborn daughter Scipion-Virginie was taken to a civic baptism at the Bonne-Nouvelle section. Through the baptism record we see that Chaumette assisted here, alongside Hébert and the child’s two godparents (decree cited in Mémoires de la Société historique, littéraire et scientifique du Cher (1888), page 93).

Almost four months later, May 24 1793, an arrest warrant was issued against Hébert for having ”openly attacked the national representation” in six numbers of Père Duchesne (warrant cited cited in Le Père Duchesne: Hébert et la commune de Paris (1792-1794) (1908) by Paul d'Estrée, page 487). He had time to tell the Commune about his upcoming arrest in the night between May 24 and May 25. Chaumette is then recorded to have gone up to embrace him and say: ”Go my friend, I hope to join you soon.” When the session eleven o’clock the following morning continued, Chaumette could reveal that he in the meantime had gone over to the Abbaye prison where Hébert had since been brought, but been unable to see him since he was sleeping. Chaumette exclaimed that ”This is proof of Hébert’s innocence, because crime doesn’t sleep.” Later that day he did however manage to see him, and could report to the Commune that Hébert was calm and begged the Commune to be that as well. But, Chaumette added, attacking Hébert as journalist meant attacking freedom of the press, and he asked that the cell where Hébert was currently being held be called ”chamber of freedom of the press.” (Commune minutes cited in Le Père Duchesne d'Hébert: ou notice historique et bibliographique sur ce journal (1859) by Charles Brunet, page 17-25). On May 28, Hébert was released due to popular pressure. When he entered the Commune the very same day, Chaumette threw himself around his neck, an example that was then followed by the president, the secretaries and the women in the tribunes, who put a bonnet rouge on Hébert’s head. (Le Républicain français, number 196 (May 30 1793) page 793)

In October 1793, both Hébert and Chaumette were involved in the interrogation of the ex-dauphin Louis Charles. During Marie-Antoinette’s trial, Hébert described how, having received a letter from Simon, Louis Charles’ caretaker, he, Chaumette and mayor Pache went over to the Temple prison together to receive a declaration from the child (Hébert’s statement cited in Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, volume 29, page 355-356). Both Chaumette and Hébert’s signatures, alongside those of six others, can also be found on a document dated October 6, where Louis Charles, among other things, ”admits” to a incestuous relationship with his mother and aunt (cited in Procès des Bourbons (1798) page 236-238).

A week after Marie-Antoinette’s execution, October 23, Chaumette reveals to the Commune that he, Hébert and Pache have all been chosen to come and testify in the trial against the girondins starting the next day, and therefore requests a leave for him and Hébert until said trial is over (Mercure universel, 25 October 1793). Five days later, October 28, both Chaumette and Hébert cemented their harch stances at the jacobins, Hébert denouncing one of Marie-Antoinette’s lawyers and proposing the club asks the Convention the girondins be judged within 24 hours, and Chaumette asking for a decree stating ”that those who defend the murderers of the people be held in utter contempt and execration” to be sent to ”the tribunals, the forty-eight sections, and the popular societies.” Both of their suggestions were adopted (Le Républicain français, number 349 (October 31 1793) page 1413).

The Cordeliers Club (J. Guilhaumou)

The Cordeliers Club « is more famous than known » : with these words, the historian Albert Mathiez defined the major difficulty of every overview on the club, within whose history entire sections, for lack of sources or studies, remain obscure.

It is highly probable that the club already existed in April 1790 under the title « club of the rights of man ». It appeared under its full name Society of the friends of the rights of man and of the citizen in June 1790. An address of the Cordeliers of the same year proclaims that the patriots have to devote themselves « to the defence of the victims of suppression and to the relief of the unfortunate », and, in this capacity, adopted the eye, a symbol of surveillance, as the seal of the society. In the beginning, the club held its sessions in a room of the Cordeliers Convent. Being persecuted by the municipality, the Cordeliers ended up settling in the locale of the Musée, Hôtel de Genlis, Rue Dauphine, where they would remain throughout their existence.

Under the auspice of the rights of man and of the citizen, displayed behind the president in the debate room, the club presented a particular physiognomy. It thereby clearly distinguished itself from the Jacobin Club on the various levels of its existence : local (around the section of the Théâtre-Français), regional (in Paris) and national (in 1793). The Jacobins endeavoured to follow the initiatives of the National Assembly as closely as possible and to form a network of affiliated societies which would reverberate and enrich their propositions. The Cordeliers favoured their mission of surveillance and of control towards the constituted authorities. This is why they admitted women to their society, as well as passive citizens. A. Mathiez could say that they formed « a group of action and combat » that was always in a state of alert when it was a matter of reacting to breaches of the rights of man. Thus, the club was a favoured place of encounters, of exchanges between spokespersons, hommes de liaison, commissioners and other political mediators who wanted to apply the avowed droit naturel, the Constitution.

The club owes its first success, in 1791, to the federation which it established with the fraternal societies, which originally have been formed in its wake. Marat, a Cordelier par excellence, received the title « father of the fraternal societies ». Numerous revolutionary personalities frequented the club, although it is not possible to point out a leader : Danton, Hébert, Vincent, Rutledge, Legendre, Marat, Lebois, Chaumette, etc.

