In defense for Fouquier Tinville
As usual, I want to clarify that I do not clearly approve of Fouquier Tinville in every aspect (I don't particularly like the character), but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility (especially his defense in the Convention, which said he also blamed Robespierre, I understand the tactic, but it's not just his fault, and Tinville knew very well that it was a tactic to try to avoid arrest). The sans-culottes are not bloodthirsty, the events are more complex than that.
Also, as I mentioned in my previous posthttps://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749676278230188032/in-defense-for-manon-roland?source=share , the points I highlight in favor of Tinville do not mean that I approve of them, but simply that they are truthful in order to mount a good defense.
In Defense of Fouquier Tinville
Today, I have come to defend Citizen Fouquier Tinville, accused of all the evils of the revolution. He is seen as some kind of inquisitor of evil. I have come to dismantle all these clichés. Tinville embodies the very spirit of legality and is a victim of a great black legend as widespread as it is false.
Firstly, during the revolution, Fouquier Tinville was only a substitute for the public prosecutor of the criminal court of the Seine. He did not become the public prosecutor until April 1793. His function, contrary to what I have found in comments on YouTube, was not to pronounce the death penalty but primarily to enforce the laws by accusing the suspects presented to him, establishing acts of accusation, and ensuring respect for procedures. He is know as a very worker man and conscientious.
Of course, one could argue against this spirit of trials being rigged, such as the trial of Marie Antoinette, which was a mockery of justice. But let's not forget the context. Following numerous defeats suffered by the Republic, the sections of the Sans-Culottes demanded that they no longer target clearly suspicious individuals but rather a whole group of individuals displaying suspicious behavior, what is called the Law of Suspects. So it could seem logical that this would apply to the former Queen of France.
Furthermore, regarding the dubious part of the trial of the Girondins, we must not forget that Tinville should not be the only one to bear reproach. It was the majority of the Convention that voted for the motion proposed by Robespierre, as I mentioned in the post https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/749676278230188032/in-defense-for-manon-roland?source=share .
During the trial of the Indulgents, Tinville clearly explained that he could not compel the accused to request defense witnesses. In fact, this led to a change in procedure that the Convention voted on, and one of the reasons why the accused were charged with the prison conspiracy. So here we see that Fouquier Tinville refused to go beyond the illegality of the procedure to the point where it could be modified.
Let's not forget that the Revolutionary Tribunal acquitted half of the accused, so we are far from the Spanish Inquisition as insinuated by Heffron's film. Tinville was not the only one operating this tribunal, and for every action he was accused of later, the deputies of the Convention voted for the procedure to be modified each time.
According to André Castelot, although he himself admits that it may be questionable, the day Tinville learned of the bloody Prairial Law, he was outraged and tried to obtain information. He was so overwhelmed with work that he confused names, but let's not forget that they were few in number in this work and easily overwhelmed. It is also unfair to blame him alone, with a tiny group, for the Prairial Law.
So, no, we cannot blame Tinville. Furthermore, an interesting fact that demonstrates Tinville's humane side. He recused himself and refused to prosecute against his former colleague Fleuriot Lescot, Mayor of Paris, who was one of the main actors during the attempted insurrection of the 9th Thermidor, due to their friendship. So we are far from a cold and heartless character.
When Tinville learned that he was going to be arrested, he did not flee. He went to the Convention and defended himself. Tinville is therefore one of the most legalistic among the main actors of the French Revolution and we can't deny his bravery.
One of his main arguments during his trial is pertinent: how can he be punished alone when in reality the procedures he was reproached for were voted on by the Convention, the arrests as well... Very logical and true. Moreover, let's remember who were the architects of Tinville's arrest. The Frérons, the Talliens, etc... who were a thousand times worse than him, who shed blood illegally at times, for whom the revolution was an opportunity to make a lot of money, bloodthirsty...
Fouquier Tinville was therefore, like Robespierre, Couthon, Saint Just, Billaud Varennes, and many others, a scapegoat for whom all the evils of the revolution were blamed, often at the initiative of people worse than them such as Fouché, Turreau, etc.