Increasingly critical towards the executive power, the club took the helm, during the spring of 1791, of the democratic movement in favour of the establishment of the Republic. After the king's flight, and in the moment of the composition of the Champ de Mars petition, the Cordeliers defined their principal and permanent objective : it was necessary to « proceed to the replacement and the organisation of a new executive power ». In the aftermath of the Champ de Mars Massacre (17 July 1791), due to repression and internal divisions, the club was weakened. It recovered its strength, in 1792, through the mediation of the network which it had built with the popular societies of the provinces. Thus, it would serve as the voice of the fédérés of 10 August and play a non-negligible role in the proceeding of the insurrection against the king. The position of the Cordeliers was consolidated during the winter of 1792-1793, at the time where the Jacobins collided with the Enragés. The growing importance of figures such as Hébert, the Père Duchesne, and Marat assured them a certain renown. But the club only reached a national dimension at the end of the insurrection of 31 May, 1 and June. Around it, several institutions gathered : the revolutionary committees of the sans-culotte sections, the Ministry of War where Vincent cut his teeth, the Commune of Paris and, of course, the popular societies. During the summer of 1793, the club conquered, with the help of the delegates for the festival of 10 August, a hegemonic position within the Jacobin movement. One can speak, at that time, of the Cordelier or « Hébertist » movement (A. Mathiez). Hébert, in Le Père Duchesne, defined the watchwords of the revolutionary movement. Vincent, for his part, explained his project for the organisation of the executive power at the club. The Cordeliers distanced themselves from the sans-culotte movement through their refusal of direct democracy. The Cordelier programme began to be realised, particularly in Marseille, by the assembly of the popular societies' central committees. But the Robespierrist Jacobins, partisans of « legislative centrality », were determined to put an end to the Cordelier offensive. In spite of their victory during the revolutionary journées of 4 and 5 September, which brought about the creation of the revolutionary army and the mise à l'ordre du jour of the Terror, the Cordeliers were attacked at the Jacobin Club by Robespierre and Coupé de l'Oise, at the National Convention by Billaud-Varenne during the second fortnight of September. Then began a series of skirmishes which resulted in the arrest of Vincent and Ronsin (17 December 1793). In the provinces, the representatives en mission, denounced by the Cordeliers, forced the central committees to dissolve.

In early 1794, the club turned back into a district club, influential in some sections, and closer to the demands of the Parisian popular movement. Now, what about the famous « Cordelier insurrection » of Ventôse, Year II? It was in fact a matter of political « manipulation » that was arranged by the Montagnards in order to deliver a first blow to the popular movement. The journalists, interpreting Hébert's moral call to insurrection in a political sense, strongly contributed to such a manipulation. It was their revenge against the Père Duchesne! After the arrest and execution (14 and 24 March 1794) of the Cordelier « leaders », the club, even after having been purified, ceased to gather permanently.

I'm not infallible, feel free to correct me

Emmanuel de Waresquiel has done solid work in his biographies of Fouché (despite some points where I disagree with him—partly due to my own subjective criteria, and partly because no historian is infallible). He mentions a significant number of revolutionaries whom Fouché assisted throughout his career, even though in Year VII he was one of the main opponents of the neo-Jacobins—closing their clubs—and in Year IX he sacrificed many Jacobins to Bonaparte in order to keep his position.

He helped Vadier and Parein du Mesnil, even though they had (albeit very loose) connections to the babouvism (and most of the babouvists disliked Fouché, and vice versa). He may also have tried to do the same for Rossignol (perhaps because Rossignol had good relations with Parein du Mesnil), as can be seen in the letters Rossignol sent to the Minister of Police here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/781841224830156800/rossignols-final-appeals-to-fouch%C3%A9?source=share . According to Adrien Bélanger, Fouché deliberately omitted Rossignol from the list of Jacobins to be arrested in Year IX; it was Bonaparte who added him as you can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/784020593902338048/there-is-currently-an-article-circulating-on-the?source=share .

He also ensured that Barère, as well as Armonville and François Tisset, received financial support. On the women’s side, he provided pensions to Charlotte Robespierre, to the widow of Collot d’Herbois (Anne-Catherine Joséphine Catoir), and to the widow of Antoine Dorfeuille, who had published newspapers in the style of Le Père Duchesne in Lyon.

However, given Fouché’s well-known miserliness and his highly ambiguous (to say the least) relationship with revolutionary principles, it is reasonable to assume that these acts of assistance were not entirely selfless (with perhaps the exception of Charlotte Robespierre, which does not require much analysis).

I do not believe that helping Vadier—by securing his release from prison—ultimately brought Fouché much benefit. Perhaps he hoped to obtain information about the Babeuvists, but I doubt Vadier provided any, or that Fouché truly expected him to (I say this knowing that Vadier has many things to reproach himself for, but not his conduct during the Conspiracy of Equals, nor his later attitude on his fellow Babouvists) .

As for Tisset and Armonville, I am not sufficiently familiar with them to draw conclusions. Barère, however, was politically inconsistent at times. To my knowledge, he did nothing to help Demerville—who was very close to him politically (Waresquiel even suggests that Demerville was his nephew)—when Demerville was arrested and executed, even though historians generally agree that the “daggers conspiracy” was largely fabricated or at least exaggerated. While Barère retained some revolutionary principles, he does not seem reliable in many respects. It is therefore plausible that Barère may have helped Fouché before this period, and vice versa.

The case of Parein du Mesnil is more troubling. Despite initially opposing the coup of 18 Brumaire Coup and having Babouvist connections, he appears to have become a police informant—denouncing “patriots,” (sic) gaining the trust of deportees’ wives, and relaying information to Fouché (or at least to Napoleonic authorities). This is illustrated in this article: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804861309236674560/the-role-of-women-supporting-the-jacobins-in-the?source=share

Thus, this assistance was clearly not without ulterior motives. The same likely applies to the widows of Collot d’Herbois ( you can see her history here Facebook) and Dorfeuille.

In the latter case, I do not know her situation when she accepted the pension—whether she was desperate or not. However, Fouché was known for attempting to erase certain aspects of his past from public opinion. Since Dorfeuille had worked in Lyon, it is possible that he and his widow possessed documents concerning Fouché’s activities there. My hypothesis is that she handed them over in exchange for protection—which would be entirely understandable given the harsh circumstances.

I lean toward a similar hypothesis for the widow of Collot d’Herbois. She endured extreme hardship in a failed attempt to save her husband, alongside Anne-Angélique Doye, and was likely ostracized and ruined. Fouché had effectively sacrificed Collot d’Herbois to deflect responsibility for events in Lyon—unlike Collot, who always accepted responsibility and refused to blame other people about what happened in Lyon (which was, in reality, a collective responsibility ).

In a short biography I wrote about Anne-Angélique Doye (see: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/801393590312075264/biography-about-anne-ang%C3%A9lique-doye-wife-of?source=share ), I noted that Jacques-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne left her manuscripts justifying his actions after his deportation. When he later discovered that she had remarried (even if it was to help him), he broke off all ties, and she returned the documents to his former father-in-law (they are now lost).Given that Collot was at his side, perhaps he had prepared documents concerning Lyon and the role that each person played in it.

To my knowledge (though I may be mistaken), while some papers belonging to Collot d’Herbois and his wife have been found, pamphlets he had printed to defend himself against the calumnies of the Thermidorians , no memoir manuscripts sent to her have surfaced—unlike many other revolutionaries who entrusted such documents to their spouses. It is possible that he never wrote them, that they were lost, or that he did send them—but that his widow surrendered them in exchange for a pension from Fouché. This may well have been a condition.

From these hypotheses, we can turn to the case of Henriette Simonin, about whom I gathered some information here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804044312295964672/the-information-i-have-been-able-to-find-about?source=share

She was a woman capable of holding strong political views and remained close to the Montagnards even in Year III. We know that Fouché and Chaumette worked together in Nevers during the French Revolution. However, Fouché later distanced himself from Chaumette after his death, blaming him for events in Nevers.

In 1801, Henriette Simonin was among the women imprisoned after the Rue Saint-Nicaise bombing due to her links with Jacobinism, particularly Babouvism (like Simone Evrard, Albertine Marat, and Marie-Anne Babeuf). Unlike the widows of Dorfeuille and Collot d’Herbois, she did not benefit from Fouché’s protection.

There are several possible explanations. She may have distrusted him after he distanced himself from her husband, knowing the truth. In the letter I found, she appears closer to Babouvist figures than to Fouché, and may even have encouraged them to distrust him. Notably, she showed genuine concern for Gracchus Babeuf and Marie-Anne Babeuf in a letter she sent when Babeuf was imprisoned again in Year III. Babeuf himself had once been close to Chaumette, though he later distanced himself from him posthumously when he renewed his admiration for Maximilien Robespierre. In a letter to his Hébertist friend Joseph Bodson—who resented Robespierre for the executions of Chaumette and Jacques Hébert—Babeuf spoke harshly of Chaumette.

Henriette Simonin may have opposed Fouché by attempting to make him acknowledge his own responsibility in Nevers. Another possibility is that she refused to seek help from a man who had become Minister of Police, seeing it as a betrayal of her principles, and chose instead to face the consequences.

It is also possible that Fouché considered her incapable of harming him and therefore ignored her situation. While it is certain that he sought to politically erase his role in Nevers, this was far less sensitive than his actions in Lyon.

The difficulty is that historians have largely neglected her, leaving us with very little information, despite the existence of at least three letters (two of which are hard to access).

The fact that I can only offer hypotheses is due not only to my own limits in historical knowledge and to certain passages of history that some historians have neglected to explore in depth, but also to the fact that Fouché had many documents destroyed upon his death, which accounts for some of the remaining mysteries.

I have already written a post explaining why Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette is, in my view, one of the most complex and paradoxical figures of the French Revolution, and therefore one of the most interesting: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/753092098599829504?source=share

Chaumette is unfortunately best known today for his misogyny toward women engaged in politics—a deeply regrettable aspect of his legacy—particularly because of his attacks on Olympe de Gouges and Manon Roland. He has been the victim of a negative legend that focuses only on his negative actions and ignores the more positive ones

Yet he had a wife, Henriette Simonin, who appears to have been herself politically engaged. From the limited information available, her life seems to have been profoundly tragic, or at least marked by extreme violence. She is generally described as having worked as a linen seamstress.

Marina Grey portrays her in the following terms in her book Hébert: le père Duchesne, agent royaliste:

“In 1792, forced to remain in Paris, where his salary barely allowed him to survive, Chaumette—who would soon thunder at the Commune against women of ill repute—seduced one of them. She divided her time between gallantry and home sewing. Dazzled by the vast culture of her new lover, Henriette Simonin declared herself ready to renounce her guilty activities and, from then on, to devote herself solely to needlework. Fearfully, she confessed her unexpected pregnancy. Contrary to all of Henriette’s pessimistic expectations, the announcement filled Chaumette, the future father, with joy and pride. He left his garret on rue Mazarine, rented a room for two at number 3 rue Serpente, then an apartment for three at 15 rue des Deux-Portes-Saint-André. And thus a daughter was born to him. He named her Laure and spoke of sending her, once she was weaned, to his father’s home in the Nièvre, where the air was purer than in Paris… Hébert therefore drinks to the health of little Laure while dreaming of the future birth of his own Scipion.”

In another passage, Grey writes:

“On October 29, the Convention, anxious to please the Club, issued a decree allowing the jurors of the Revolutionary Tribunal to consider themselves ‘sufficiently enlightened’ after only three days of hearings. That same evening, Chaumette invited Hébert to ‘eat a cutlet’ at his home. Jacques René did not much appreciate the family atmosphere of rue du Paon, nor the cooking of Henriette Simonin, the humble and rather careless companion of the prosecutor, and therefore suggested the inn known as the Suisse du Pont Tournant.”

The problem with Marina Grey’s account is that, while some elements of her book are accurate, others are demonstrably false. I have found no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Henriette Simonin was a prostitute. Such an accusation would require solid, verifiable sources, which are entirely lacking.

More broadly, it is important to remember that at the time—as in many other historical periods—attacking a political figure often meant attacking the women around him. Defamatory writings targeted Marie-Françoise Goupil, Hébert’s wife; Sophie Momoro, in order to better discredit Antoine-François Momoro; Bonne-Jeanne Fouché, née Coiquaud (attacks largely derived from the highly unreliable memoirs of Paul Barras, who fabricated numerous falsehoods later repeated by some biographers); as well as Élisabeth Le Bon, wife of Joseph Le Bon; Sylvie Audouin, née Pache; and Marie-Joseph Sagnier, the companion of Rigomer Bazin, one of the most prominent Jacobins of his time and an opponent of Bonaparte. In all these cases—and in many others—the accusations directed at these women were later shown to be entirely unfounded.

It is therefore entirely plausible that the same mechanism is at work in the way Henriette Simonin is described as “careless” and “galant.”

Several questions remain unanswered. It would be important, for instance, to determine the exact date on which the Chaumette couple sent their daughter to live with her paternal grandfather in Nevers, as well as the reasons behind this decision. Was it truly because the air of Nevers was considered purer than that of Paris? Or was it, at a later stage, a way of protecting the child’s psychological well-being—first from her father’s execution, then from the inevitable confiscation of property, and from the violence of the White Terror and the persecutions her mother must have endured?

It is important to note that she cared for her husband so much that she visited him in prison when he was arrested, hoping that he would get out of trouble.

Based on information provided by @anotherhumaninthisworld, as posted here: Tumblr link, there is evidence that Henriette Simonin visited Chaumette during his trial, which ultimately resulted in a death sentence.

Indeed, during the proceedings, Chaumette stated that he had been visited in prison by his wife, who “had made me hope I wasn’t going to get implicated in the Hébert affair” (Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, vol. 32, p. 258).

It is interesting to note that she was one of the Hébertist women who were not imprisoned during this period, unlike Marie-Françoise Hébert, Sophie Momoro, and Marie-Angélique Momoro.

In any case, Henriette Simonin was clearly far removed from the image of a mere “groupie” that has sometimes been attributed to her. She was capable of genuine political reflection, firmly rooted in Montagnard ideas. She also formed relationships with political figures other than her husband, such as René Lebois and Gracchus Babeuf. Importantly, she also knew their wives—René Lebois’s wife and Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf—and expressed concern for them, demonstrating a strong sense of solidarity and altruism.

In my view, Henriette Simonin was also capable of considerable courage. At a time when Montagnard politics were in retreat, when muscadins were violently persecuting women suspected of Jacobin sympathies, she not only remained in Paris but explicitly signed one of her letters “Madame Chaumette.” This gesture is all the more striking given that Chaumette, although executed in Year II, was never rehabilitated. Such an act reveals remarkable strength of character.

The following letter, written by Henriette Simonin to Babeuf while he was imprisoned in Arras shortly before the Prairial insurrection, is particularly revealing. According to Robert Legrand, it reflects the state of mind of Parisians who still sympathized with Montagnard politics at that time. Henriette even referred to Gracchus Babeuf as her “cousin”:

"My dear cousin, Is it possible for you to leave us in the anxious state we are in, receiving no news from you at all? Lebois wrote to his wife and told her that you had written to yours. Yet she has received no news; she has only been able to worry, and she is in a condition I cannot begin to describe… She thinks that, since you wrote directly to her, the letter may not have reached her. As for me, I think you have lacked confidence in me, since you did not write to my address. If that is the case, I urge you to write to her in whatever manner you think proper, so long as she has some news from you. Tell her whether you have received your linen as well as the money she sent you—25 livres enclosed in the message with the letter, and another 25 livres in your linen.

As for affairs here, they could not be going worse than they are. The Mountain is oppressed and can no longer speak. The faction entirely has the upper hand, and they are imprisoning those members of the Mountain who showed the most energy. Laurent Lecointre is among them; in short, we have no hope left except in that Constitution which is to be presented to us on the 14th of Floréal. Such, my dear cousin, is the state of the patriots of Paris. To describe to you the misery to which we are reduced would be only to increase your suffering. We have only half a pound of bread per person per day in Paris. But every possible means is being used to try to obtain your liberty. Do not leave us any longer in such anxiety—you owe it to your wife, who is in utter despair.

Write at once, then, to relieve her of her anxiety. Farewell, I remain most fraternally yours. Your fellow citizen, Madame Chaumette.”

Marie-Anne Babeuf also adds to Madame Chaumette’s letter:

“Ah, my God, my dear friend, you are not writing to me! Has something happened to you? Tell me at once! If you are well, how can you leave me so long in such anxiety? If I had had any money, I would have gone to you immediately. I would even have risked leaving without a passport, for one is required, as I told you in my last letter (…) Write to one of your friends so that I may receive some money at once (…) so that I may make this journey. Write to me immediately, I beg you. Your wife, Babeuf.”

One may wonder how Henriette Simonin reacted when Babeuf later became a supporter of Robespierre, given the role Robespierre played in her husband’s death and the harsh words Babeuf himself had previously used against Chaumette and Hébert. In a letter sent to one of his Hébertist friends, Joseph Bodson, Babeuf commented on Robespierre, Hébert, and Chaumette, despite the political relationship and correspondence he had maintained with Chaumette, whom he even referred to as a friend.

Henriette Simonin appears to have continued corresponding with others, possibly as late as Year VII, although I have so far found no trace of the complete letters themselves. One archival reference exists:

F 129, Archives départementales de la Somme: Letter from Madame Chaumette, Paris, 22 Germinal, Year VII (p. 102, copy). An excerpt is mentioned in a JSTOR article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41914626

These letters remain to be located.

Similarly, access to certain archival materials would be invaluable. I include the following link for those who might have greater success than I have had in consulting these documents: https://bibliotheques-specialisees.paris.fr/ark:/73873/FRCGMBPF-751045102-01B/D55B11773

Finally, one may ask whether Henriette Simonin was already politically active during her husband’s lifetime, or whether she only became politically engaged after the death of her male relative—much like Albertine Marat after the assassination of her brother, Jean-Paul Marat.

The Misfortunes of Henriette Simonin

According to research published on Geneanet (https://gw.geneanet.org/fse75?lang=fr&n=simonin&p=clotilde+henriette), Henriette Simonin tragically outlived her daughter Laure, who died in 1796. One can scarcely imagine her state of mind at that time, having lost her only child—on top of her husband, her social position, and any hope of rehabilitation for Chaumette’s memory. Her father-in-law, after losing his son, was also forced to witness the death of his granddaughter.

She may later have remarried a man named Joseph Guariche and had a son, Pierre-Joseph Jean Achille.

Henriette Simonin was among the women temporarily arrested under the Consulate in 1801, following the assassination attempt on the rue Saint-Nicaise, an act carried out by royalists but used as a pretext for neo-Jacobin repression. To my knowledge, at least four women were imprisoned in this context: Albertine Marat, Simone Evrard, Marie-Anne Babeuf, and Henriette Simonin. There may well have been others.

She died in 1810.

In my view, Henriette Simonin was a highly compelling figure who endured a remarkable accumulation of misfortune. Yet history—often shaped by popular culture, particularly television—has focused far more attention on reactionary female figures of the French Revolution, such as Marie-Antoinette, Madame Élisabeth, or the Princesse de Lamballe, as well as on monarchist or liberal figures like Olympe de Gouges and Germaine de Staël. This is not to suggest that these women should not be studied—they absolutely should—but other women, especially those who were well known in their own time, also deserve serious scholarly attention. Widow Chaumette is undoubtedly one of them.

It is particularly striking that Chaumette—a man so openly misogynistic—married a woman who was politically engaged and appears to have been psychologically strong.

I have previously written about a common trait shared by Buonarroti and Bonaparte here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/800096493264683008/common-points-between-bonaparte-and?source=share : despite being surrounded by highly intelligent, politically active women who supported them extensively, both men opposed women’s political rights—Bonaparte most notably so. Chaumette may well belong to this same category, given the number of politically capable Hébertist women who assisted him despite his narrow views on the subject—probably including his wife, Sophie Momoro as the Goddess of Reason, and the women attending the Cordeliers Club, such as Vincent’s wife, Ronsin’s wife, Ancart’s wife, and others.

P.S.: Even if Henriette Simonin had truly been a prostitute, she should not be blamed for it. The responsibility lies with a society that placed women in such situations in order to survive. My skepticism concerns the sources themselves, since this would not be the first time that such a claim was fabricated to discredit a woman and then, unfortunately, repeated by biographers without proper verification.

Sources:

Dommanget, Robert Legrand, Babeuf et ses compagnons de route

Arch. Dép. Somme, F. 129, p. 102

Moscow, I.M.L., Letter from Mme Babeuf and Mme Chaumette to Babeuf in Arras, 27 Germinal Year III, 16 April 1795

Marina Grey

On the life of Sylvie Audouin, née Pache: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776418727578189824/the-revolutionary-path-of-sylvie-audouin-daughter?source=share

On Sophie Momoro: it's here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758994396416016384/life-and-fate-of-sophie-momoro-n%C3%A9e-fournier-and?source=share she played the role of the Goddess of Reason during dechristianization ceremonies, managed her husband’s workshop and printing presses, and accompanied him to the Vendée. She also drafted appeals to the Convention.

On Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share

On critiques of Olympe de Gouges: https://www.tumblr.com/mathildeaquisexta/780925698140405760/i-agree-with-pretty-much-everything-that-has-been?source=share

The Pache family has gradually faded into relative obscurity (except among historians), even though they were once prominent and well-known revolutionaries, comparable to the Duplays and the Robespierre for example.

In addition to the text below, I’ve included links to posts about this revolutionary family. These posts will introduce you to their stories, political paths, and the relationships they may have had—particularly with figures such as Maximilien and Augustin Robespierre, Manon Roland, Camille Desmoulins, Brissot, Dumouriez, Jean-Paul Marat, Hébert, Gaspard Monge, Lazare Carnot, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Lindet, and others.

Jean Nicolas Pache: The Swiss Minister of War During the Revolution, Then Mayor of Paris Part I Part II

Xavier Audouin: From Convicted Hébertist Republican to Neo-Jacobin Facing the Directory, Then a Devout Royalist Under the Restoration https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776762458733002752/the-life-of-the-revolutionary-xavier-audouin-from?source=share

The Revolutionary Path of Sylvie Audouin, Daughter of the Hébertist Revolutionary Mayor and Minister of War Jean-Nicolas Pache, and Wife of the Famous Revolutionary Xavier Audouin https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776418727578189824/the-revolutionary-path-of-sylvie-audouin-daughter?source=share

The Career of Jean Pache: From Soldier in the Service of the Revolution, Baron under the Empire, to Fervent Royalist during the Restoration https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/779573958449168384/the-career-of-jean-pache-from-soldier-in-the?source=share

Jean-Nicolas Pache, the most famous of them all, was born on May 5, 1746, in Verdun, the son of Nicolas Pache, a Swiss doorman in the service of the Castries family, and Jeanne Lallemand, who would faithfully follow her son throughout his life. He attended the Royal School of Engineering in Mézières, where he met and became one of the best friends of Gaspard Monge. His rise was facilitated by Castries, who recognized his potential, and when Castries became Minister of the Navy, Pache became the secretary-general of this ministry and even held the position of royal controller under Necker. After becoming a widower, he withdrew with his two young children (Sylvie and Jean) and his mother to Switzerland. He would only return in 1789-1790, where he began his revolutionary journey alongside his friend Monge. He founded the Patriotic Society of Luxembourg.

At first, Jean-Nicolas Pache befriended the Roland couple (especially Manon Roland), whose intelligence and abilities led to him becoming their secretary and later the Minister of War. However, their friendly relations soured for political reasons. Brissot attacked him, and Pache aligned himself with the Montagnards, notably supported by Maximilien Robespierre (although Augustin Robespierre apparently held him in high regard as well), Jean-Paul Marat, and Hébert. He was categorized as an Hébertist (although the situation was more complex). Despite losing his position as Minister of War due to the efforts of some Jacobins, he quickly became popular and was elected Mayor of Paris. He would align himself more closely with the Hébertists, face significant issues such as riots, famine, and participate in the events of May 31 and June 2, according to his own account. He supported the Law of the Maximum and was involved in the execution of Marie-Antoinette. A fervent advocate for dechristianization, he survived the fall of the Hébertists and was arrested on May 10, 1794, with his mother, daughter, and son-in-law, leading to his removal from office. Contrary to what is often said to perpetuate the black legend of Carnot, their arrest was not due to a dispute that went awry, but due to more complex reasons, such as their affiliation with the Hébertists, as well as suspicions arising from their connection to the former Minister of War Bouchotte, who was seen by some as allied with the faction of the Exagérés.

Jean-Nicolas Pache, along with other left-wing prisoners (including Xavier Audouin, Bouchotte, Rossignol, Marchand, Héron, and others), was dragged from prison to prison, facing imminent death as the right-wing regained power. They would only be saved on 4 Brumaire Year IV (October 26, 1795). Afterward, he withdrew to Thin-le-Mouthier, wrote works, became a member of the Agricultural, Arts, and Commerce Society of the Ardennes, and contrary to popular belief, did not immediately abandon political life. He published a manifesto in defense of the Babouvistes, which also criticized Lazare Carnot. It was only after the Brumaire coup, which brought to power a man he despised, Napoleon, that he withdrew from politics and rejected his friend Monge's offer to work for the First Consul, although he parted from him on good terms.

Xavier Audouin was a defrocked priest who began his revolutionary career in 1790. He quickly founded the Journal Universel in 1790, became a member of the Fontaine-de-Grenelle section, and participated in the August 10, 1792, insurrection. He befriended, among others, Hébert. After a month-long mission, he entered the Ministry of War under Pache, where he became the secretary-general. He married Pache’s daughter, Sylvie, who was 16 at the time. After Pache’s departure, Audouin became Bouchotte's deputy in the 6th division. He played a role in one of the most famous measures of the time, judicial reform: “We propose to relieve the Revolutionary Tribunal from the forms that stifle conscience and prevent conviction; 2) to add a law that gives jurors the ability to declare they are sufficiently informed. Only then will traitors be deceived, and terror will be the order of the day."

He was arrested at the same time as his father-in-law and shared the same fate until the amnesty of 4 Brumaire Year IV. Later, he founded Le Publiciste Philanthrope, becoming one of the most famous neo-Jacobins and opponents of the Directory (alongside figures like Félix Le Peletier, Topino-Lebrun,Antonelle, Victor Bach, Antonelle, Drouet, Jorry, René Vatar, etc.), and predicted Napoleon's rise. After the Brumaire coup, Xavier Audouin was included in a list for deportation, but this decision was quickly revoked. He became an historiographer at the War Depot and attempted, unsuccessfully, to rehabilitate the administration of Year II. He temporarily withdrew from political life in 1802 to become a lawyer. After the definitive Restoration of Louis XVIII, he became a royalist, a lawyer at the Royal Court, advocated for the abolition of the death penalty in political matters, and made proposals for better organizing the administration. He also wrote several books throughout his life. He always had an aversion to Camille Desmoulins, which seemed to be mutual.

Sylvie Audouin, born Pache, was just a teenager when her father took the family to Paris in 1790. She was a musician and played the harp like him. However, she already had a political consciousness when, in 1792, she signed alongside her future husband, Xavier Audouin, and other well-known revolutionaries like Pauline Léon. This suggests that she regularly attended the Luxembourg Patriotic Section. She also dined with her father’s collaborators such as Carnot-Feulins, Meusnier, Audouin, Vincent, Vergne, Hassenfratz, etc. According to historian Mathilde Larrère, Sylvie was already known during this period.

She married during the same period that Louis XVI was judged. According to her husband, she did not hesitate to discuss politics publicly or privately despite her young age. She showed great strength of character during the imprisonment of her father and husband, to the point where she was awarded a civic crown in Year IV. It can only be assumed that she continued to care about the politics of her husband while publicly supporting her father, remaining loyal to him even during the worst times. According to Pierquin, she did not become a royalist during the Restoration (unlike what Wikipedia said but also Tornare as he may not be reliable at times ) unlike her husband, her childrens and her brother.

Jean Pache, the youngest son of Jean-Nicolas Pache, made his career primarily in the military. As a young man during the French Revolution, he campaigned but returned to try to help his imprisoned father. He would continue his career under the Empire and was titled Baron. During the first Restoration, he became a fervent royalist and was awarded the Saint Louis Medal, while maintaining his noble title.

Debunking the "Black Legend": Accusations and Defences

There is a great black legend surrounding this family. Jean-Nicolas Pache, due to his secretive nature, has been seen as a traitor by the Girondins, and it is true that he did not make any gestures to assist some of his former friends, such as Manon Roland. However, as seen in the posts dedicated to him, the blame is shared. While he testified against them and did not react during the highly questionable executions of Madame Roland or other Girondins, this was not to his credit. Moreover, although he did not join his Hébertist colleagues in the attempted insurrection for valid reasons, he did not testify during the mock trial that sentenced them to death, despite their requests. He also did not intervene during the trial and execution of Chaumette, despite having worked closely with them and Hébert being one of those who had come to Pache’s aid against the Girondins. Additionally, the false testimony he gave about Marie-Antoinette’s son was atrocious. Some described him as a power-hungry man behind his discreet appearance. Even if, with his secretive nature, it is impossible to know his regrets, the only public remorse he displayed, according to Pierquin, was for failing to reconcile the Dantonists with the Commune (thus the Hébertists), as he believed that could have saved the revolution.

However, if it is true that he betrayed his former allies, he did defend Garin, who was harshly attacked. He showed great courage during his imprisonment, where he narrowly escaped the guillotine when the right regained power. He did not complain, especially not in the fortress of Ham, and did not throw his colleagues under the bus, particularly Bouchotte. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, after his release, he risked imprisonment or deportation again by writing in favor of the Babouvistes.

His lifelong friendship with Gaspard Monge endured, and he parted from him on good terms in 1803. Regarding his thirst for power, there is a strong counter-argument: he refused Napoleon’s offer to work for him on principle.

Xavier Audouin was occasionally accused of incompetence (his fortune was considered greater than his merit according to Adrien Sée) and cowardice, especially for not testifying in favor of his Hébertist friends, for having worked under the Consulate (potentially for the Empire) after denouncing Bonaparte during the Directory, and for being royalist during the Restoration.

Regarding the first accusation, it’s important to remember that he worked for Pache before he became his son-in-law and served as general secretary. Jean Nicolas Pache liked to surround himself with competent people, and therefore, Audouin must have had the qualities required for such an important position. He continued in this role as Bouchotte’s assistant. Furthermore, he was far from a "yes man," opposing certain matters, especially those related to his beloved father-in-law or his friend Vincent, particularly regarding the case of François-Siméon Chauvet. I also doubt that an incompetent person could have been part of the most important neo-Jacobins or predicted that Bonaparte would come to power if there wasn’t more vigilance. Not to mention that he was highly skilled at organizing certain administrations, a talent that would surface again when he became a lawyer at the Royal Court. He proposed interesting ideas regarding administrative reforms and the reorganization of ministries.

As for the accusation of cowardice, it is true that although testimonies show that Audouin was deeply affected by the death of his Hébertist friends, there is no written record of his opposition to the mock trials (even though Audouin claimed he had conflicts with the Committee of Public Safety). However, when he was arrested along with his father-in-law Pache and the guillotine was near, he openly requested in his letters that he share Pache’s fate, whatever it may be. He ends some of his letters with the republican saying “Liberty or death.” Furthermore, he remained a neo-Jacobin during the Directory at a time when it was very difficult for them, showing a form of courage. As for the fact that he rallied to Bonaparte for a time, it is unfortunate that he found himself caught in a contradiction between his attitude during the Directory and under the Consulate. However, he sought to rehabilitate the administration of Year II, even if it was in vain. I also believe that the reason he left the Consulate in Year II, according to some sources, may have been due to the persecution of Jacobins (after all, Topino-Lebrun, his colleague under the Directory, was executed under the Consulate following a mock trial, and the mass deportations of Jacobins led to the deaths of, among others, his colleague René Vatar, his former printer, and Rossignol, whom he knew well when they were imprisoned together). If Drouet, who had an impeccable revolutionary career until the era of Bonaparte, supported Napoleon and was "pardoned," why not Audouin?

When he became a staunch royalist under the Restoration, he did not renounce his revolutionary past, which could be seen as a defense in his favor.

Sylvie Audouin also has a certain dark legend that persists. Some historians, including Adolphe Thiers (although, given Thiers' political views, it’s no surprise he acted in bad faith), perpetuated the claim that she was part of the “lower Jacobinism,” and Taine even invented an imaginary sister for Sylvie, claiming that Pache “took pride in sending his daughters to the club to give the fraternal kiss to drunken Jacobins.” One of the most demonizing quotes about Sylvie came from Dumouriez, one of Pache’s sworn enemies, who said that “as ugly as she was wicked, this girl went to all the clubs to demand the head of the King.” Although Sylvie Audouin was known for openly discussing politics, signing manifests, she was too young to speak at a podium, even Lenôtre (who clearly was not a supporter of the French Revolution and partially criticized Pache) contested Dumouriez’s statement and defended Sylvie. Furthermore, one must consider Sylvie's actions: would a wicked girl have been friends with the daughters of Monge, as Louis de Launay stated? Would she have openly supported her husband and father in prison when their fate was uncertain, asking for forgiveness once freed, to be free before them? Would she have defied the guards’ insults, especially during the period of the White Terror, passed messages through the prison bars to Pache and Audouin, shared a tough winter in prison with her husband, and comforted other prisoners , notably Foussedoire, and written letters to try to secure her husband’s release? Would she have remained faithful to her father even during the Restoration? Between these facts and Dumouriez’s words, the choice is clear in my view.

Another point is that even in the memoirs of Pierquin, who conducted detailed research on Pache (although Pierquin often criticizes other revolutionary figures such as Carnot), it is said that Sylvie Audouin liquidated some of her father’s assets in 1825, even though she passed away in 1820 (unless she left posthumous instructions).

What is sad is that even the very small biographies (other than Louis de Launay's) that defend her or try to make her known focus solely on the prison aspect she endured, without mentioning her political actions, such as the manifest that she signed in 1792 against Louis XVI, for example, before her marriage.

Jean Pache also suffered his share of criticism. The first accusation is that after serving as a “soldier” and engineer during the French Revolution, he accepted a title under the Empire. Furthermore, during the first Restoration, he became a fervent royalist, adopting the title Baron Jean, renouncing his family name, and abandoning his father, who had just lost his mother, daughter, and granddaughter. However, one must also remember that during the French Revolution, he did everything he could to defend his father until his release in 1795. He did not espouse any significant ideology during this period (making it difficult to accuse him of being opportunistic), and the reason Jean Nicolas Pache was left alone despite his role in the trial of Marie-Antoinette was that his son had good relations with the royalists.

The last family member subject to these preconceived ideas is Jeanne Lallemand, Jean-Nicolas Pache’s mother. Described by Lenôtre as “a simple woman born in the time of the Regency, whose entire life had been spent in the humblest of circumstances, she certainly never understood the reasons for her son’s sudden rise or the disasters that followed,” (excerpt from Paris révolutionnaire: Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers). Nevertheless, a letter from Xavier Audouin disproves this view. He writes that Jeanne Lallemand always supported and applauded her son's revolutionary journey.

In conclusion, I make some suppositions and observations. I believe that Sylvie Audouin was always torn between the ideals of her father and her husband. According to Louis de Launay (although this is debatable because he provides an incorrect reason for the arrest of the Pache family), she was much more Hébertist than her father, as she allegedly argued over the executions of Prieur de la Côte d’Or and Lazare Carnot. Moreover, she engraved her husband’s name on her chest both out of loyalty and, for some, ideology (which Lenôtre compares to Bernadotte, who had the phrase “Death to kings” engraved on his arm). On the other hand, it seems that Xavier Audouin had little animosity towards Carnot, as according to Aulard, while he did not hesitate to admit that he had argued with Vadier, Collot, and Robespierre (who opposed the arrest of the Pache family), he claimed that his wife had argued with a governor (implied to be a member of the Committee of Public Safety) without naming them, which is strange. I believe it was Carnot or Prieur de la Côte d’Or (although Prieur was also one of those who refused to sign the arrest warrant for Pache). If this is true, then Sylvie's aversion to Carnot was shared with her father. Moreover, according to Pierquin, Sylvie did not become royalist like her husband and brother, a trait she shared with her father. I also wonder whether, given her background as the daughter of a Minister of War, who clearly taught her about politics and allowed her to interact with his collaborators, and as the wife of a former general secretary at that ministry, she understood some aspects of military operations or at least the workings of a ministry (within reason).

It is interesting to note the evolution of Xavier Audouin, who moved from judicial reform during the harsh three-day rule (which I mentioned earlier regarding the Revolutionary Tribunal) to, during the Directory, advocating “an emotional amplification of the country’s woes” and pleading for fraternity, forgiveness, and general reunification (though the context in 1793, when France was in a dire situation, explains this, while under the Directory, the Jacobin and Pantheon clubs disappeared). Finally, as a royalist, he became a man opposed to the death penalty in political matters. However, when his wife passed away, he ceased all political activity as if he had lost his political advisor and source of strength. Lenôtre says, “When he (Xavier Audouin) was no longer under the influence of his Cornélie (...), he softened permanently. He died a royalist in 1837.”

Good question. I'm not sure which period you want to talk about regarding the Jacobins, so let's discuss the one after the fall of Louis XVI's monarchy. I will mainly encompass the Mountain faction.

Regarding tactical errors, according to some historians, including Antoine Resche, a contemporary historian who has made excellent videos on the French Revolution under the name Histony, which can be found on the Veni Vidi Sensi website, leans towards the lack of left-wing unity as one of the errors. And honestly, he's not wrong. Some might think that the elimination of Danton and the Hébertists was a turning point. But it was salvageable (I've already discussed what I thought in one of my posts). Only the Jacobins made the grave mistake of eliminating Chaumette, among others, even though he had refused to participate in an attempt to overthrow the Convention, which showed he was the most reasonable. Keeping him as the prosecutor of the Commune would have appeased some of the sans-culottes. Instead, the Convention has him arrested and executed. I understand that at that time the Convention could not afford an overthrow and was afraid Chaumette might change his mind, but by doing so, they alienated a large part of the sans-culottes. The wave of executions like Gobel or Chaumette was one of the most disastrous moves.

Another one is the non-application of the Ventôse laws, but it is true that some Montagnards blocked this, and the Marais was against these laws.

Also, being a fervent advocate of freedom of expression, there should never have been decrees holding journalists accountable. I don't particularly like Desmoulins, but executing him for his writings… Moreover, it will not prevent opinions from forming and solidifying.

Regarding moral errors: In addition to the travesties of justice I mentioned concerning the Hébertists and the Dantonists, there were other cases. When Girondin deputies were dismissed, most deputies did not want them dead, let alone imprisoned. They were only supposed to remain under house arrest. The problem is, many of them escaped and incited uprisings in the departments, which further exacerbated the already endangered Republic. Despite all I have to reproach them for, some Girondins were honorable people, notably Manon Roland and Vergniaud (even if Vergniaud had an ambiguous attitude, he still remained under house arrest) who stay in Paris. Yet they were judged, condemned to death, and executed along with other Girondins who incited or attempted uprisings and fled Paris. It wasn't even a tactical error; it was unfair.

Another very minor point concerns the Convention entirely, and this is my opinion. Why separate Marie Antoinette from her son? I understand there were royalists in Paris (the assassination of the remarkable Louis Michel Lepeletier by one of Louis XVI's former guards, among other events, will demonstrate this) who would do anything to get their hands on him as Louis XVII, which would have been dangerous. It would have been better to monitor the child's education closely given this context, but why not have strict supervision while leaving him in his mother's care, even though we know her opinions? I don't want to demonize Antoine Simon, executed in Thermidor; he wasn't a brute; he had compassion for the former queen and liked the child, but it's horrible. Being myself a proponent of reforms for jail to ensure the child remains very close to his parents, I protest against this. And the royalists seized upon it to portray an image of an inhumane Republic.

Women's rights were not respected, as I discussed in my post "Women's rights suppressed."

One of the most serious errors was the Prairial Law. When this bill presented by Couthon and later approved by the Committee of Public Safety and voted on by the Convention passed, many innocents suffered. Following the execution of the "Robespierrists," the Convention lied, saying it had not approved it, which was false.

Paradoxically, there was no internal elimination necessary at that time, notably the case of Carnot, who gave orders behind the backs of others to wage a war of conquest, which would have jeopardized the Battle of Fleurus if Saint-Just had not intervened with the order. I don't understand why he wasn't arrested; generals have been executed for less than that. This man doesn't deserve his title as the organizer of Victory, but having eliminated those who had really done the job like Saint-Just, among others, he could claim that title.

I realize I have done a critical job on the Montagnards even though I admire them, so a few lines to rehabilitate them. Most of them refused the irresponsible war of conquest advocated by the Girondins. Finally, fatigue was fatal to them. They put their best efforts into saving France, but most became ill (Couthon, Robespierre; I don't know if Billaud-Varenne was beginning to develop his dysentery or if his illness came after his deportation). Robespierre made a grave mistake by slamming the door on the Committee of Public Safety following a dispute among its members, then a few weeks later making a speech where he designated culprits without naming names (like Fouché, for example), so some wrongly believed they were the ones being designated when they weren't. Fouché and his gang played on this.

I want to say that Jean Clement Martin explained that if the Girondins are seen as victims, it's because they didn't have time to put the Montagnards on the guillotine. There were quite a few assassinations of Montagnard deputies (some think that Barbaroux manipulated Corday to kill Marat, Joseph Chalier was killed in atrocious conditions by the Girondins of Lyon, Isnard's speech). When the Jacobins acted, there was an internal civil war and an external war against the Revolution, plus a depreciated currency. And they saved it. For a while, they tried to accommodate (at least the majority of them) their adversaries. Then the gloves came off. But they remained in democracy, even in the worst moments. The Jacobins supported the abolition of slavery (not just them), and most of the major Jacobin figures fully supported the uprisings by slaves against the colonists.

Napoleon, although praised today for inheriting a better situation thanks to the efforts of his predecessors, through his dictatorial attitudes, betrayal of the Jacobins, and wars of conquest (all the wrong things), left France in a worse state with the return of the Bourbons. Revolutionaries like Marat predicted from the outset of the French Revolution that if the Girondins persisted in declaring war, even if France were victorious, there would be a military dictatorship and subsequently the return of the Bourbons.

All this leads me to think that it was the revolutionaries of the Mountain who were pragmatic and Napoleon the "idealist" in the wrong sense of the term, given his grandiosity and stupid belief (in my opinion) that he could impose hereditary dictatorship, exploit other countries without them retaliating (but that's another story).

Finally, the Jacobins in power were exhausted; they even lacked sleep hours due to their internal schedules. Before the Prairial Law was passed, there was an assassination attempt on Collot, so it was thought that the royalist danger was present. Plus, this law was disfigured by those who presented it; they thought they would only use it against people like Fouché, Carrier, Barras, Fréron, Tallien—des despicable men who dishonored France and the Revolution. It was they who later presented themselves as victims of the Jacobins when they were the worst during the Terror. Contrary to belief, heads rolled after the Terror; just look at the execution of Romme and the other Montagnards, the execution of Babeuf, the fact that anyone who demanded the constitution of 1793 could be punishable by death.